section into his pamphlet at all. But we unfeignedly distrust our own judgment on the matter, and should like time for consideration: possibly on some future occasion we may return to the subject. Here we will only say, to prevent possible misconception, that we are not aware of any reason why any Catholic is not at perfect liberty to hold that view, concerning church membership, which F. Ryder advocates; and that this section does not yield to the other three in learning and ability.

The fourth section is of a somewhat miscellaneous character. Its most pervasive purpose is, to defend Popes, and the Western Church generally, against the curious assemblage of omnigenous imputations, with which Mr. Ffoulkes has assailed them. In particular (pp. 50-52) he exposes that gentleman's most extraordinary allegations from S. Bernard and S. Bridget.

Our limits have for some time warned us to conclude, but it was difficult to tear ourselves away from so attractive and interesting a book. It would do honour to a veteran theologian; and is really not a little remarkable as coming from one who is as yet in his early prime. We believe that a distinguished career is open to its author; and we are sure he will credit us with perfect sincerity when we say, that by no one will his course be watched with greater interest and sympathy, than by his recent antagonist.

The Papacy and Schism: Strictures on Mr. Ffoulkes's Letter. By Rev. PAUL BOTTALLA, S.J. London: Burns, Oates, & Co.

ON

N reflection, we are disposed thoroughly to agree with F. Bottalla (p. 127), that the "real and practical scope" of Mr. Ffoulkes's Letter is far rather to express a view concerning the Church's constitution, than concerning the Holy Ghost's Procession. "If we seek to discover" its "leading idea, we shall not be able to gather it from the title-page. Mr. Ffoulkes wrote his pamphlet as an apology for his own real interior apostasy (be it material or formal) from the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church" (p. 125). If such be the case, as we think it is, F. Bottalla has addressed himself more directly to the main issue than F. Ryder and ourselves have done. At all events, it is an excellent thing that this particular side of the pamphlet shall have received careful attention, from a theologian who unites such unusual learning with so firm a grasp of orthodox principle as F. Bottalla.

It is quite an appropriate dispensation of Providence, that two writers like Mr. Ffoulkes and the Jesuit Professor are brought into immediate contrast. Mr. Ffoulkes's warmest admirers-we refer of course to nonCatholics, for he has no Catholic admirers-will not allege that reasoning is his forte; but they lay stress on what they call his learning. In real truth however his learning is on a par with his reasoning. To constitute learning,— there must be critical power, which enables the student to appreciate the value and meaning of those things which he reads; and there must be combinative power, to locate them in their true mutual position, and to view them in the light of those principles which are presupposed. One can hardly ask, without an

appearance of satire, whether Mr. Ffoulkes possesses combinative power : but F. Bottalla points out (p. 2) that he displays also "a really remarkable absence of critical spirit"; that he seems wholly unconscious of "any advance having been made in critical studies" since the sixteenth century. We heartily wish he would study F. Bottalla's pamphlet ; not only for the theological instruction which he would thence derive, but also as a sample of the mode in which vast and multifarious knowledge may really be made serviceable-and serviceable indeed in the highest degree-towards acquisition of truth. We do not for a moment, of course, compare Mr. Ffoulkes's amount of mere reading with F. Bottalla's; for even in this respect the interval is most wide between the two writers: but we are dwelling on the circumstance, that Mr. Ffoulkes begins and ends with mere reading, while F. Bottalla has amassed learning.

F. Bottalla's pamphlet lays down what may be called the whole theology and history of decretals and canons: nor are we acquainted with any other book accessible to the general reader, which goes over ground at all similar. It bears—and in some sense requires-careful and repeated reading; and it will give those who have studied it a clear and accurate apprehension, to which they have perhaps hitherto been strangers, on the Church's doctrine concerning the Church's discipline.

The foundation of all accurate knowledge, on the authority of decretals and canons, must of course be laid in a clear intelligence of the Church's constitution. They necessarily derive their obligatory force from the Church's supreme authority; and the first question therefore to be asked is, in whom God has vested that supreme authority. This formed the subject of a previous work, on which F. Bottalla has founded the present, and to which he constantly refers throughout. The Roman Pontiff is ecclesiastically absolute; and all disciplinary authority therefore throughout the Church is derived exclusively from him. Such is the revealed doctrine; which has been defined more and more clearly, in proportion as misbelievers have called it in question (pp. 37-42). If Mr. Ffoulkes had applied himself to encounter the arguments by which theologians establish this proposition, he would have done something to promote his cause: but whereas it is the one matter really relevant to his theme, it is the one matter which he has totally omitted to consider.

