cans. So also is a very different book, the theological Essays of F. D. Maurice.

During the last fifteen years, a number of important works have been added to the list of books which Roman Catholics are forbidden to read. Among these are most of the writings of the eminent French historian, Joseph Turmel. His Histoire du dogme de la Papauté,' which appeared in 1908, was consigned to the Index in the following year. There can be no question as to the reason for this. Turmel had studied the doctrine concerning the Episcopate and the Papacy taught by St Cyprian (250), and advised his readers not to be scandalised by St Cyprian's rudimentary notions of ecclesiastical etiquette, in persistently calling the Pope his dear brother, and describing himself as his colleague. But Turmel acknowledged that, apart from the imperious and familiar manner in which the Bishop treated the Pope, there remained the fact that, according to Cyprian, the Episcopate is a federation. If in this federation a particular Bishop abuses his power, it is the duty of other bishops to rescue the endangered Church. But, apart from that contingency, every bishop is absolute master in the portion of the flock entrusted to him, and renders account of his administration to no one but God. That is to say that, according to Turmel, the dogma of the Episcopate had in the mind of Cyprian obscured the dogma of the Papacy. And if Cyprian used such language as he did when the Pope and he were friends, it is not difficult to anticipate what his language would be in time of strife. To him the Papacy was the symbol of unity, but not the source. In his mind the monarchical conception of the Church was held in check by the conception of a federated Episcopate. His conduct and his words alike are irreconcilable with what Turmel calls an accurate, that is, as we should say, a modern Roman, conception of the Papal primacy.

Turmel's condemnation was a great mistake. His thorough knowledge of the primitive Fathers, and sincere desire to state the facts of early belief unprejudiced by subsequent developments-in other words, his conspicuous intention to act in a truly historical spirit -make his writings highly valued in any other part of Christendom, but his writings show the distinction

between past and present in a manner very unacceptable at Rome. This, of course, is our independent way of regarding matters, but even in the interests of Rome, it seems regrettable that her future teachers and priests should not be permitted to read for themselves how the great writers of the primitive Church appear when studied according to the critical methods of the present day, by a student of their own Communion.

The

The condemnation of Turmel's book on the Papacy was followed by the condemnation of most of his writings. His two volumes of Histoire de la Théologie Positive' were placed on the Index in 1910 and 1911. This was particularly unfortunate for the French Church, because these works were published under the direction of the Professors of Theology, at the Catholic Institute in Paris. One of the principal reasons why this Catholic University was created, was to improve the sacred studies of the future clergy of France. teaching given in the Seminaries was aloof from contemporary thought. The consequence, naturally, was that Catholic teachers in France were ineffective and discredited. It was imperatively necessary to promote the higher education of French priests, and to bring them into touch with the critical and philosophical methods of their age. That was the spirit which animated this Catholic University. The placing of Turmel's books on the Index of Literature which Roman Catholics may not read was, therefore, far more than a judgment against an individual theologian. It was a disconcerting blow against the Catholic University in Paris. It discouraged attempts to bring the education of future priests out of obsolete conditions. The conservative frustrated the progressive. That is a misfortune which, of course, can easily be paralleled in other Communions. Only with this difference: that since other Communions are free from a permanent authoritative list of the condemned, they are able to escape more easily from their past mistakes.

To the same list of forbidden books was added, in 1911, the name of Pierre Batiffol, for his book, 'L'Eucharistie, la presence réelle et la transubstantiation.' Of this book

* Boudrillart,' Vie de Mgr. d'Hulst., II, 453.

the author himself remarks that the first edition appeared in April 1905; the second unaltered edition followed in a hundred days; the third, with detailed corrections, in April 1906, which was exhausted in September 1907. The hour was critical.' The hour was critical because the book was being examined by the Holy See. Batiffol says that he revised it throughout, and set himself to verify all his statements. Why the book was under scrutiny at Rome we are not told; but the author tells us, I could not obtain permission from Rome to publish the fourth edition of my book. Fifty numbered copies only were printed, not for sale, but for the use of certain theologians.' The fact is, although the author does not say so, that the book was placed on the Index at Rome in 1911. However, in 1913, a fifth edition appeared. The author significantly adds the rather tantalising remark,

'How permission was granted me by competent authority in 1913. . . the reader will forgive me if I do not here relate, as I consider that it would be premature to explain what spontaneous interventions, as effective as distinguished, secured the favourable consideration of Pope Pius X in person, and led to the book being re-issued in Rome itself.' The book reached its seventh edition in 1920. It now bears the imprimatur of the Vicar-General in Paris.

