one part of that Mass which we cannot pass over without mention-and that is the music.

Around the galleries of the dome there was a chorus of boys. Beneath them another of tenors; lower down, at the four domal pillars, four mingled choirs; far away at the end of the church, other choirs; and when these choirs took up one after the other, then one with the other, then one portion with the other, and then all combined, the effect of solo, duet, chorus, and combination of choirs, was marvellous. "Tu es Petrus," we hear from above. Surely it is the voice of angels in heaven-so soft is it, and so melodious. And as these voices descend, others join them, and alto and tenor and bass join, not in word, but in sound. From around the dome and through the building come the mystical words "Tu es Petrus "; and the accompaniment that floats from mid-air, and which sounds like the tones of many organs, is that of many choirs chaunting in harmony, and imitating in their tones the sounds of an orchestra. Faintly and solemnly their chaunt seems to be dying away, when from the choir at the entrance of the basilica it is caught up and thrown back by a hundred voices; and from portico to altar the words resound like peals of thunder, Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificabo ecclesiam meam. And when they return to the other choirs they are received with harmony. They are met in the dome by angelic voices, and on every side there is a choir ready to take up the theme, and to give with it due honour of accompaniment. Bewildering at first, astounding and electrifying was this composition of Mustafa. Critics may have found fault with it; but we may defy them to point out any modern composition, without any orchestral accompaniment, that has produced so wonderful a success. Throughout the whole of the basilica there was not a sound to be heard save those that came from the choirs. "C'est le ciel," said an old Dutch priest and really if we could all and one of us have distilled harmony as the singers did, we should have possessed one at least of the gifts that Lessius attributes to the blessed in heaven.

ART. VIII.-F. RYDER'S THEOLOGICAL CITATIONS.

Idealism in Theology. By Rev. F. RYDER. Notes A and C. London: Longman.

Triomphe du Saint Siège et de l'Eglise. Par MAUR CAPPELLARI, actuellement Grégoire XVI. Traduit de l'Italién, par M. l'Abbé JAMMES. Louvain: Vanlinthout.

WH

HOEVER reads F. Ryder's pamphlet with a view to the infallibility question, will at once pronounce, that by far its strongest point consists in its theological citations. The author's personal criticisms of Dr. Ward are merely personal criticisms, whatever their merit in that capacity. Again, his strictures on our treatment of the Galileo question have hardly more than a personal bearing. Coming to the question itself of infallibility, we do not think any great impression will generally be made, by the difficulties which he raises concerning "ecclesiastical faith." Then, as to the argument which we had derived for our doctrine from the express declarations of Popes and bishops, F. Ryder may almost be said to ignore it altogether. But his theological testimonies, as they stand in his pamphlet, look somewhat formidable. Some of the greatest names in theology figure in his list. We steadfastly maintain indeed that it is from the Ecclesia Docens, and not from theologians, that a Catholic is to learn his Rule of Faith. Still we frankly admit, that if these great writers really supported F. Ryder-if the Church, while herself teaching one doctrine, really permitted approved theologians to advocate its contradictory-the whole theology of the matter would be involved in inextricable confusion. Our readers however are well aware, that we strenuously deny every allegation of the kind.

Let us begin with stating most briefly the point at issue. In an earlier article of this number (p. 348) we divide the Church's doctrinal judgments into two classes: (1) definitions of faith, which condemn the contradictory tenet as heretical; and (2) minor doctrinal judgments, which brand the contradictory tenet with some milder censure. F. Ryder indeed considers the censure erroneous equivalent to that of "heretical"; and considers definitions of faith, therefore, somewhat more numerous than we do. But this being understood, the difference between him and ourselves is most easily stated. He

دو

confines the Church's infallibility to what he accounts definitions of faith, while we extend it to all her doctrinal judgments without exception. And coming to the particular issue now before us-he alleges that his view is supported by those theologians whom he adduces; while we maintain, not only that the case is otherwise, but that they would have been shocked at the very thought of such a doctrine as he ascribes to them.

Now we say with perfect sincerity, that we regard F. Ryder as having conferred a most important service, by examining theological works with reference to this question. It would be an endless task-and at last an entirely unsatisfactory oneif some advocate of our own doctrine were laboriously to look through the folios of a theological library, with the view of extracting every apparently adverse testimony. How could he satisfy others-how could he satisfy himself—that he had adequately accomplished his task? F. Ryder, on the contrary, has had every possible motive for diligent exploration. He feels very earnestly on his own side, and has displayed considerable theological reading: so that we have every reason for confidence, that the citations which he has brought together are, at all events, a fully sufficient sample, of the testimonies adducible against us. This is an advantage in the controversy which has not hitherto existed; and which must tend powerfully (we cannot but think) to its satisfactory termination. We much regret indeed, that in this particular article we are compelled to be more frequent than we could wish, in our direct references to F. Ryder; for we desire most strongly that the whole discussion should be as impersonal as possible. But as at this particular point of the combat our position is purely defensive, we must refer throughout to the details of that assault, which we are engaged in repelling.

