Berryer, and all Lamennais' own disciples submitted to the papal sentence. But Lamennais could not submit. In his view the Pope had denied his true office; he had made the great refusal. Lamennais turned his back on him for ever, and looked to the people alone for the support of true Christianity. Instead of "Everything by the Pope, and for the people," his watchword henceforth was "Everything by the people and for the people."

Let us examine this a little more closely. The doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope has become so much the essence of modern Romanism, that men now regard it as the keystone of the Church's organization ;-as if the purport of the existence of the Church was this, to give men an infallible earthly guide to heaven. They forget how recent the acceptance of the dogma is in Church History. It was only in the Vatican Council of 1870 that it was decreed as obligatory on all members of the Church of Rome: it would be hard now to find a single priest in the French Church who does not at least ostensibly accept it; while very few suspect its unhistorical character. Yet we have only to look to the literature of the Restoration (1815-1830), and to the Correspondance of Lamennais, to see how very different was the teaching of the bishops, of the superior clergy, and of the seminaries in France in those days. The two men who were the chief promoters of Ultramontanism in the Church of France in the early years of the century were Count Joseph de Maistre and Felicité de Lamennais. Their ideas spread rapidly among

the lower ranks of the clergy, especially among the younger men; but the bishops of the Restoration were wholly opposed to them. These still clung to the old ideal and to the privileges of the Gallican Church; they maintained the Primacy only of the See of Rome, and that all decrees made by the popes alone were reformable by a General Council, and by the voice of the Church. The earliest work of F. de Lamennais, in conjunction with his brother Jean, published in 1814, is described by his latest biographer as "a first step towards Roman ideas, a return to what is conventionally called ultramontanism."2 In 1825 began his great campaign, in the Press, against Gallicanism, the violence of his language against the episcopate of his day having only been equalled by that of Louis Veuillot against Mgr. Dupanloup and others before the Vatican Council. "Without the Pope," he exclaims, "there is no Church; without the Church, no Christianity; without Christianity, no Society. Therefore the Pope is above all." Any denial of these doctrines, or hesitation to accept them, he denounced as a step towards atheism, as a subversion of all religion

1 "The promise to teach the four articles of the Declaration of 1682 was required of Professors of Theology by the Minister of the Interior in 1818." "The Episcopate was Gallican. It was so as the result of the teaching of the old theological schools, of personal and national prejudice, of interest, and partly from true perception of the difficulties of the opposite doctrine." L. Bourgain, L'Église de France et l'Etat au Dix-neuvième Siècle (1802-1900), tome i. p. 272 note and p. 273. 2 vols. (Dounîol, Paris, 1901.)

2 Lamennais d'après sa Correspondance et les Travaux le plus Récents, p. 35.

3 Ibid. p. 124.

and of all society. The bishops, April 12, 1826, signed a protest against such teaching, and Lamennais was brought before the tribunal on a charge of outrage against the king, Charles X., and of attacking the laws of the State. On the latter count he was condemned to the least punishment, a fine of thirty francs. Such a defeat was a victory. It was the last day of Gallicanism. "The blow had gone home: Gallicanism had been so violently overthrown that it has never since been able to raise itself up again." 1. Lamennais believed, or affected to believe, that the bishops were working for the establishment of a national Church,2 in which the Church would be subservient to the State, the bishops to the king, and the priests to the bishops.3 The prospect roused his utmost indignation. "When the priest is a slave," he exclaims, "the layman loses his liberty." The spreading ultramontanism was opposed by the bishops in every way. The doctrine was forbidden to be preached, and those who proclaimed it were silenced.5 Gallicanism was supreme at St. Sulpice, the greatest of the clerical seminaries; and Lamennais asserts that the Bishops of Belgium, Ireland, England (of course, only Roman Catholic bishops are meant), and of Poland were promulgating the same doctrines." Yet in a few years what a reversal! Lamennais

6

1 Lamennais d'après sa Correspondance et les Travaux les plus Récents, p. 127.

2 Correspondance, vol. i. p. 208, Oct. 12, 1825. 3 Ibid. vol. i. p. 292, Jan. 1, 1827. 4 Ibid. vol. i. p. 83. 5 Ibid. vol. i. pp. 218, 224-226, 244. Ibid. vol. i. pp. 257, 258, 286.

7 Ibid. vol. i. p. 257.

was ever demanding of Rome a declaration of the Infallibility of the Pope. In 1870 this was made; but even before that, in the reign of Louis Philippe, and before 1848, a popular writer could declare that Gallicanism was practically extinct in the Church of France, so swift and so thorough was the change. Even the eloquent writings of men like Mgr. Dupanloup and of A. Gratry, the Oratorian, found no echo.

The object of the early part of the life of Lamennais had thus been thoroughly gained, though the completeness of the victory was not apparent until some years after his death. The dependence of Gallicanism upon the monarchy and the State had been fatal to it; it fell, vanquished before this new alliance between ultramontanism and democracy. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and the whole Roman Church had become ultramontane. What has been the lot of the second part of the early programme of Lamennais: "Tout par le Pape, et pour le peuple"? In 1832 Gregory XVI. rejected the second clause; in 1870 Pius IX. fulfilled the first. But Leo XIII. is now taking up the second part. The doctrines of his great Encyclicals, "De conditione Opificum," and that to Princes and Peoples, cannot be better summed up than in these words: "Everything by the Pope, and for the people ";-by the Pope who says: "Cum Dei omnipotentis vices in terris geramus," and by the action of the Pope, including that of the whole Church, and of his servants, the bishops. It is they who are to be the guides, the

moderators, the arbiters in all questions and quarrels that arise between Capital and Labour; they are to be the heads and patrons of guilds and institutions for the benefit of the working classes.1 This is really the doctrine which was set forth so vehemently by Lamennais. This is almost his ideal of the action of the Church upon Society. This it is which the Papacy rejected in 1832; and the rejection of this ideal of the Roman Church was the occasion of the fall of its too enthusiastic author. And yet Lamennais' work survives still.

Let us now examine the theories of Maurice on the same subject. Far less eloquently expressed, with much less of formal logic, his ideas are deeper, more consistent, more truly reasonable than those so vehemently put forth by Lamennais. The sympathy of the Englishman for the people is a truer feeling than the passionate, poetic, almost hysterical emotion of the Frenchman. It is a steadily increasing glow. Misrepresentation and opposition did not dishearten him as they did

1 For a later utterance of Leo XIII. see the Encyclical of January 18, 1901. Graves de communi re, on Christian Democracy, and his defence of the term. "Maneat igitur, studium istud catholicorum solandæ erigendæque plebis plane congruere cum Ecclesiæ ingenio et perpetuis ejusdem exemplis optime respondere. Ea vero quæ ad id conducant, utrum actione christianæ popularis nomine appellentur, an democratic christianæ, parvi admodum refert; si quidem impertita a Nobis documenta, quo par est obsequio, íntegra custodiantur."

"Postremo id rursus graviusque commonemus, ut quidquid consilii in eadem causa vel singuli_vel consociati homines efficiendum suscipiant, meminerint Episcoporum auctoritati esse penitus obsequendum."