living artists, far more familiar, of course, than those we have noticed. Many a well-known favourite will be found here, Mulready's admirable subjects from the 'Vicar of Wakefield'; and in the Water-colour Gallery, that charming picture, 'Choosing the Wedding Gown.' Landseer's magnificent 'Drive,' and that touching picture, the Sanctuary,' with some others, are here also; but on the whole he is not so well represented as we might have wished. Maclise is well represented as to his small pictures, but in an estimate of his merits, his larger paintings-that powerful Marriage of Strongbow,' and that finest fresco, just completed, the Meeting of Wellington and Blucher'-must never be overlooked. Many of our living artists, from the like cause, are but partially represented. The frescoes on the walls of the Houses of Parliament exhibit the finest compositions of some of them, while in other cases, their best works form separate exhibitions. For the most important works of Frith, Millais, Watts, and Holman Hunt, we must seek elsewhere.

It would be most discourteous to the foreign artists whose works fill the adjoining galleries, to conclude without offering them a word of welcome and of praise. Anything like a critical comparison of their works with these of the English school would be impossible, inasmuch as the great majority are represented only by a single picture. Even among the more celebrated foreign artists, the number scarcely ever rises above six, while some of the best known are not represented at all. There are many works worthy close examination in the French collection, but we observe with regret but one of Ary Scheffer's, the St. Augustine and his Mother,' a fine picture, but altogether an inadequate specimen of the genius of that painter, to whom we owe the most impressive religious painting of modern times, his Christus Consolator.' Paul Delaroche too,-those splendid paintings with which he has adorned the public buildings of Paris claim chief notice, if a true estimate of his genius is to be made. He is however better represented than Ary Scheffer, and the reader will do well to mark his peculiar style in the three small versions of his Good Friday,' the Return 'from Calvary,' and the 'Crown of Thorns.' There is a deep and solemn feeling in the treatment here that is powerfully impressive. Many other well known French painters are but inadequately represented. Both Rosa Bonheur and Meissoniere have been far better represented in the exhibitions at the French Gallery.

The Flemish and the Dutch schools have also sent some fine pictures. M. Gallait is well represented, but his almost

Döllinger on the Church and Churches.

153

morbid taste for the gloomy, and often for the horrible, detracts largely from the pleasure we might feel in his pictures. M. Ley's old homely Flemish subjects are always pleasing for their truth and feeling; 'Young Luther singing Hymns in the 'Streets' is a pleasant reproduction of a suggestive incident, and the Women with a Sick Child before a Shrine' has much pathetic feeling. Germany and Austria seem to us but inadequately represented, while Italy, including the Roman School, is strong rather in sculpture and mosaics, and most exquisite cameos and intaglios, than in painting. Most interesting and suggestive is it to see works of art from Italy to Norway, from Russia to Belgium, thus brought together under one roof, and great will be the advantage the art student will derive from marking their varieties of style, and comparing their merits.

ART. VII.-(1.) Kirche und Kirchen, Papstthum und Kirchenstaat. Historisch-politische Betrachtungen von JoH. Jos. IGN. v. DÖLLINGER. Zweiter unveränderter Abdruck. München: 1861.

(2.) The Church and The Churches; or, The Papacy and The Temporal Power. An Historical and Political Review. By Dr. DÖLLINGER. Translated by WILLIAM BERNARD MACCABE. London: 1862.

IT is narrated of some Greek or Roman, who was an orator and speech-writer by profession, that, being met one day by a client for whom he had just before prepared a defence, he inquired, 'Well, and what do you think of the speech?' The client is said to have answered that he scarcely knew just then what to think; for that at the first reading his defence appeared to him complete and triumphant; that at the second reading he observed what appeared to him several fallacious arguments and sundry marks of weakness; that at the third reading he liked it still less; and that, under these circumstances, what might be his final opinion he felt unable to foresee. We shall hope that he was to some extent re-assured by the reminder that it was unnecessary to give himself further concern, as the judges to whom the speech was to be addressed would not have the opportunity of comparing second impressions with first, as they would hear his oration only once. Now we do not mean to suggest that those admirers of Dr. Döllinger who read his book

more than once will go through a similar process of disenchantment, but only to say, that its effect upon ourselves has frequently and forcibly reminded us of the foregoing anecdote. We felt that his arguments were many of them at least powerful, though not invincible. As we first scanned it, his championship appeared more formidable than after careful scrutiny. The effect of the whole was too decisive and too brilliant to leave us with much disposition to read or to criticise the particular effects of the parts. It was so refreshing, too, to find ourselves face to face with an apologist of The Church and an antagonist of The Churches who, in condemning the latter, shewed himself really to know something about them; and who, in defending and glorifying the former, made open confession of his belief that black and white, straight and crooked, are not interchangeable and equivalent terms, and that two and two almost invariably make four, the schoolmen and the Popes notwithstanding. In one word, Dr. Döllinger has produced a most able book. It is characterized for the most part by great and various knowledge; it contains a few serious and almost amusing errors of fact; it admits most fully and candidly the existence of defects on the side it so boldly defends; and is altogether a performance of which our readers may find it very well worth while to have some examination and account.

