and a system of administration introduced after the French type, which after the return of Pius VII. was retained by his minister, Consalvi ; the present system of ecclesiastical government is felt more severely. In 1848 there were in the States of the Church five thousand and fifty-nine temporal, and one hundred and nine ecclesiastical officials, the latter filling the highest places. Misunderstanding was inevitable when priests undertook to discharge the functions of administration and justice, functions wholly incompatible with their spiritual character, and, in the opinion of all jurists, the death-blow of all justice. It seemed to the people as if there were no law, but only the fathomless caprice of individuals ruling them. How have the times altered since the Roman people tumultuously applauded Pius VII., when he answered his deposition by Napoleon with an anathema of excommunication, and his subjects in the French service gave up their places, and his return from captivity was like a triumphal procession !

Since the Austrian power was broken in Italy, and only the French troops remain to support the Pope, his condition has become almost insufferable. It cannot long continue. If the power of Piedmont fell in pieces, and the Pope recovered his territories, how would things be helped? A French or Austrian garrison would still be necessary, and the finances of the state become worse, and the people grow more imbittered. And thus the possession of temporal power would have an effect just contrary to what was intended by it, for the Pope, instead of being made independent thereby, would rely on foreign aid to support him. It was the aim of Napoleon I. to get the Pope into his power; the constancy of Pius VII. thwarted that aim, but the nephew has entered upon the inheritance of the uncle in this matter also.

Dr. Döllinger begins his second prelection by recapitulating what he has said in the first.

I. For seven hundred years the papal chair had no territorial possessions; for seven hundred and fifty years more it was without quiet and assured possession of the temporal power which it had acquired; that possession has existed only about three hundred and fifty years, and the present system of government is an inheritance from the French Napoleonic rule, introduced within the last forty-five years.

II. That the possession and government of an important state is not in itself and at all times necessary to the dignity and the freedom of the head of the Church.

III. The present and for some time existing public opinion of Italy is opposed to the continuance of the States of the Church, because it sees in them a hinderance to a united Italy.

IV. Not only in its own territory has a numerous party, within the last thirty or forty years, labored for its overthrow, but no part of the population has in the last year shown an earnest, active, self-sacrificing loyalty to the papal government.

V. For a century there has pervaded Europe the principle of secularization, that is, the separation of the temporal and political power from the ecclesiastical. Nowhere else does it occur that the civic VOL. LXXIII. 5TH S. VOL. XI. NO. II.

25

offices of the state are administered by priests, nor would such a system be endured.

It is said that the existing system must be continued; for, while the head of the state is an ecclesiastic, the administration of it ought to be ecclesiastical, even if it need foreign bayonets for its support. For those who maintain that opinion, Dr. Döllinger has two suggestions.

First, that they are not supported by historical experience in affirming that the States of the Church cannot be governed otherwise than at present, because the experiment has never been tried of governing otherwise, of letting the people share in the government.

Secondly, history does show, as in the case of the ecclesiastical principalities in Germany, that the government of states with ecclesiastics at their head can be administered by laymen. To be sure, the history of the Middle Ages may be cited to prove that this union of ecclesiastical and temporal power is not an evil. But the Middle Ages are gone. We live in another time, under other conditions. The modern state, with its multifold needs, its police, its newspapers, its literature, its manufactures, is little suited to ecclesiastical rule.

In support of his views Dr. Döllinger recurs to certain facts. First, Pius IX. was for two years confessedly the idol of his people and of all Italy. Why? He entered upon his pontificate with a general amnesty which recalled hundreds of exiles, and set hundreds of prisoners free. By that measure he was thought to break with the old system, for otherwise so bold an act could not be explained. Further, the Pope chose for his Minister Count Rossi, well known as one of the most distinguished of Italians, formerly a peer of France, and since 1845 French Minister in Rome. Rossi's principles, which he had unfolded in a letter to Guizot, were well known to the Pope. It was well understood in France and Italy that Rossi entered upon his office with the understanding that the greater part of the administration should be confided to temporal hands, that the government should be, so to speak, secularized. Rossi's first act was to frame a plan for a total change in the administration of justice; but on the 15th of November, 1847, he fell under the dagger of an assassin, just as he was on the point of opening the first Constitutional Assembly. The murder has been ascribed to the hatred of the Mazzini party, who saw in Rossi and his plans a means of protection and support for the system which they were bent upon destroying at any cost.

