in the first half of the nineteenth century with the Court of St Petersburg, he had all the instincts of the diplomatist; and his religious ideal was to see modern Christian society under the absolute control of the political papal dictatorship of the Middle Ages. Manning once ventured the remark that Gratry was no theologian. It has been said with far more accuracy that De Maistre was neither an historian nor a theologian, but rather one who transferred to the province of ecclesiastical control the principles and methods of diplomatic procedure. He was a man of remarkable vigour and pertinacity; a man of logic in his way, pushing relentlessly to extreme conclusions on the basis of a brilliant assumption; audacious in his assertions, and confident with an unsurpassed serenity.
The movements of modern thought, the aspirations towards larger freedom, were to De Maistre thoroughly repugnant.
"The audacious race of Japhet," he writes, "has never ceased to advance towards what it describes as liberty; that is, towards a state in which the governed is governed as little as possible, and is always on guard against its masters."
Such was his attitude towards European progress and development. This was written in 1844, and may doubtless be partly explained by the time; but this was the spirit in which he approached the doctrine of papal authority. And the method in which he attempted to advance the Ultramontane opinions may be gathered from such examples as the following.
If the Gallican School set the Council above the Pope, as the final judge in matters of faith, De Maistre entirely depreciates the significance of Ecumenical Councils. His estimate of their value as
