healthy and active mind must change his views as his knowledge increases, so every well-constituted community must likewise modify its opinions. Of a community, as of a man, an animal, or a plant, it may alike be said 'to cease to change is to cease to live.' Of a man it may also be said, that not to modify his convictions is to cease to live the highest kind of life-that of the intellect—while the life of one who learns more and more as his years increase should be a life of almost unceasing change.

But the changes in belief to which I have here to refer are extremely different in character. Some are changes which have come over the entire mass of Catholics, so that no one holds to-day what was once universally believed. Other changes are such as have taken place only amongst the educated, though amongst such they have become general and widespread. Others, again, are modifications of belief which as yet have occurred but amongst comparatively few sincere and earnest Catholics; whilst some others are extremely exceptional, yet should not remain unnoticed on account of the love for Catholicism felt by those who hold them. Most of these changes are matters of public notoriety and are widely known, however little noted and considered; but others which have come to my knowledge are, so far as I am aware, known but to very few.

All these changes are, however, to our purpose because it is obviously my duty to bring forward all the most striking modifications I can, in order that the question may be tested in the most decisive manner. They are also to our purpose because the creed of the educated of to-day will become the belief of the many on the morrow. The same may also be said as to the opinions of those we may distinguish as the élite amongst the educated; whilst the fact that persons who are exceptionally learned and no less exceptionally devout have undergone any noteworthy change of belief at least shows that such change is possible and that it may spread further and even one day become general.

Of course no organised society which has adopted such principles and rules as those which regulate the Catholic body can revoke any solemn declarations it has once made or reverse any of the laws it may have authoritatively laid down.

Dogmas cannot be explicitly called in question, though sometimes they may be so explained (as we shall shortly see) that they thereby become (practically) explained away or even reversed. Sometimes, also, so changed a signification may be imparted to a word as to strangely modify the meaning of a doctrine wherein such word plays an important part.

Before considering the modifications in belief I am about to enumerate, I desire, first, to state clearly that I am by no means to be supposed to myself adopt all the novel views to which I may call attention.

Secondly, as I am no theologian, I cannot undertake the responsibility of defining what beliefs are, and what are not, de fide. To attempt to do that would, in the words of a learned Divine,1 only 'give rise to endless discussions.' It is enough for me that a belief has been generally entertained, in order that I should include it within the scope of this article; for, as it seems to me, whatever has been so accepted, authority must have practically sanctioned, taught, or tolerated, at some time or other.

I need hardly add that I have no commission whatever from any authority to treat this subject, and, of course, have not the slightest claim to be regarded as a representative of any portion of the Catholic body. I write merely as one highly interested in all that concerns Catholicity, who has had certain advantages and opportunities for observation, which those who are external to Catholicism cannot possess.

I will begin my catalogue of changes in belief with a consideration of the most universal and complete transformation of the kind which has taken place since the origin of Christianity. I refer to the one which science has produced with respect to what may be termed the framework' and 'setting' of our mental picture of all that concerns religion and human life.

When once effected, this transformation must have greatly facilitated all such subsequent changes of belief as science has tended to produce. I refer to that wonderful transformation in belief as to the nature and structure of the universe, which has taken place since St. Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa contra Gentiles.

For a millennium and a half, all Christians had regarded the earth as the centre of the universe and the object of God's unique care. It was supposed to be surrounded by revolving crystal spheres bearing the sun, moon, and stars, while above them was heaven, with its angelic host; hell being within the earth, volcanoes so many of its gates, whence issued evil spirits to tempt and corrupt mankind, while angels readily descended from above, on errands of beneficence. It was also thought evident from revelation that all this fabric had been created in six days; that God had specially created and clothed the earth with distinct species of animals and plants, formed, as were also the sun, moon, and stars, for the service of man, whose faults caused the world to be drowned in a deluge in the past, as in the future it will be destroyed by fire.

To men who thus believed, it could not have been very difficult to accept the doctrine that, for the salvation of a race-the only material objects of divine care and love-God himself had descended from His celestial to His terrestrial sphere, and taken to Himself the nature of that being who had already been created in His image.

The Very Reverend Dr. Hogan. See his Clerical Studies (Boston, Massachusetts, 1898), p. 121.

How great must have been the shock to men brought up in this belief, to learn that their earth was but a floating speck of dust amidst a practical infinity of vast revolving spheres, many of which were possibly, if not probably, peopled by beings equal or superior in nature to man and having, it might be, yet greater claims upon the good will of the Deity! They could no longer behold the crystal floor of heaven, nor reasonably regard a volcano as a fountain of supernatural infernal fire. So vast a change of conception with respect to the Cosmos could not fail to affect the domain of religious belief.

I will now pass on to consider one or two special doctrines with respect to which a complete change of belief has taken place.

6

The first of these shall be the assertion Nulla salus extra ecclesiam' (Out of the Church there is no salvation'). This dictum was long generally accepted in its most literal meaning, and not a few persons so accept it still. We all recollect the history of the Teutonic chieftain who was about to be baptised, but paused to ask what had been the fate in the next world of his pagan ancestors. When told there could be no doubt but that they were all damned, he refused the regenerating fluid; preferring to go where his ancestors had gone and abide with them. Now, however, it is admitted by the most rigid Roman theologians, that men who do not even accept any form of Christianity, if only they are theists and lead good lives, may have an assured hope for the future, similar to that of a virtuous Christian believer. This great change has been aided by the assertion that nonbaptised persons, thus meritorious, belong not indeed to the 'body' of the Church, but to its 'Soul. Such an assertion is, however, a mere subterfuge. As we pointed out in our former article, the Church,' qua church, is an ideal abstraction. What an utter nonentity then must be 'the soul' of this abstraction! There has indeed been a complete change of belief as to this matter, though many persons are most unwilling to admit the fact.