The second fact is the memorial of the five great powers, of May 10, 1831, in which certain advice is given to the Pope touching necessary reforms, grounded upon the principle of admission of the laity to all offices of the state, and that the people should be suffered to partake in the administration of the government. Institutions, indeed, which they had not yet begun to think of introducing among their own people, they seemed to consider indispensable to the States of the Church, says Döllinger sharply.

Touching the possibilities of the future, Dr. Döllinger will resolve them all into five:

I. The war which seems likely to break out again in Italy may

result in the success of Austria, and the restoration of its supremacy in Lombardy, a consequence of which would be the renewal of the papal authority over the States of the Church. A possibility which Dr. Döllinger does not hesitate to declare to be the very worst; for in that case, so intense is the Italian dislike of German supremacy, new revolutions would occur, in the whirl of which the Pope might find himself defenceless, and so the last days be worse than the first days.

II. The Italian kingdom may be cemented under Piedmont, in which case the secularization of the States of the Church will be an accomplished fact, and the Pope will wander for a long time in other lands, and Rome will be incorporated in the Italian kingdom. In that event, those institutions would be introduced which the papal government has not felt itself permitted to assure to its people within the last years, since, according to the testimony of the foreign ministers in Rome, so deep is the opposition to the papal rule, that every concession was received only as a weapon for a new attack.

If such institutions were now introduced in Rome as are universally demanded throughout all Italy, it would be equivalent to a perfect secularization; the priestly class would lose the privileges so hateful to the people, and thus the chief source of popular enmity to the government would be destroyed. In Germany all ecclesiastical privileges have long ago fallen away, to the great good fortune of the land. No thinking ecclesiastic would regard other than with aversion the thought of restoring them. If this exceptional position of the priests in the States of the Church were abrogated, it would be a great gain, and a long step towards uniting the two now hostile classes of society. And if the seeds of dissolution which exist in the Italian kingdom should bear their fruit, the Pope, returning, would be spared the trouble of making this change himself, and find his work done for him, suggests Dr. Döllinger, comfortingly.

III. The Emperor of the French may submit the cause of the Pope to a Congress of Catholic powers, for Napoleon the wisest course, for thus he would escape the reproach of being made a tool of the English hatred of Rome. The powers represented in this Congress would be France, Austria, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and Bavaria, - the last, indeed, not being a Catholic power in the usual meaning of the term, but a state in which the king and the majority of the people are Catholic ; — and Piedmont also would come, and must be admitted, however unwelcome a guest. The proceedings of this Congress would probably be to confirm the Pope in his present possessions, and perhaps to restore some of those of which he has been deprived. But to reconcile the people, it would insist upon the secularization of the government, the introduction of municipal self-government, and the admission of the laity to share in the financial and legislative power, - in short, upon those institutions which, with the exception of Russia and Turkey, have become general in Europe.

IV. We have said that Napoleon's nephew has entered upon the inheritance of the uncle in his views touching the Pope. He thinks, perhaps, to remove the papal chair to France, and to make the Pope a

tool of French policy. But this possibility is least to be feared; for against such a proceeding the public opinion of Europe, irresistible in the long run, would protest. Moreover, there are three parties in France, the Catholic, Democratic, and Bonaparte parties. Only the last would conceive such a project, the two former would oppose it; the Catholic party, which includes not only the clergy, but the greater part of society, under leaders like Falloux, Villemain, and Montalembert, because it would involve a degradation of the Church; those who think that the ecclesiastical power is already too strong in France, for fear that it might gain new strength. The Bonaparte party, moreover, is weak when it has public opinion against it.

V. Lastly, we must look in the face the possibility that Rome may be forever lost to the Church,- that so it may have been determined in the councils of the Almighty. The Church has the promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, but it has received no promise that the successor of St. Peter shall always remain monarch of a temporal kingdom.