The controversy stands thus. That the Church herself emphatically teaches our thesis, we have argued in our present number from p. 339 to p. 344. Our present question concerns merely the testimony of theologians. Every theologian who regards the Church as infallible in her various minor censures-who regards her, e. g., as infallible in her condemnation of Baius and Quesnel-gives the weight of his authority in our favour, and against F. Ryder; for nothing can be more certain, than that those condemnations contain no definitions of faith. See p. 369 of our present number. If some theologian can be found on the other hand, who denies that the Church is infallible in these minor censures-who thinks, e. g., that there can be any censured proposition of Baius or Quesnel which does not deserve its censure-that theologian gives

the weight of his authority in F. Ryder's favour, and against ourselves.

Take

It is F. Ryder's distinct proposition, then,* 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: nay, he alleges as most explicitly in its favour, no less names than those of Ballerini, and of Cappellari, afterwards Gregory XVI. Now in the first place consider this. S. Alphonsus, Viva, and many other theologians ("plurimi theologi," see p. 365 of our present number) denounce this opinion as actually heretical. the testimony of S. Alphonsus alone. If he has one distinctive peculiarity, it is his constant reference to the dicta of theologians on every different side. Then again, he was (so to speak) behind the scenes: he did not derive his knowledge merely from books, but was in contact with living theological tradition. Is it credible 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. Lugo declares it to be the common doctrine of theologians that she is infallible in all of them. F. Ryder himself (p. 52) says "the schola seems agreed in condemning, as at least proximate to error, the denial that any of the condemned propositions merit the censure which the Church attaches to them." Only he further considers, that various members of that schola did not "demand an absolute interior assent to the thesis, that the censured proposition deserves its censure." The following then, according to him, was their view: "It is close upon error to deny the justice of a censure; but you are not at all required interiorly to believe its justice." If a whole class of theologians held this very subtle and singular view, is it credible that not one of them should have expressed it? that they should all of them have stated the unlawfulness of denial, and not one of them have stated the lawfulness of interior dissent? Nay, they all used the word "error"; which

*Great part of the two succeeding paragraphs appeared in our July number.

surely, in its natural sense, refers rather to thought than to the expression of thought.

Here then are two antecedent improbabilities, the force of which it is difficult to exaggerate. It is difficult to exaggerate the improbability of the supposition, that a number of theologians have implied what confessedly no one of them ever expressed; and it is difficult to exaggerate the improbability of the supposition, that a number of approved theologians have held as true, what another number of approved theologians have been permitted to denounce as heretical.

We will now proceed to F. Ryder's individual citations; and we will assume that those of our readers who are interested in the matter, have his pamphlet at hand for reference. The great majority of his testimonies, it seems to us, may be dispatched very briefly; but there are two which demand more careful attention, viz., those from Ballerini and Cappellari. We will begin then with the former class; and it will be our simplest plan, to take them as they stand in F. Ryder's notes. We should add that in cases where F. Ryder's citations are obviously inadequate to his conclusion, and where the works of such theologian are not readily accessible to us, we shall not feel under the obligation of taking pains to look up passages from him of an opposite character. We first take up Note C The Sphere of Ecclesiastical Infallibility," p. 69.

on

(1.) Suarez says (de Fide, d. 5, s. 8, n. 4):-"It is a Catholic truth that the Pontiff, defining ex cathedra, cannot err when he authentically proposes something to the Universal Church as to be believed de fide." Well, Suarez does not say here that Papal infallibility is confined to this; and he does say immediately afterwards that it is not so confined. His question, as stated by himself, is "whether the Supreme Pontiff, even without a General Council, be an infallible Rule of Faith." In answer to this question, he first lays down (in the words quoted by F. Ryder) that infallibility appertains to him in its most obvious and palpable object-matter; viz., definitions of faith. Having given reasons for this opinion (nn. 4-6), he proceeds (nn. 7-9) to deduce therefrom three inferences. Since the Pope, argues Suarez, is infallible (without waiting for Episcopal assent) in definitions of faith ;-he is also infallible (without waiting for such assent), (1) in matters of universal discipline; (2) in canonizing Saints; and (3) in approving religious orders. For a fuller explanation of Pontifical infallibility under this last head, Suarez refers to an earlier work of his; and we will therefore follow him in that reference: de Religione, vol. iii. 1. 2, c. 17, nn. 19-22. The Pope, he considers, is most certainly infallible in pronouncing, that a certain