cation, for the State was never commissioned to teach Christianity,―nor by any attempt to deprive the State of all right to educate in any sense,-nor yet, as it would seem, by each doing its own work entirely separate. Perhaps we are in a better condition to meet these difficulties from the fact that we are not troubled by the complicated traditions of the past, as in the case of the States of Europe.

But those European States have a problem of their own here, which has been upon them for centuries, and they must meet it from their own position. One thing we think history has settled, viz: that the Roman Church will never again rule over civil governments as she has done in the past. In the new adjustment of the relation between the two, which Europe is now struggling to make, it will be found, we think, that old things have passed away never to return.

These are some of the points which are considered with great ability in the following papers in this Review. The whole question, we may add, is none the less interesting because it lies within the domain of Roman History. There are those who take little interest in the question here brought forward, because it is something different from the dispute between Romanism and Protestantism, as this meets us in the Reformation. They say, this Old Catholic movement cannot work out any results because it does not start with the Protestant principle. It is not just a Protestant movement. But this betrays, it seems to us, a narrow spirit. The Roman Church has continued for three centuries since the Reformation, to be the larger portion, numerically, of Christendom. No one with a right historical sense and knowledge can look upon such a movement within that Church with indifference. The whole problem of Christianity is not confined to Protestantism. The question of Church union looks to something more than the mere uniting of a few Protestant denominations, (sometimes brought about in order to constitute a larger sect, and, as a result, to intensify the sectarian spirit), or, indeed, all of them. It is a matter of interest to look beyond this, and hope for a union which will bring Christendom together as a whole. We

do not say this Old Catholic movement will effect this as a result, but it unquestionably brings this before our view. The manner in which Döllinger and his colleagues speak of Protestantism evinces a spirit of catholicity which we do not find in Ultramontane, or Papal-infallibility Romanism.

The movement is all the more important, in some respects, because it has this sense of an independent mission, because it is not a mere repetition of the Reformation of the 16th century. Gladly as we might hail a movement of the German Catholic Church towards Protestantism, yet such a movement would involve the solution of no new problem. It would strengthen Protestantism, but it would do nothing for Romanism as a whole, nor for the nearer approach of the two.

In this movement the Roman Church is confronted again, and under new circumstances (and, may we not say that Protestantism is in like manner challenged) with the question of the relation of authority and freedom? It is easy to see that there are difficulties on the Protestant side. This Review has not shrunk from holding them up to view. The evils of sectarianism and private judgment, where the principle of individual liberty is carried to excess, were pointed out in an earnest manner in its earlier numbers (as also in Dr. Schaff's Principle of Protestantism), when it was regarded as being untrue to the Protestant faith to do so. Times have changed during the last thirty years. The American Churches acknowledge the divided condition of Protestantism as an evil, and the tendency is setting in towards union. So, too, it is more generally acknowledged now that private judgment is not the only factor in the interpreting of the truth, and the living traditions of the Church in her creeds and confessions are respected far beyond what was the case a quarter of a century ago.

But from the beginning this Review has also presented the difficulties on the other side. If the consideration of those difficulties has not as frequently occupied its pages, it has been because it was more concerned to correct our own faults, in the public to whom it was addressed, than the faults of a communion to whom it was not directly addressed. But Mercers

burg theology uttered a clear voice in reference to the wrongs which Romanism inflict on the freedom of reason and conscience and faith in the able discussion between Dr. Nevin and Dr. Brownson in 1850. These great thinkers stand in the same relative attitude to-day. Dr. Brownson, with what seems to us a giving up of some of his old freedom in criticising his own Church, and an advance in his surrender to the Roman principle, stands on the extreme position of Papal infallibility. Dr. Nevin, with unswerving devotion to the truth, in the face of misrepresentation from every side, stands as unswervingly for the truth he so nobly defended then. We commend to the attention of our readers his utterances on one of the great questions of the age.

ART. II.-FIRST DOGMATIC DECREE ON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST PUBLISHED IN THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE HOLY CECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN.

PASSED JULY 18, 1870.

PIVS EPISCOPVS SERVVS SERVORVM DEI SACRO APPROBANTE CONCILIO AD PERPETVAM REI MEMORIAM.