If Italy and Europe are to be the theatre of new revolutions, it were better for the Pope not to be tied to a helpless kingdom, which he could not protect against the dashing waves of change and revolution. If, on the other hand, a permanent order of things grows up in Italy, the public opinion, or rather the public conscience, of all Europe will be strong enough to secure to the Pope the freedom of the papal chair.

Who will dispute the fact, that since 1831 the government of Central Italy and of three millions of souls has been a source of weakness and dependence to the papal chair, that the task of keeping down a population eager for institutions like those of other lands has been like a weight of lead around the feet of the Apostle? Who will affirm that this unnatural, lamentable condition must continue indefinitely, with change only from one revolution to another, with imprisonments, banishments, and foreign occupation? Humanly speaking, there is not the slightest hope that the people will ever be reconciled to the present priestly rule. It is purely impossible, when in all the rest of Italy there is freedom of the press, representation of the people, and an independent judiciary, to deny these three things to the Roman subjects, and just as impossible for the ecclesiastical rule to continue if any of these things are granted.

But are we sure that we too, in Central Europe, are not striding forward towards changes? Who knows that the Mazzini party, now lurking behind Piedmont, may not plunge Italy into the cramps and perils of a social and Antichristian revolution? Who shall say what may break out in Italy or elsewhere? It is not for us to cling to the perishable and accidental, to force upon the Roman people what we would not endure ourselves,-a system of government by priests and laymen, which is but forty-five years old, and which has produced only revolutions and abiding discontent. He who leans upon this staff must run the risk of its being rotten, and breaking. In the Greek myth the island of Delos was raised up from the sea to be a birthplace for Apollo. Whatever may happen, the chair of St. Peter will find its Delos also, if so be it must rise from the sea.

HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY.

THE Professor of History at Bonn has given a brief sketch of the Crusades, as preface to a critical examination of the literature, ancient and modern, belonging to that remarkable period.* A pupil of Professor Ranke, Von Sybel has carried out his method in treating a favorite theme, has subjected the original authorities to a rigorous analysis, and shown that history has been sacrificed to poetry, and the highly-colored legend made to take the place of prosaic fact. The first Crusade, as narrated by Mills and other standard historians, he pronounces a mingled mass of truth and falsehood. Albert of Aix, from whom they all draw, he shows to be contradictory, inaccurate, and disposed to sacrifice truth to effect. Michaud even, the highest authority in France, he proves deficient in careful investigation and conscientious research. Wilken, who holds unquestioned pre-eminence in Germany, he thinks surpasses all his predecessors, and has found no rival among subsequent writers: his deep religious feeling, his sound learning, his remarkable power of narration, and his free use of Oriental authorities, claim for Wilken the confidence, and should win for him the attention, of the entire Christian world.

The first portion of this small volume is made up of Von Sybel's lectures at Munich; and, though too general to satisfy, and intended only as a guide and impulse, is interesting for vigor, freshness, and eloquence. The second part, from the Preface of his History of the First Crusade, is necessarily dry, exclusively critical, and forbidding to the literary public. But the conclusions at which it arrives need to be known by all who wish to study this outburst of religious enthusiasm, and do not wish to be deceived.

In a lecture before the Oxford Architectural and Historical Society, at their annual meeting last year, Professor Smith has given a summary of what he terms the miserable history of a half-subdued dependency, Ireland. The favor with which his too brief narrative has been received shows the ability, fairness, and freedom with which the wrongs of this most oppressed country are considered among the most conservative class of English thinkers. The Oxford Professor shows that the Anglican Church in Ireland has stood in the way of Irish Protestantism; that the experiment has been fairly tried; that the only hold of the Irish Establishment on the religious affections of Irishmen is a garrison of twenty thousand men! and that at that price England purchases a source of just discontent and perpetual disaffection, making the national clergy of Ireland demagogues, and the national religion an enemy to social harmony. At the close he hints, that, as an Irish famine repealed the Corn Laws, Irish outrage gave birth to an organized police, Irish desperation necessitated the Encumbered Estates Act, and Irish

The History and Literature of the Crusades. From the German of VON SYBEL. Edited by LADY DUFF GORDON. London: Chapman and Hall.

↑ Irish History and Irish Character. By GOLDWIN SMITH. Oxford and London: J. H. and J. Parker.