of the nineteenth century, is due in large measure to the general influence of the movement with which we have been dealing.  The Anglican Church was at the beginning of the nineteenth century preponderantly evangelical, low-church and conscious of itself as Protestant.  At the beginning of the twentieth it is dominantly ritualistic and disposed to minimise its relation to the Reformation.  This resurgence of Catholic principles is another effect of the movement of which we speak.  Other factors must have wrought for this result besides the body of arguments which Newman and his compeers offered.  The argument itself, the mere intellectual factor, is not adequate.  There is an inherent contradiction in the effort to ground in reason an authority which is to take the place of reason.  Yet round and round this circle all the labours of John Henry Newman go.  Cardinal Manning felt this.  The victory of the Church was not to be won by argument.  It is well known that Newman opposed the decree of infallibility.  It cannot be said that upon this point his arguments had great weight.  If one assumes that truth comes to us externally through representatives of God, and if the truth is that which they assert, then in the last analysis what they assert is truth.  If one has given in to such authority because one distrusts his reason, then it is querulous to complain that the deliverances of authority do not comport with reason.  There may be, of course, the greatest interest in the struggle as to the instance in which this authority is to be lodged.  This interest attaches to the age-long struggle between Pope and Council.  It attaches to the dramatic struggle of Doellinger, Dupanloup, Lord Acton and the rest, in 1870.  Once the Church has spoken there is, for the advocate of authoritative religion, no logic but to submit.

Similarly as to the Encyclical and Syllabus of Errors of 1864, which forecast the present conflict concerning Modernism.  The Syllabus had a different atmosphere from that which any Englishman in the sixties would have given it.  Had not Newman, however, made passionate warfare on the liberalism of the modern world?  Was it not merely a question of degrees?  Was Gladstone’s attitude intelligible?  The contrast of two principles in life and religion, the principles of authority and of the spirit, is being brought home to men’s consciousness as it has never been before.  One reads Il Santo and learns concerning the death of Fogazzaro, one looks into the literature relating to Tyrrell, one sees the fate of Loisy, comparing the really majestic achievement in his works and the spirit of his Simple Reflections with the Encyclical Pascendi, 1907.  One understands why these men have done what they could to remain within the Roman Church.  One recalls the attitude of Doellinger to the inauguration of the Old Catholic Movement, reflects upon the relative futility of the Old Catholic Church, and upon the position