proclaimed that such views about supernaturalism as those which we have quoted are permissible, a deadly wound would be inflicted on the faith of simple Catholics all over the world.  The Vicar of Christ would seem to them to have apostatised.  The whole machinery of piety, as practised in Catholic countries, would be thrown out of gear.  Nor is there any strong body of educated laymen, such as exists in the Protestant Churches, who could influence the Papacy in the direction of Liberalism.  Not only are the laity taught that their province is to obey, and never to call in question the decisions of ecclesiastics, but the large majority of thoughtful laymen have already severed their connection with the Church, and take no interest in projects for its reform.  Everything points to a complete victory for the Jesuits and the orthodox party; and, much as we may regret the stifling of free discussion, and the expulsion of earnest and conscientious thinkers from the Church which they love, it is difficult to see how any other policy could be adopted.

Of the Modernists, a few will secede, others will remain in the Church, though in open revolt against the Vatican; but the majority will be silenced, and will make a lip-submission to authority.  The disastrous results of the rebellion, and of the means taken to crush it, will be apparent in the deterioration of the priesthood.  Modern thought, it will be said, has now been definitely condemned by the Church; war has been openly declared against progress.  Many who, before the crisis of the last few years, believed it possible to enter the Roman Catholic priesthood without any sacrifice of intellectual honesty, will in the future find it impossible to do so.  We may expect to see this result most palpable in France, where men think logically, and are but little influenced by custom and prejudice.  Unless the Republican Government blows the dying embers into a blaze by unjust persecution, it is to be feared that Catholicism in that country may soon become ’une quantite negligeable.’  The prospects of the Church in Italy and Spain do not seem very much better.  In fact the only comfort which we can suggest to those who regret the decline of an august institution, is that decadent autocracies have often shown an astonishing toughness.  But as head of the universal Church, in any true sense of the word, Rome has finished her life.

A more vital question, for those at least who are Christians, but not Roman Catholics, is in what shape the Christian religion will emerge from the assaults upon traditional beliefs which science and historical criticism are pressing home.  We have given our reasons for rejecting the Modernist attempt at reconstruction.  In the first place, we do not feel that we are required by sane criticism to surrender nearly all that M. Loisy has surrendered.  We believe that the kingdom of God which Christ preached was something much more than a patriotic dream.  We believe that He did speak as never man spake, so that those who heard Him were convinced that He was more than man.  We believe, in short, that the object of our worship was a historical figure.  Nothing has yet come to light, or is likely to come to light, which prevents us from identifying the Christ of history with the Christ of faith, or the Christ of experience.