and a more stubborn will, to uplift the crozier of Port Royal against the merciful exercise of the keys of S. Peter, and erect her interpretation of the doctrine of S. Augustine and her idea of the discipline of primitive Christianity against the living and loving teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ. "Look here upon this picture and on this," may we say as we close the story of Jeanne Françoise Frémyot and Marie Angélique d'Arnauld. Wherein consists the difference? Self-sacrifice, self-devotion, fervour, love of souls, zeal for God's honour, we find in both. What was wanting to the frustrated life and broken-hearted death of the one? What sustained the life and crowned the death of the other? Simply obedience to the voice of the living Church, instead of thraldom to a self-chosen teacher. How many souls are withering in our day outside the walls of Jerusalem, hanging on the lips of a human guide, yet within hearing of the voice of the Mother of Souls-less guilty, indeed, than Marie Angélique, for they were never cradled in her arms, yet in urgent need of prayers from all who, by God's mercy, can thank Him in S. Teresa's dying words, that they are children of the Church! ART. VII.-F. RYDER AND DR. WARD. Idealism in Theology: a Review of Dr. Ward's Scheme of Dogmatic Au- DOES OES there, or does there not, exist "a vast body of infallible truth put forth by the Church " on such matters as the following? the legitimate mutual action of Church and State; the necessity of the Pope's civil sovereignty; the relations of Reason and Revelation; the traditionalistic and ontologistic philosophies; &c. &c. &c. There can be no question of more intimate concern to an educated Catholic layman, who gives his mind to political or philosophical speculation; and none which it is more indispensable that a Catholic Review shall seriously consider. So much is at once evident. But further, this is a question which acquires quite new and peculiar importance under present circumstances. At this day the world in general is so indifferent to dogma, that men are not tempted to directly dogmatic error; they do not care enough about any dogma to take the trouble of assailing it. Are you to suppose then that the misbelieving spirit is less active or less injurious than in earlier ages? Rather, as is evident, the very contrary: but that spirit will nowadays vent itself, not in attacking the Deposit of Faith, but in ignoring it; in pursuing philosophical, literary, historical, political studies, without any reference to the light thrown on them by Revelation. Those perils then to which the Faith is now exposed, lie far more in the sphere of history, politics, and philosophy, than of theology proper. And hence the peculiar importance of vindicating and clearly exhibiting the Church's infallibility in Allocutions, Encyclicals, and the like, which are the very instruments she now adopts for condemning religious error in things secular. Those who deny the infallibility of such pronouncements, in fact deny that the Church is infallibly guarding the Deposit against those particular dangers, which at this moment are far more formidable than any others. Yet in England several even of those who are most zealous for what they consider the true interests of religion, either have no strong conviction of the Church's infallibility in such Acts, or else actually deny it: and the great difficulty which we have ourselves encountered, has been to awake in our Catholic compatriots a sense of the momentousness of the point at issue. Here it is that F. Ryder has done most important service. He has succeeded where we had failed; viz., in securing the deep interest of Catholics for that whole question, which concerns the extent of the Church's infallibility. Nor will this interest now probably die away, until the matter has been explored and investigated in all its bearings.* One principal reason of F. Ryder's success has been, we think, his evident honesty and love of truth. He might have easily contented himself with cavilling at individual statements or arguments which we have put forth; and with ringing the changes on "farrago of nonsense," "dull tyranny," "obscurantism," "monomania." As his pamphlet stands indeed, there is more than we could wish of such vague invective. * F. Ryder animadverts with some justice on a certain vehemence of tone into which we have at times been betrayed when speaking of this theme. We do not admit that any proposition which we have expressed has been at all exaggerated; but we do admit with regret some undue vehemence of tone. F. Ryder apparently ascribes this to a peremptory and overbearing temper. Our own explanation is, that it arose from an earnest desire to impress on English Catholics the momentousness of the question, united with a consciousness of having by no means succeeded in so impressing them. Our earnest desire was that the question should be fairly discussed and not pooh-poohed; and so far certainly our wish is now abundantly gratified. Still its main purpose is not to attack an opponent, but to erect an adverse theory of his own; and in this respect he is honourably distinguished from the general run of those who love to assail what they are pleased to call the "extreme" party. His own counter-theory is at least intelligible and unmistakeable; viz., that the Church's infallibility is confined to the Deposit and to whatever may