who hold both that assent may be refused to the judgments, and obedience to the commands. Now we do not deny that this interpretation is compatible with the actual wording of the condemned proposition: but we do deny that it is compatible even with the wording of the sentence taken as a whole; and still more earnestly we deny, that it is consistent with the drift and context of the Encyclical.

Firstly then what is that instruction which, according to the Tablet, the Holy Father intended in this sentence of the Quantâ curâ"? He did not intend, it seems, to instruct his children, that it is wrong to dissent from certain Pontifical judgments; nor yet that it is wrong to disobey certain Pontifical decrees: but only that it is wrong to unite dissent from the former with disobedience to the latter. Now we ask whether, even on the surface of things, this is an endurable interpretation of a solemn Pontifical utterance?

But when we look at the matter a little more closely, such a view becomes even more objectionable. There is no man whatever, holding that obedience may be refused to the commands, who does not à fortiori also hold that assent may be refused to the judgments. Those therefore who unite the two opinions mentioned by the Pope, are precisely those (neither more nor fewer) who hold one of the two in particular; -they are precisely those who hold that obedience is not due to the commands. Consequently, according to the Tablet, those very important and significant words which colour the whole sentence-" judiciis " assensum 'pascendi "-are simply unmeaning and superfluous.*

Or putting the same argument in a different shape. When

"It seems to us, with great deference to Dr. Ward, that the circumstance' does not add a feather's weight to his argument, and has only afforded him an opportunity of making an extraordinary slip. The Pope's words give Dr. Ward no warranty whatever for saying that the condemned proposition denies the Pope's power of feeding the Church, i. e., of inculcating true doctrine on it. What the Pope says is, that the proposition is opposed to the dogma of the full power given to him by Christ of feeding, ruling, and guiding the Universal Church; but he does not say that it infringes upon all three functions of the power, and he does not specify the function of feeding as the particular function infringed on. It appears to us that Dr. Ward offers violence to the Pope's words, by arbitrarily insisting that the Pope condemned the proposition as denying his power of inculcating true doctrine. Anybody has as good a right as Dr. Ward to say which of three powers it is that is considered by the Pope to be denied by the condemned proposition; and yet Dr. Ward's argument breaks down if the proposition were condemned as denying, not the power of feeding, but either one or both of the powers of ruling and of guiding (gubernandi) the Universal Church.”— Tablet.

;

such phrases as these: "Apostolicæ Sedis judiciis assensus "Romani Pontificis potestas pascendi Ecclesiam"; are found in some doctrinal pronouncement, it is most certain that the Pope intends to convey some instruction, on the obligation or the excellence of assenting to something which the Pope teaches. But, according to the Tablet, the sentence contains no such instruction whatever. The above-named most significant expressions might be entirely omitted from the sentence, and its force would remain precisely the same.

The Tablet's interpretation then must indubitably be put out of court. But we contend further that the mere wording of the sentence, taken as a whole, actually necessitates the construction which we gave it. "These misbelievers," says Pius IX., " do not endure sound doctrine." He is indirectly then but emphatically inculcating on the Church a certain "sound doctrine." What is that doctrine? The last clause of the sentence explains most clearly. The " sound doctrine" is really included in "the Catholic dogma of the full power given to the Roman Pontiff, of teaching, guiding, and governing the Universal Church." These misbelievers consider that this power is restricted to those matters which "touch," as they express it,* "the dogmata of faith and morals." No, pronounces Pius IX.: it extends over that whole sphere, which is concerned with the Church's general good, her rights and her discipline. This is the "sound doctrine" which these misbelievers "will not endure." This is the "sound doctrine' "" which they contradict, when "they contend that without sin, and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession, assent and obedience may be refused, &c., &c." We really cannot understand any reasonable doubt, that such is the one germane and unforced interpretation of the sentence.

We have entered at length on the question for two reasons. Firstly, we wish to take every suitable opportunity of protesting against these minimizing methods of interpretation. It seems a sort of mania with some, either to minimize the extent of infallibility, or (that failing) to minimize the significance of those utterances which are infallible: and against both these tendencies it behoves every loyal Catholic on all fit occasions to protest. Then secondly, Pius IX.'s sentence is really a very important one; and as we have been challenged to reconsider our interpretation of it, it is more manly and straightforward to accept that challenge. But in conclusion we must again remind our readers, that we have never alleged this

*See p. 285 of the present number.

sentence as the sole or the principal authority for any of our theses; and that even if the Tablet's interpretation could possibly be sustained, the substantial evidence for those theses would none the less remain absolutely untouched.

ART. V.-ENGLISH CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY
EDUCATION.

Christian Schools and Scholars;
Era to the Council of Trent.
Chancellors," 66
Knights of
Longmans, Green, & Co.

or, Sketches of Education from the Christian In two vols. By the Author of "The Three St. John," "History of England," &c.

Special Report. Oxford and Cambridge Universities Education Bill. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed July 31, 1867.