There is an air of mystery about all this which is not congenial to the English character. To us it would seem the fairer way to be frank; to state precisely why it was that Batiffol's book was placed among forbidden writings; what were the statements contained in it about the Eucharist which Roman authorities condemned? To our Anglican prejudice it does not seem conducive to truth that a book on doctrine should be publicly condemned, without publicly stating what the reasons are which lead the authorities to condemn it. For, unless we are told what the error is, we might unwittingly believe the very thing which has been condemned.

What makes the fate of the third edition of Batiffol's book more serious is that it appeared with the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Toulouse. There is small value in

Acta Apost. Sedis.'

an Archiepiscopal imprimatur if it is liable to be not only revised, but reversed in the extraordinarily emphatic and uncompromising terms which the Congregation at Rome employed in this particular instance. The discredit which the incident must have cast upon the Archbishop's authority over his province in France is easily imagined. The Archbishop authorised a book for Diocesan use, and the authorities at Rome prohibited its use in any part of the Roman Church. This collision of authorities, one neutralising the other, is from any point of view unfortunate. It is usually understood that an imprimatur, while it does not necessarily express a positive approval of everything a book contains, is at least a negative declaration that the book contains nothing contrary to Catholic Faith. It would seem more conducive to edification if the authority to approve a book were confined to Rome itself, rather than incur the risk of contradictory pronouncements. Possibly a new Council may withdraw from the Episcopate the right of imprimatur. This would be quite in keeping with the centralising tendencies of Roman authority; although, of course, it would be exactly contrary to the principles which prevailed for many centuries in Christendom of old.

The practical effect of the system of the Index is seen conspicuously in the experience of the historian Duchesne. It was claimed by the Churches of Chartres,✓ Sens, and Orleans that they were founded by two of the seventy disciples of Christ. This mediæval opinion Duchesne ventured to criticise and contradict. The head of the Seminary of Sens threatened to report this daring criticism to Rome and to request that no further support should be given to the Catholic Institute at Paris where Duchesne was a teacher. The Archbishop of Sens declared that his consciousness of his duties as a Bishop required him to defend the glorious prerogative of his Church. The head of the Catholic Institute replied defending his colleague Duchesne, and adding that he would be very much surprised if Rome intervened in a dispute which was purely historical, and in no way affected the orthodox faith. But further trouble was in store. Duchesne could not let the subject alone. He refused to credit the story that Martha and Mary and

Lazarus visited France, and settled at Marseilles. This criticism was viewed by the ultra-conservative French clergy as scandalous, although the Bollandists Brussels defended Duchesne. The fable that Mary Magdalene came in a boat without sails and without oars, was no less ruthlessly dismissed from history. Duchesne's unpopularity was intensified. Raymond Poincaré thereupon removed him from Paris to Rome, as head of the French school there.

Still greater trouble arose over his history of the Church. It was regarded as a book for scholars; but not for the general public, and least of all for the students in the Seminaries. It was violently attacked in some Italian journals. A passage on St. Peter at Rome was reproduced by various French journals, including 'L'Univers' (1910). Then the news circulated that the translation of it into Italian was forbidden in Rome. Duchesne submitted the Italian version of his book to the authorities in Rome, begging them to introduce any necessary corrections, and received reply from the Master of the Sacred Palace that he saw nothing to change. Nevertheless, in spite of this, Duchesne's History was, on Jan. 22, 1912, placed upon ✓ the Index. As a student, Duchesne was filled with indignation; as a priest, with profound distress, says d'Habloville. For a week he was overwhelmed. Any one entering his study found him, his face buried in his hands, in tears. Then he sent in his submission. His friends secured his being sent away on a Mission to Egypt, chiefly to distract his thoughts. Pius X died in 1914, and was succeeded by Benedict XV, with whom Duchesne was on excellent terms. He lived on to the Papacy of Pius XI (1922), and in that year he died. The condemnation, however, applies only to the first edition of his brilliant and learned work. The first edition was corrected, and the later editions freely circulate.

Three eminent modern Roman historians and theologians, then, have all experienced the chastening discipline of the Index: Turmel, Batiffol, and Duchesne. It is remarkable that all of them are French. There was apparently nothing in German Catholic theology during the same period which stood in need of Roman

condemnation.