paupertatis et castatis, certamque vivendi norman suis in constitutionibus praescriptam ; tum ad eruditionem piamque educationem puellarum, praesertim pauperum, sedulo incumbant. Cunctae autem vitam ducunt perfecte communem sub regimine moderatricis generalis, et, exacto novitiatu, recensita tria vota, prius ad tempus, dein in perpetuum, ritu simplici nuncupant. Complures iam sunt Instituto domus canonice erectae tum in Archidioecesi Hispalensi, ubi et domus princeps constituta est, tum in dioecesi Malacitana. Porro ubicumque commoratatae sunt enunciatae Sorores, superna favente gratia, bonum Christi odorem jugiter effunderunt effuderunt, uberemque, ad Dei gloriam atque animarum salutem, tulere fructuum copiam. Cum autem nuper Moderatrix Generalis, omnium Sororum nomine, SSmo. Dno. Nro, Leoni Divina Providentia Pp. XIII humillime supplicaverit ut praefatum Institutum eiusque Constitutiones Apostolica Auctoritate approbare dignaretur, Antistites Hispalensis et Malacitanus, datis ultro litteris, eiusdem preces summopere commendare non dubitarunt. Itaque Sanctitas Sua, re mature perpensa; attentisque praesertim commendatitiis litteris praedictorum Antistitum, in audientia habita ab infrascripto Cardinali S. Congregationis Episcoporum et Regularium Praefecto, die 25 Januarii 1902, memoratum Institutum, uti Congregationem votorum simplicium, sub regimine moderatricis generalis, cum suis Constitutionibus, approbare et confirmare dignata est; prout praesentis decreti tenore approbat et confirmat, salva Ordinariorum jurisdictione ad formam SS. Canonum et Apostolicarum Constitutionum. Datum Romae ex Secretaria Sacrae Congregationis Episcoporum et Regularium die 1 Februarii 1902. FR. HIERONYMUS MARIA Card. GOTTI, Praef, L. S. AL. BUDINI, Subsecr. CARMELITE TEACHING BROTHERHOOD DECRETUM. APPROBATUR INSTITUTUM FRATRUM CARMELITARUM A DOCTRINA (DE LA ENSENANZA) CUM SUIS CONSTITUTIONIBUS. Anno Domini 1892 in Archidioecesi Tarraconensi canonice erectum fuit Institutum de Hermanos Carmelitas de la Ensenanza-vulgo nuncupatum, quod iam multos ante annos ortum duxerat, auspice religioso viro fel rec. Francisco Palau y Quer. Peculiaris finis sive scopus praefati Instituti Sodalibus propo situs in eo est, ut ipsi primum quidem propriae consulant sanctificationi servando vota obedientiae, paupertatis et castitastis, certisque inhaerendo Constitutionibus; tum vero sedulo incumbant ad eruditionem piamque educationem parvulorum eť, sicubi opus est, iuniorum opificum. Cuncti autem vitam ducunt perfecte communem, sub regimine Moderatoris Generalis, et exacto novitiatu, recensita tria vota, prius ad tempus dein in perpetuum, ritu simplici emittunt. Porro, istiusmodi Sodalium propositis laboribusque dexter adfuit bonorum omnium largitor Deus ; ita ut ipsi non mediocrem fructuum ubertatem, ad eiusdem Dei gloriam atque animarum salutem iugiter tulerint. Quum autem nuper Moderator Generalis, optimis instructus commendatitiis litteris, SSmo. Domino Nostro Leoni Divina Providentia PP. XIII humillime supplicaverit ut Institutum ipsum et Constitutiones, quibus regitur, Apostolica auctoritate approbare dignaretur, Sanctitas Sua, universa rei ratione mature perpensa, in Audientia habita ab infrascripto Cardinali S. Congregationis Episcoporum et Regularium Praefecto die 17 Martii 1902, praedictum Institutum cum suis Constitutionibus, uti Congregationem votorum simplicium sub regimine Moderatoris Generalis, approbare et confirmare dignata est, prout praesentis Decreti tenore, benigne approbat et confirmat, salva Ordinariorum iurisdictione ad formam SS. Canonum Apostolicarum Constitutionum. et Datum Romae ex Secretaria praefatae S. Congregationis Episcoporum et Regularium, die 17 Martii 1902. L.S. FR. HIERONYMUS MARIA Card. GOTTI, Praef. AL. BUDINI, Subsecrius. NOTICES OF BOOKS TRACTATUS DE DEO UNO (Summa I., i.-xiii.), DE SANCTIS- Alexio Marie Lépicier, O.S.M. Auctore Parisus: P Lethieleux, WE feel great pleasure in recommending to our readers those three theological works of Father Lépicier's. As his name may not be familiar to some of our readers, it may be well to state that he is at present lecturer in Dogmatic Theology in the Propaganda Schools, Rome. He is a past student of the same schools, and studied under the present Cardinal Satolli when His Eminence was lecturer there. After his ordination he spent some time on the London Mission; and was recalled to occupy the vacant chair when his illustrious teacher was sent as Papal Delegate to the United States. The volumes that we now present to our readers are some of the lectures that he has been delivering to his students for the past eleven years. The two works, De Deo Uno and De S. S. Trinitate, are profound and exhaustive commentaries on the Summa' of St. Thomas; but the third work, De Beata Virgine Maria, is a good deal more than a mere commentary. We feel that it would be very presumptuous on our part to criticise this admirable book after the high praise it has received from the Pope himself and from Cardinal Rampolla. In a letter addressed to Father Lépicier, expressing his thanks for the copy sent him, the Pope says 'that although it would be beyond the power of man to adequately treat of such a subject, yet he has so treated it in the present work that he is inferior to none in erudition and solidity, and has easily surpassed