be deduced therefrom by strictly logical inference. And he is thus led to deny the Pope's infallibility, not only in the doctrinal instruction which he conveys by Allocutions or Encyclicals, but even in those doctrinal censures (below that of "erroneous ") which he expressly and formally pronounces. One consequence which results from the largeness of F. Ryder's theory is, that he and his antagonist are in a certain sense at cross purposes. Dr. Ward hardly applied himself at all, except to some extent in his Preface, to arguing for the Church's infallibility in minor censures; because he never understood how any Catholic can possibly deny that infallibility. The main stress therefore of F. Ryder's attack has fallen on a point, which Dr. Ward had never very carefully guarded and protected; and Dr. Ward accordingly, in his present reply, has on this particular drawn far more from Dr. Murray's stores than from his own. On the other hand, as to the question of Allocutions and Encyclicals, in saying all which was necessary by way of reply to F. Ryder, Dr. Ward has by no means had occasion to exhibit his own full argument on that part of the subject.+ *F. Ryder is not a Gallican; and with him consequently the Pope's infallibility is co-extensive with the Church's. We may advert in a note to one of several misconceptions, which have resulted from this circumstance. "How does it follow," it has been asked, "because the Mirari vos' is infallible in its doctrinal instructions, that all "Encyclicals possess the same prerogative?" But the argument of Dr. Ward's third Essay is by no means open (we think) to that objection. See especially pp. 44,5. So far as regards the particular case of Encyclicals, the argument of those pages may be thus drawn out. It is addressed to that vast majority of Catholics, who regard it as the simplest matter of course, that if the Pope sends a doctrinal instruction to all the bishops of his communion, and if they accept it, such an instruction is infallibly true. No such Catholic would have dreamed of doubting the infallibility of Encyclicals, except because he doubts whether the Pope intends to convey in them any doctrinal instruction. But what reason can there be for doubting this? "Because the tone of an "Encyclical is so far more rhetorical than scientific: because it contains no in"trinsic indications of being meant to teach doctrine: and because therefore its "various doctrinal statements, however directly and peremptorily expressed, "must be considered as 'quasi obiter dicta'; as illustrations rather than in"structions." Dr. Ward's answer was this. Look at the "Mirari vos." No other Encyclical perhaps can be named, of which the tone is so rhetorical, and which has so little the intrinsic appearance of being intended to convey if she expresses minor censures, those censures are infallibly just. To deny the latter proposition is as simply inconsistent with belief in the Church's infallibility, as to deny the former. 2. The Bull "Unigenitus " abounds in these minor censures yet if there is one fact certain in ecclesiastical history, it is that all the orthodox (Ultramontane and Gallican alike) united as one man to assert its infallibility against the Jansenistic heretics. The Council of Embrun, which was specially confirmed by Benedict XIII., called it the Church's "dogmatic, definitive, and irretractable judgment"; and added, "if any one does not assent to it in heart and mind, let him be accounted among those who have made shipwreck concerning the Faith." This last too, be it observed, is the very phrase applied by Pius IX. to those unhappy men who should deny the Immaculate Conception. And the same Benedict XIII. declared soon after his accession: "We recognize the Constitution Unigenitus' as the rule of our faith."* We are unable to conjecture how a Catholic can doubt, that the Popes claimed infallibillity for this Constitution. F. Ryder's own argument did not turn directly on the Church's teaching, but on the language of theologians. He seriously thinks that the Church's fallibility in most of her minor censures is a recognized opinion in the schools; an opinion avowedly held by certain approved theologians. Now in the first place S. Alphonsus and Viva, no ordinary men, declare it to be actually heretical; Malderus declares the same; and Coninck (a writer of much authority) thinks this view "very probable " (Doc. Dec. p. 41). Take the testimony of S. Alphonsus alone; of which Dr. Ward was wholly unaware, and to which attention has been called by Dr. Gillow, Dogmatical Professor of S. Cuthbert's Ushaw. If there is one peculiarity distinctive of S. Alphonsus, it is his constant reference to the dicta of theologians on every different side. Is it credible then that he can have spoken as he has, if the opinion which he so vehemently denounces is one freely permitted in the Catholic schools? Or had he so spoken, is it credible that the authorities, who examined his works with a view to his process of canonization, should have reported there was nothing in them deserving of censure? Then it is to be observed, as Dr. Ward points out (p. 25), that F. Ryder has not adduced one single theologian, great or small, approved or otherwise, who has said in so many words that the Church is fallible in any of her minor censures. We quote at the moment from the American translation of Darras's Ecclesiastical History, vol. iv. p. 447. |