I. The primary object and occasion of Dr. Döllinger's work is to vindicate him in respect of sundry misrepresentations of two lectures delivered by him at Munich in the spring of last year, and to give a fuller and juster explanation of the opinions he really entertains on the principal subject then discussed. That subject was the Temporal Power in its relation to the Papacy. He was constantly being asked, 'How was the position of the 'Papal See-the partly consummated, partly threatened, loss of 'its temporal sovereignty-to be explained?' His friends and hearers knew, and none better than himself knew, how frequently and how variously that sovereignty has been declared essential, not only to the prosperity, but to the very existence, of the Catholic Church. From the boldest of the Popes down to to the most abject of their followers, there have come the strongest and most unmeasured declarations on this subject. For the temporal power Popes have levied armies and fulminated anathemas. Kings have warred for it, and cardinals have published countless manifestoes. Bishops and priests, mendicant friars and world-famed saints have preached and suffered, and (they say) wrought miracles for it. And for this Temporal Power the leading spirit of the London Oratory of St. Philip Neri-an Englishman from whom everything English seems to

The Temporal Power Indispensable.

155

have been well-nigh eviscerated, and whose eloquence were surely worthier of the tripod than the tiara-has declared himself thus:- What is done to the Pope, for him or against him, is done to Jesus himself. All that is kingly, all that is priestly, in our dearest Lord, is gathered up in the person of his Vicar, 'to receive our homage and our veneration. We should 'not allow ourselves in one dishonouring thought, in one 'cowardly suspicion, in one faint-hearted uncertainty about 'anything which concerns either his spiritual or his temporal 'sovereignty, for even his temporal kingship is part of our religion. We must not permit ourselves the irreverent disloyalty 'of distinguishing in him and in his office what we may consider 'human from what we may acknowledge as divine.'* Declarations such as these-no less vehement and profane, not to say rabid -were familiar both to Dr. Döllinger and his auditors, and have been familiar to the whole Roman Catholic Church any time for centuries past. Impelled, therefore, alike by reason, by religion, and by facts, the lecturer resolved to look these declarations in the face, to investigate their grounds, and to invite his audience to follow his example. The result was a conclusion for which his forty years' studies in Church history had already prepared him, and a counter-declaration of which, in the author's own words, this was the substance :-'Let no one lose faith in the 'Church, if the temporal principality of the Papacy should disappear, whether it be for a season, or for ever. It is not 'essence, but accident; not end, but means; it began late; it 'was formerly something quite different from what it is now. It 'now justly appears to us to be indispensable; and so long as the 'existing order lasts in Europe, it must, at all cost, be main'tained; or, if it is violently interrupted, it must be restored. 'But it is possible to suppose a condition of Europe in which 'it would be superfluous, and then it would be only a clogging 'burden.'

Every part of this declaration is of consequence; its conditions and reservations not least so. But even with these, it will not be wondered at that Dr. Döllinger's audience was somewhat startled as well as deeply interested. The daily and other journals circulated condensed reports of the lectures by tens and hundreds of thousands. Many of these reports contained serious blunders, and all of them showed what, to the lecturer, appeared important omissions. Munich had eclipsed itself. It had become in a moment the centre of Germany, the observed of all Europe, the most notable city in Christendom. Catholics and nonCatholics were almost equally excited. Here was a Daniel • Devotion to the Pope. By Frederick William Faber, D.D. London: 1860.

come to judgment whom his fellow-religionists rejected, and whom their opponents were unable to claim. No position could for a time have been more thoroughly unenviable. Mistaken eulogists were neutralized by equally mistaken cavillers. The Romanist was scandalized, and the Protestant but half satisfied, though greatly pleased. Panegyric and reprobation were almost balanced; but at length the latter got the best of it, and, after a while, though with different feelings, and for different reasons, both sides came to a sort of agreement, saying in effect,

Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis

Tempus eget.

Meanwhile, Dr. Döllinger quietly withdrew from the arena in which his lectures had produced so violent a strife. He made no reply, returned no railing, gave no contradiction either to honest ignorance or to wilful falsehood, but after six laborious and arduous months of preparation, he has answered by this book. How far its effect will correspond to his wishes, it is at present too early to foresee.

But while Dr. Döllinger admits, and appears to admit without reserve, that the temporal power is not absolutely necessary to the Papacy, he still maintains it to be everything short of this. He insists that there once was a period when that power was positively essential to the Church, was one of the conditions -an indispensable condition-of her activity and life. He anticipates convulsion and calamity as a consequence of the impending loss of it. He will not say, indeed, that heaven and earth shall pass away sooner than the States of the Church shall pass from the Pope-which has been said by some of his co-religionists-but he will maintain at all hazards that, 'the 'temporal power of the Pope is required [nöthig] by the Church,' and affirms that that is obvious to everybody, at least out of 'Italy.' How far the author is self-consistent herein, it is not at present our intention to inquire. We find, however, that while he yields to the reasons which oblige him to consider the alienation of the States of the Church as a not improbable event, he regards the event with profound apprehension and alarm. And in anticipation of it, while he declares at one moment that it would be profane to limit Divine Providence to an alternative, he affirms in the next that there can be no harm whatever in shutting it up to a supposed exhaustive trilemma.

'God's knowledge and power,' he writes, 'reach further than ours, and we must not presume to set bounds to the Divine Wisdom