many. There is a quality of the book,' continues the Pope, that is deserving of the highest praise that while adhering strictly to the scholastic method (as was right), still he has treated his subject matter not in a dry manner, but with a certain spiritual sweetness, by which the reader is drawn to the love of the Mother of God at the same time that he receives mental instruction.' Cardinal Rampolla speaks of it in equally high terms. He says that he has been reading it in the intervals he has had from his many duties; that whilst he has admired the solidity of its doctrine, drawn from pure theological sources, and the scientific method with which it is expounded, he has been struck by the peculiar spiritual unction that is met throughout, which fills the reader with devotion towards the Mother of God at the same time that it reveals the love that must have guided the mind of the author.' Seeing from the frontispage that the book has received such high praise, we need scarcely say that we went through it with more than usual interest. Although Father Lépicier departs in this book from the order of St. Thomas, in the Summa,' yet, as he himself states in the opening chapter, the writings of the Angelic Doctor, and especially the Summa,' form the nerve and muscle of the book. Hence that solidity of doctrine referred to by Cardinal Rampolla. After proving his thesis, the writer illustrates it, almost in every case, with references to the Church's ceremonial, with quotations from the saints and the fathers, with the poetry of Dante, and, in many instances, also with the eloquence of Bossuet: and this we believe to be the principal charm of the book. We read a few questions with very special interest. We should commend the question on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception for special excellence. In this question, to which he devotes fifty-six pages, Father Lépicier shows not only all the qualities of a great theologian, but unconsciously reveals the fact that he is a rare linguist. At the end of the questions there is a very interesting appendix. After showing from a collation of a number of passages from the writings of St. Thomas that the Saint was opposed to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Father Lépicier thus concludes that St. Thomas was inclined all the more towards that belief in proportion as the singular dignity of Christ and the universality of the Redemption seemed thereby to be safeguarded. Still St. Thomas cannot have held that doctrine more than as probable, since, undoubtedly, it could not have escaped his great mind that there was a lack of demonstrative force in such a reason: for there is none of the reasons adduced by him that cannot be solved by the principles laid down by himself.' Two other very interesting questions are those regarding the kind of vow of virginity made by Our Blessed Lady, and the nature or cause of her death. On the whole, we have nothing but the highest praise for this book (though indeed it needs no commendation from us); and we feel certain that it will be hailed with welcome by every priest and every student of Theology. We have written at such length of the work on Our Blessed Lady that we have little space left to say all that we should wish of the other two works. In them, Father Lépicier follows strictly the order of the Summa'; he carefully analyses the logic that guided the Angelical in arranging and sub-dividing the various questions; and when there occurs a more than usually important article, he brings it into prominence, and gives it a due treatment. Father Lépicier is a thorough philosopher. He seems to have a very intimate acquaintance with Aristotle, whom he quotes in the original Greek where there is occasion; and he has a happy way of making pagan philosophers clearly express Catholic dogma. We should quote as an example of this his commentary on Art. 2 Ques. ii. of the 'Summa' (utrum Deum esse, sit demonstrabile), which is practically the declaration of the Vatican Council, cap. ii. De Revelatione). This dogma he makes both St. Augustine and Cicero expound; and of the two Cicero is the clearer and the more to the point. Another example might be taken from the work De S. S. Trinitate from his commentary on Art. 1 Ques. xxxii (utrum per rationem naturalem possit cognosci Trinitas Personarum Divinarum: which would be the truth defined by the Vatican Council, Sess. iii., cap. iv.), in which he gives a very interesting interpretation to certain passages of Aristotle's and Plato's writings, quoted by St. Thomas as objections against the Catholic dogma. In conclusion, we have little hesitation in saying that, if judged even on the merits of those three works, Father Lépicier may be ranked with Cardinal Franzelin as a dogmatic theologian, and with Bilot, Cardinal Satolli, and Billuart as a commentator of St. Thomas. However, we hope that his theological publications will not end with those, but that we shall soon have the pleasure of announcing other publications on some other parts of the Summa.' T. H. FOOTPRINTS OF EMMET. By J. J. Reynolds. M. H. Gill and Son. Dublin: To our thinking there is nothing in fiction which does not yield place to Mr. Reynolds' book. It is a quarto volume of 127 pages, yet its perusal occupied but two sittings; had it been |