From this fundamental doctrine, two consequences at once follow. Firstly, disciplinary decretals of Popes have precisely the same authority, with disciplinary canons of councils Pontifically confirmed: for in both cases Pontifical sanction is given. Such has ever been the Church's judgment: "the same weight was always ascribed to Papal decretals as to the canons of councils." "All the ancient collections of canons. . . carefully gathered together the decretals of the Roman Pontiffs, as a most important source of law, of authority no way inferior to that of the General Councils" (p. 45. See also pp. 11 and 18).

Secondly, it follows from the dogma of Papal Supremacy, that the Pontiff has power, whenever he may judge expedient, to modify or annul any disciplinarian decree he may please, whether of previous council or of previous Pope. Of this there are repeated instances. (See pp. 27, 33, 37.)

Let it be supposed then, for argument's sake, that at a certain period o

history there was a vast increase in the classes of cases, on which appeal to Rome was permitted. What would be the inference? Merely that at this particular period the Holy See judged it practicable and expedient, to exercise directly a large amount of jurisdiction, which it had hitherto exercised by delegation. Where is the difficulty in this?

But as a matter of fact, it is totally false that there was any such increase. Take the instance on which Mr. Ffoulkes lays his principal stress, episcopal causes. Episcopal appeals to Rome no doubt became much more frequent (most happily) as time went on; but these appeals were received by the Holy See from the very first. In the very canons of Sardica "it had been enacted, not (as Mr. Ffoulkes appears to believe) that only in extreme cases the bishops were authorized to appeal to the Pope, but that every bishop who should think himself to have a fair cause" might appeal (p. 27).

The great increase in number of such appeals is most easily explained, by the changed circumstances of the Church, and by men's constantly growing apprehension of all which is involved in Papal Supremacy. It is F. Bottalla's distinct opinion, that the False Decretals had simply nothing whatever to do with the matter. He gives one very curious illustration of this in p. 33 : for these Decretals recognize no right of appeal whatever, as appertaining to simple priests; whereas, "in the middle of the ninth century," these appeals 'were on the increase the state of Europe absolutely requiring this modification" of ancient practice. As to the False Decretals, "with the exception of one or two quotations by Hadrian II. and Stephen IV., no one of the Roman Pontiffs before the middle of the eleventh century paid" them "any attention" (p. 22). Nay, so late as the year 1085 Cardinal Otto, afterwards Urban II., "spoke of them with contempt" (p. 57).

66

"And here," adds our author, "we must repeat what we have so often said, that no part of the doctrine or discipline of the Church in any manner rested on the False Decretals. . . . Doctrine and discipline were maintained for eight centuries without any aid from Isidore, and the last two centuries his assistance has been dispensed with and no change has ensued" (pp. 57-8).

F. Bottalla incidentally (p. 17) refers to a most unjustifiable attack of Dean Milman's on the great Pope Nicholas I. ; in which that historian alleges that the Pope rested his case against Hincmar on the False Decretals. F. Bottalla points out, that on the one hand Hincmar himself believed their genuineness, and alleged them where they suited his purpose; and on the other hand that Nicholas in fact gave them no sanction whatever. The controversy between him and Hincmar "related exclusively to the question, whether Papal decretals, which had not found a place in the Collection of Hadrian, could be considered as having authority in the Church" (p. 19). In fact, "it is more apparent from the Letters of Nicholas the Great than from those of any other Pope," that he claimed to "derive his supreme authority simply and solely from the institution of Christ" (p. 20). As to the False Decretals, in a Letter written when "they were spreading and gaining acceptance in all directions," he makes no allusion to them; but "repeatedly quotes the genuine canons of early councils and the authentic decretals of his predecessors" (p. 16).

We have said enough to stimulate our readers' eagerness for reading this

invaluable work. We have never concealed our opinion-though we know many excellent Catholics think differently-that Mr. Ffoulkes's pamphlet has done far more good than harm. But if it had performed no other service than that of eliciting the present pamphlet of F. Bottalla, this service would far overbalance any mischief which Mr. Ffoulkes has it in his power to perpetrate. This is our deliberate and strong opinion.

F. Bottalla has dedicated his work to the Archbishop of Westminster " as a humble mark of respect and admiration."

Eight Sermon-Essays. By EDWARD REDMOND, D.D.