Pastor aeternus et episcopus animarum nostrarum, ut salutiferum redemptionis opus perenne redderet, sanctam aedificare Ecclesiam decrevit, in qua veluti in domo Dei viventis. fideles omnes unius fidei et charitatis vinculo continerentur. Quapropter, priusquam clarificaretur, rogavit Patrem non pro Apostolis tantum, sed et pro eis qui credituri erant per verbum eorum in ipsum, ut omnes, unum essent, sicut ipse Filius et Pater unum sunt. Quemadmodum igitur Apostolos, quos sibi de mundo elegerat, misit, sicut ipse missus erat a Patre; ita in Ecclesia sua Pastores et Doctores usque ad consummationem saeculi esse voluit. Ut vero episcopatus ipse unus et indivisus esset, et per cohaerentes sibi invicem sacerdotes credentium

multitudo universa in fidei et communionis unitate conservaretur, beatum Petrum caeteris Apostolis praeponens in ipso instituit perpetuum utriusque unitatis principium ac visibile fundamentum, super cuius fortitudinem, aeternum exstrueretur templum, et Ecclesiae coelo inferenda sublimitas in huis fidei firmitate consurgeret.* Et quoniam portae inferi ad evertendam, si fieri posset, Ecclesiam contra eius fundamentum divinitus positum maiori in dies odio undique insurgunt; Nos ad catholici gregis custodiam, incolumitatem, augmentum, 'necessarium esse indicamus, sacro approbante Concilio, doctrinam de institutione, perpetuitate, ac natura sacri Apostolici primatus, in quo totius Ecclesiae vis ac soliditas consistit, cunctis fidelibus credendam et tenendam, secundum antiquam atque constantem universalis Ecclesiae fidem, proponere, atque contrarios, dominico gregi adeo perniciosos errores proscribere et condem

nare.

CAPUT I.

DE APOSTOLICI PRIMATUS IN BEATO PETRO INSTITUTIONE.

Docemus itaque et declaramus, iuxta Evangelii testimonia primatum iurisdictionis in universam Dei Ecclesiam immediate et directe beato Petro Apostolo promissum atque collatum a Christo Domino fuisse. Unum enim Simonem, cui iam pridem dixerat: Tu vocaberis Cephas,† postquam ille suam edidit confessionem inquiens: Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi, solemnibus hic verbis locutus est Dominus: Beatus es Simon Bar-Iona, quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi sed Pater meus, qui in coelis est et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam, et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversus eam : et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum : et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis. ‡ Atque uni Simoni Petro contulit Iesus post suam resurrectionem summi pastoris et rectoris iurisdictionem in totum suum ovile, dicens: Pasce agnos meos: Pasce oves meas. §. Huic

* S. Leo M. serm. iv. (al. iii.) cap. 2, in diem Natalis sui.

† Joan. 1: 42.

Matt. 16: 16—19.

Joan. 21: 15-17.

tam manifestae sacrarum Scripturarum doctrinae, ut ab Ecclesia catholica semper intellecta est, aperte opponuntur pravae eorum sententiae, qui constitutam a Christo Domino in sua Ecclesia regiminis formam pervertentes negant, solum Petrum prae caeteris Apostolis, sive seorsum singulis sive omnibus simul, vero proprioque iurisdictionis primatu fuisse a Christo instructum aut qui affirmant eumdem primatum non immediate, directeque ipsi beato Petro, sed Ecclesiae, et per hanc illi, ut ipsius Ecclesiae ministro, delatum fuisse.

Si quis igitur dixerit, beatum Petrum Apostolum non esse a Christo Domino constitutum Apostolorum omnium principem et totius Ecclesiae militantis visibile caput; vel eumdem honoris tantum, non autem verae propriaeque iurisdictionis primatum ab eodem Domino nostro Iesu Christo directe et immediate accepisse; anathema sit.

CAPUT II.

DE PERPETUITATE PRIMATUS BEATI PETRI IN ROMANIS PONTIFICI

BUS.

Quod autem in beato Apostolo Petro princeps pastorum et pastor magnus ovium Dominus Christus Iesus in perpetuam salutem ac perenne bonum Ecclesia instituit, id eodem auctore in Ecclesia, quae fundata super petram ad finem saeculorum usque firma stabit, iugiter durare necesse est. Nulli sane dubium, imo saeculis omnibus notum est quod sanctus beatissimusque Petrus, Apostolorum princeps et caput, fideique columna et Ecclesiae catholicae fundamentum, a Domino nostro Iesus Christo, Salvatore humani generis ac Redemptore, claves regni accepit: qui ad hoc usque tempus et semper in suis successoribus, episcopis sanctae Romanae Sedis, ab ipso fundatae, eiusque consecratae sanguine, vivit et praesidet et iudicium exercet.* Unde quicumque in hac Cathedra Petro succedit, is secundum Christi ipsius institutionem primatum Petri in universam Ecclesiam obtinet. Manet ergo dispositio veritatis, et beatus Petrus in accepta fortitudine petrae perseverans suscepta Ecclesiae

*Caf. Ephesini Concilii Act. iii.