enactments against heretics, he will find whence the specially designated penalties are derived to which he takes objection in this Bull of Paul IV.
When the Augsburg reviewer says in conclusion: 'It is impossible to discover from what, according to Dr. Fessler, a person is to draw the perfect removal of his apprehensions; no proof, no logical reason is presented to us that anything which a Pope solemnly enunciates, which he has had signed by the Cardinals and sent to all Bishops, may not have the weight of a definition in the sense of the Vatican Council,'—I thereupon point to the simple, literal, dogmatic, and logical explanation of the meaning of the definition of the Council in pages 55 to 60 of my pamphlet as the 'proof and logical reason' for my statement. Indeed, I know no proof which could be more complete, and no reason which could better meet all the requirements of sound logic. And up to this time this exposition of the subject has been contested by neither side.
Another reviewer thinks he has discovered the following contradiction, as he calls it, in my pamphlet, because in p. 73 I assert that the well-known Brief Multiplices inter of Pius IX., one of the most important sources of the Syllabus, in which certain doctrines amongst others are condemned as heretical, is not a dogmatic definition; and yet on p. 84 I admit that it is a sure sign in theology of a dogmatic definition, if a doctrine is condemned by the Pope as heretical. Here I do not know that I can do better than publicly request the learned discoverer of this contradiction to be so good as to name to me one single