HE Archbishop of Westminster possesses the enviable happiness of having been the first English bishop to found a purely theological seminary. S. Thomas's, Hammersmith, is now (thank God !) in full activity; and S. Edmund's,-with which so many past memories of the London and Southwark dioceses are so intimately connected-is no longer more than a "petit séminaire."

Dr. Redmond's labours as dogmatical professor having been thus brought to an end in the natural course of things, he has published this little volume as a parting gift to his late pupils. We heartily wish he had had leisure and health, to treat those subjects which he mentions in his touching dedication : "The untheological temper of laymen in this age; the necessity of high catechetical instruction; the importance of accuracy of thought and expression in pastoral teaching." His friends however are well aware, and grieve over the circumstance, how impossible it would have been for him to make any such exertion; and the present sermons are very interesting, though less so than the suggested essays would certainly have been.

The author exhibits himself throughout as a member of that school, which its opponents denounce as extreme." He lays down (p. 4) that "the voice of Rome speaks with the certainty of a revelation from God." In God's ancient laws (p. 5) he "recognises the spirit and the sanction of such institutions as the Index and the Inquisition." He speaks with enthusiasm (p. 22) on the Pope's civil princedom. He teaches (p. 21) that "ordinarily speaking grace is not given except through Mary"; and (ib.) he vindicates to her that title of "Co-redemptress ", resting as it does on the highest ecclesiastical authority, from which some Catholics have unhappily been disposed to shrink.

There are other doctrinal indications which have much interested us. He considers (p. 4) that "the New Testament and the Fathers . . . . point to a kind of substantial presence of the Holy Ghost in the souls of the sanctified.' He makes a remark (p. 37) on which we have not happened elsewhere to light, but which seems to us just. He thinks that "those who are designated as 'fools' in the Sapiential Books, are especially those who have received the word joyfully," but "have no deep-set roots of perfection." "Throughout

this part of Scripture," he adds, " inconstancy is the most striking characteristic

of the fool.'"

In fact the last sermon, on corporate reunion, is the only one with which we do not thoroughly sympathise.

The sermons were all delivered to collegiate congregations, and are expressed in the style suitable to such congregations. What hearers of this kind require, is not impassioned rhetoric, but that doctrine shall be clearly and temperately placed before them in its practical and spiritual bearings. Accordingly no flash or tinsel will be found in these sermonessays, but we are brought at every turn to appreciate their author's thoughtful and meditative habit of mind. They will be warmly admired by reflecting readers; not perhaps equally by superficial.

Discourses on some Parables of the New Testament. By C. B. GARSIDE, M.A. London: Burns, Oates, & Co.

WE

E said in our last number, that in no particular perhaps is English Catholic literature so deficient as in published sermons. The remark was suggested by the sermons, of which the English Jesuit Fathers had just began a continuous course, and on which we hope in our next number to report progress. In this last quarter however, we have, not only Dr. Redmond's little volume last noticed, but this good-sized work of Mr. Garside's. much regret that we have had such a press of Review business, as to prevent us from reading Mr. Garside through. He illustrates three parables: but we have only been able as yet to study his illustration of one, the Prodigal Son.

We

Of course, as our Blessed Lord's parables were delivered for practical purposes, there can be no satisfactory comment on them which does not lay stress on such purposes. Still the expositor's is one office and the preacher's another. It is the expositor's office, to place in clearest light the various allusions and full meaning of the parable, and to point out distinctly its practical bearings. It is the preacher's office, to enforce its practical tendency, and place the parable before his hearers in exclusive reference to that tendency. The expositor's danger is, that he may be too exclusively literary and historical; the preacher's danger is, that his handling of Scripture may be too recklessly didactic. Even very effective preachers have been sometimes far from discriminating in their Scriptural quotations; and have been apt to seize at once on any text which has some superficial appearance of illustrating their point, without giving their mind at all to its context and critical meaning.

It seems to us that Mr. Garside has been signally successful, in doing the preacher's work without falling into the preacher's mistake. In every page of his sermons practical and spiritual lessons of the greatest value are enforced enforced, we may add, at once vigorously, and yet without the slightest tinge of exaggeration. Yet these practical lessons are deduced most obviously and naturally from the text; and by the time you have finished the sermons, you find you have the whole parable engraven on your memory and imagination with singular vividness and completeness.