5

Another complete transformation is that which has taken place in the doctrine respecting the lawfulness of taking any interest for money. This was absolutely condemned by ecclesiastical authority under the name of 'Usury' at the Council of Vienna, presided over by Clement the Fifth. It was condemned again and again; according to Concina, by twenty-eight Councils (seven of them being regarded as General Councils) and by seventeen Popes. The last formal decree of Rome on the subject is the celebrated encyclical of Benedict the Fourteenth. His definition is that usury is interest on a loan of money as a loan. The Pope evidently regarded 'usury' as intrinsically wrong-as a sin against justice and not merely against charity. The practice was so distinctly and emphatically condemned that no persons living in the middle

5 Nineteenth Century, August 1899, p. 204.

ages could have had any apparently reasonable belief that such decisions would ever be explained away. Yet now, this has been done so completely that no Pope, no Catholic priest or corporate ecclesiastical body, scruples to accept the best interest obtainable for any capital which may be at their disposal.

Ingenious evasions, such as could never have been anticipated, have been devised, and thus it has come about that what was formerly declared by the highest ecclesiastical authority to be a great sin, is now regarded as a perfectly innocent action, sometimes a meritorious one, and even, under certain circumstances, a course of conduct absolutely binding on conscience.

With the two above important transformations of opinion, there has gone along yet another, though it has advanced with a somewhat halting gait. I mean the change from fierce intolerance to benignant and sympathetic indulgence towards persons thought to be in religious error.

With the old view as to the necessity to salvation of actually being a member of the Church's body, intolerance was natural— such intolerance e.g. as that of St. Louis, who told De Joinville that when a layman heard Christianity evil spoken of he should defend it 'only with his sword, which he ought to run into the infidel's belly as far as it will go.' The intolerance which existed in France down to the Revolution was great, and the Roman Inquisition, though now happily impotent to cause any physical suffering, maintains the same essential principles as those it acted on in the last century. We should soon be witnesses of notable intolerance if the rabid Catholic party in Italy and France' could have their way.

6

Respect for the honest opinions of others is a sentiment which has become deeply rooted in the English mind, and certainly no less in that of our cousins across the Atlantic in the present day. It is an admirable kind of Americanism'-an Americanism' eminently 'Catholic,' though profoundly displeasing to 'Curialism.' It displayed itself most conspicuously in the holding of that ever-memorable Chicago Parliament of Religions.' Striking indeed is the contrast between Cardinal Gibbons opening with prayer the proceedings of that peaceful and admirable assembly, and Torquemada presiding at an auto da fé.

A few years ago I was talking with a friend-one of the most devout and earnest Catholics I know-about a certain priest who had then recently given pain to many by abandoning Christianity. My friend said to me:

• See Saint Louis, King of France, by the Sire de Joinville, translated by James Hutton (Sampson Low, Son & Marston, 1868), pp. 9-10.

7 I mean the party represented by the Civiltà Cattolica, the late Louis Veuillot and the Canon Delassus and Abbé Maignen of the present day, and their alliesnotably some pious anti-Dreyfusards.

'How changed are the ideas of us Catholics from what they were centuries ago! There is not one of us who would wish him to be burnt.'

The remark was most true. Certainly no Catholic known to me would refuse to exert his utmost efforts to save that priest from so horrible a punishment.

If such changes as this one, together with those about 'Salvation,' 'Usury,' and 'Witchcraft' (which latter I will notice later on), had taken place suddenly, it would almost suffice to prove that a breach of continuity had taken place amongst Catholics. In fact, however, they were all gradually brought about and without any authoritative

action.

There are other matters as to which many Catholics now entertain different views as to right and wrong from those entertained by their forefathers.

One of these relates to the promotion of gambling by State lotteries, which were held with the Pope's sanction, while a Cardinal would preside over the drawing of the lots. This form of gambling is now reprobated by many Catholics.

Many Catholics also have come to recognise the ethical truth, which only seems to have been clearly apprehended of late-the truth, namely, that we are morally bound not to inflict needless pain on animals, and still more bound not to cause pain for the mere pleasure of producing it.

A third ethical intuition, which, so far as I know, has only acquired distinct and widespread appreciation in modern times, is that of our moral responsibility not to prostitute the noble faculty of reason, by giving assent to propositions which are not supported by adequate evidence. This is the transgression graphically though improperly stigmatised by Professor Huxley as 'the sin of faith,' but which should be termed 'the sin of credulity '—a grave fault, still far too common. Pious people have sometimes seemed as though they thought they could hardly believe too much, and felt that to be over-credulous was safer than to entertain an honest doubt.' Now, however, the duty of caution in credence is continually becoming more widely recognised, and we may hope that ere long it will be generally regarded as an imperative duty.

Another most important change which is taking place amongst Catholics is the change which consists in regarding as specially to be valued not that which is most ancient but that which is most recent. This new belief may be shortly expressed by the maxim, 'Opinions which are newest are generally truest.' The circumstance that any belief is a specially old one makes its truth at once an object of suspicion. It was Cardinal Newman who initiated and mainly promoted, in England, this change of view, through his great work on 'the Development of Christian Doctrine,' and his demonstration of the superiority of the Fathers who wrote after the Council of Nice