L"

IFE is labour and a struggle with difficulties. Job calls it "a banishment;" the Church, "a vale of tears." We are the "exules filii Hevæ;" the Gospel declares that we are born "in tenebris et in umbra mortis ; " and the Royal Prophet cries out, "Educ de carcere, Domine, animam

Ever since our mother stretched forth her hand to the fatal tree of knowledge, we have been in exile and degradation. Whether men call this world a banishment or a home, they all feel its penalties. We were expelled from the Garden of Eden; lost the perfection of our nature; were wounded in all our faculties; stripped of original justice; and left half dead, like the traveller who fell among robbers between Jerusalem and Jericho. Our wounds are-darkness of the intellect, or ignorance; weakness in the will, and proclivity to evil; a constant rebellion in the passions; sickness and death.

Mankind, in the darkness and cold of his banishment, ever yearns after the clear light and happy bliss of Eden. He longs for the good things of which he has been stripped; he labours and strives to regain them. He stretches out his weak and wearied arms towards them, and endeavours to climb the rugged steeps on the summit of which they are laid out.

These efforts we call education. It is the educing, the leading forth the powers of man from out their prison home, that is, from out of the penalties of sin, back again to the gates of Paradise. But at its threshold there stands an angel with a two-edged sword; and none can enter whose garments are not sprinkled with the Blood of the Lamb. Christ is the VOL. IX.-NO. XVIII. [New Series.] 2 c

We all strive to recover ourselves; yet not all alike. taste of that forbidden fruit has left a stronger thirst in the mind after knowledge than in the will after goodness, and consequently, the moment man abandons himself to the feeble instincts of his own unaided nature, he pursues knowledge as though it were the panacea for all his ills, while he permits his will to incline to evil, and accepts the rebellion of his passions as the due complement of his nature. He shelters himself under the plea of the necessity of his constitution, or of an inexorable fate, or of the will of the Almighty, as though to justify in his words that which his heart cannot approve.

Thus men have declared a divorce between the education of the intellect and of the will. The training of the one is eagerly followed up, while the other is left to the shifts and Examples of this are the great circumstances of chance. empires which have risen and have had their day, without recognizing God or His Christ as their Master and Lawgiver; such, for instance, were Babylon, Persia, Egypt, and China, and the great civilizations of Greece and Rome; such, in our own day, is England herself, so far as she patronizes and promotes the system of education called "mixed" or "godless."

But men have instituted more than a divorce; they have introduced the slavery of the parties divorced. For the mind of man is capable of a higher illumination than that of mere reason, and the will of a higher good than that which is purely natural. Now this higher illumination and this supernatural good were brought into the world by Him who came "illuminare his qui in tenebris sedent," and "ad dirigendos pedes nostros in viam pacis." He sits in the world, in the sanctuary of His Church, endowing His ministers with the power and the will to educate and illumine the intellect and to strengthen the feeble will.

The question, then, resolves itself into this: Is the training and cultivation of man to be confined to the litera humaniores, to the natural arts and sciences, and to the practice of natural religion, according to the highest theory admitted by the Pagans? In other words, Is a man, born into the supernatural order, to be educated as though he were merely a denizen of the natural order, living upon the earth as in a home, not an exile? Is it lawful for any man, who has been redeemed and purchased by a thousand titles, and at a divine price -who has definite and personal relations with God, and the mainted with a great body of

divine truth, to declare himself independent of these facts? and to deny that these supernatural truths are the food and the form of the intellect and will, or that they ought to be assimilated into his growth by the constant study and practice of them?

The answer to this elementary question is given in no doubtful accent. Dean Stanley, Mr. R. Lowe, M.P., Mr. J. S. Mill, M.P., Mr. Fawcett, M.P., Lord Amberley, M.P., Mr. Jowett, and Professor G. Smith, with the founders and abettors of the godless college system, and a thousand others in every rank of society in England; the directors of National Education in the United States of America; the philosophical school of Germany, and the positivist schools of France, unhesitatingly declare for the affirmative. More than this; the drift of English society is setting strongly in the same direction. In spite of the personal interest of 23,000 Anglican clergymen, and of some 40,000 dissenting ministers and preachers, Mr. Lowe's favourite measure for divorce between the education of the intellect and the will-between education and religion-receives every year a growing support. We are drifting back to the Paganism of Rome and Greece; but ours is a tenfold prevarication, for the light of the Synagogue never shone over Greece and Rome, but the light of Christ in His Church has shone over England and Europe. Alas for the feeble hold of the sectarian ministers on the minds and wills of their people! Alas for our country that, in the pride of their intellect men should preach a crusade against "the light," and advocate a return to mere natural and pagan education!

The tendency to make our national schools purely secular, and the intention to abolish religious tests from the national universities, have one common source and one direction; and both are pagan. The pride of intellect and the power of the world are darkness; and Lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebræ Eam non comprehenderunt.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has always taught the vital necessity of union between education and religion in every stage of life. She has consistently from the beginning claimed as her own the duty and authority to educate mankind. "Go forth and teach all nations; "He that heareth you heareth me;" these are the words of her royal charter. And although she does not claim as a part of her divine mission to instruct man in letters and the natural sciences, she is willing to instruct him even in these. And if from some cause or other this instruction falls into the hands of others, she asserts all the more strongly her claim to be present with her "auctoritate moderatrice, vi et influxu." She claims, in a word, to be our President during the whole work of our