let us follow in the direction he has pointed out, and prove to him, by redoubled activity, that we understand his idea, and cordially enter into his designs" (p. 410).

now

So much, for the moment, on the effect which the Encyclical may have on the study of physics. But what we are directly concerned with is the effect it will have in the schools of philosophy and theology. The Pope, in this most grave Letter, does not speak directly of theology. That unity in scientific principle and method which, as we have said, it is the object of the letter to bring about, already exists, at least to a considerable extent, in the schools of theology. Nevertheless, the Pope most certainly has in his view the teaching of theology. This is evident, because in the first place he quotes a long passage of Pope Sixtus V. in praise of Scholastic theology, for the purpose of saying, as he does in his own words, that Scholastic theology derives all its excellence "only from the right use of that philosophy which the masters of the schools have wisely and generally agreed to adopt even in their theological lectures." It is clear, moreover, that there can be no such theory as a science of theology without philosophy; and if a philosophy must be chosen, no doubt now remains as to what philosophy the Pope recommends. The consequence of the Encyclical will be, then, the general adoption of Thomistic theology. Now it need not be said that in theology, as commonly taught, there are two distinct elements, viz., the conclusions, and the working out of the conclusions. A theology which contents itself with conclusions is only a magnified form of elementary catechism. But even as regards conclusions, it will, no doubt, happen that St. Thomas's opinions will now prevail. Considering, however, that the greater number of theological controversies turn precisely on the question of what St. Thomas's opinion really is, there will still be left ample room for discussion. And then, it must be remembered, unity means progress, not stagnation. If all are agreed, no time will be lost in discussing the present situation or disputing as to the ground which is actually occupied; but all can look forward and bend their whole energy to fresh developments and further discoveries in the realms of truth.

But we cannot help anticipating that a great change will presently come about in the "method" of theological teaching. Want of time and the requirements of the Apostolic mission on the one hand, and modern controversy and literature on the other, have combined to abridge and attenuate, in many of our schools, at home and on the Continent, the course of theology proper. The Encyclical Eterni Patris is a distinct indication that the Holy Father wants this subject to be reconsidered. Scholastic philosophy is no light matter to learn, and, when

learnt, it is meant to be used. We, therefore, look forward to a movement in a threefold direction. First, Theology will be treated with more development, after the manner of the Scholasties. The great subjects of Catholic teaching which make up revelation, as distinguished from the preambula Fidei-God, the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Holy Eucharist, and Divine Grace-will receive a fuller and more extended consideration, by means of the terms, views, and methods of the great Scholastic doctors. To carry this out with even fair completeness will take time; and therefore it may be prophesied that the course of theology will now be longer than it has been. Secondly, the text of St. Thomas himself will receive greater attention than hitherto. It is, to some extent, a prevailing opinion that the Sums of the Angelic Doctor are rather a repertory of conclusions than a developed course of theology. The truth is that St. Thomas himself, especially in the great Sum, has applied the terms and science of Aristotle to every department of Catholic truth, with a thoroughness of exposition which students can only realize by reading the original. It is true the "Summa" is an abridgment; no one who goes through, for instance, the commentaries on the "De Anima," but must marvel at the way in which the great Doctor, in the later work, compresses whole columns of philosophic discussion into a pregnant sorites or a few brief enthymemes. But, for all that, the "Summa" is long enough to contribute the most admirable mental and theological training which can possibly be given to a student. What we look for is, that our seminaries will read the greater "Summa;" if not article by article, at least such a selection of articles as may fairly represent it. Thirdly, It would take not one but several papers to show how the Encyclical will affect the study of the Scripture and of the holy Fathers. Such courses as that of Cardinal Franzelin we hold to be among the truest developments of Scholastic Theology. It would also take us long to discuss its bearings on moral theology, on modern religious controversy, and on the war with Agnosticism, Sensualism, and other Rationalism. But this may be said, that its effects will be to make priests and cultured laymen study the enemy less and trust to their own arms more. In a very true sense, it is a disadvantage and a drawback to have read heterodox literature; it troubles the mind, taints the imagination, disturbs the serenity of the orb of truth, and, to say the least, takes up time and room. On the other hand, if Catholicism and St. Thomas's exposition of it are true, nothing can be more powerful, both as a means of mental culture and as a resource for the persuasion of others. But the power of Catholic truth, in this sense, depends upon its being in the mind as a broad kingdom, extended, developed, VOL. XXXIV.—NO. 1. [Third Series.]

Р

defined, and perfect in every part. The Scholastic exposition is exactly adapted to bring about this happy effect; and, therefore, the more one studies St. Thomas the less one need know, by actual experience or first-hand acquaintance, of those numberless modern books whose very multitude sometimes tempts the Catholic apologist to despair.

We have dwelt on Scholastic Theology, because Scholastic Theology means Scholastic Philosophy. And here for the present we leave the subject. How Thomism is related to the origin of ideas, to physical science, to modern liberties and theories of government, what text-books are best, and what methods of teaching are most effective-these, with many other considerations and details, we look forward to being able to treat in future Articles.

ART. VIII. THE ALLEGED GALLICANISM OF MAYNOOTH AND OF THE IRISH CLERGY.

THE

HE Article on "Theology, Past and Present, at Maynooth," published in the October Number of the DUBLIN REVIEW, plainly calls for a reply from the College, the traditions of whose theological school it represents in so unfavourable and, as I shall show, so misleading a light.

§ 1. Introductory.

In that Article Maynooth is charged with having " for nearly half a century" "carefully" cultivated and propagated through the lectures of her professors, and through her authorized textbooks, in "dogmatic" and in "moral" theology, "the Gallicanism of the Sorbonne "-a theological system which, at least as regards its dogmatic tenets, no theologian can hesitate in stigmatizing in terms of as strong emphasis as those employed by the learned writer of the Article, as so essentially at variance with the fundamental principles of ecclesiastical subordination as established in the Church by her Divine Founder, that if Maynooth could in truth be charged with what is thus set down against her she should unquestionably plead guilty to that further count of this formidable indictment, in which it is so circumstantially alleged that, through her influence and action, "the Irish clergy" became imbued "to the core" with the principles

"Theology, Past and Present, at Maynooth," by the Very Rev. Dr. Neville, Rector of the Catholic University of Ireland. DUBLIN REVIEW, October, 1879, pp. 449, &c.

and tenets of this "alien theology," which thus "balefully affected the youth and manhood of the Irish Church, misdirecting their professional studies, and, if not entirely estranging their feelings of allegiance, at least sensibly weakening them towards the true object of Catholic loyalty"-the Holy See.*

Thus arraigned, Maynooth, of course, cannot allow judgment to go by default. She pleads not guilty. And she claims for her reply a fair hearing; not, indeed, from Irish readersfor in Ireland, judgment has long since been given in her favour -but from those in England, and in more distant lands, where her history, and the living evidences of the work of her earliest years, cannot be so familiar as they are at home.

I

For many reasons I am anxious that the duty of repelling those statements, which has thus been forced upon me, should be discharged in the most purely abstract and impersonal way. should, indeed, be desirous, if it were possible, to avoid even the most distant reference to their author, or to his past or present official position in the educational hierarchy of the Irish Church. But, unfortunately, it is not possible for me, without some such reference, to state my main reason for writing at all in refutation of statements which I dare say many old and zealous friends of the College may be of opinion should rather be allowed to pass unnoticed, as so obviously at variance with known facts as to carry with them their own refutation. That course, indeed, I should perhaps have adopted if those statements had been put forward in the anonymous form favoured by other Reviews. But I find it impossible—and I am reminded on all sides that it is impossible-to allow them to pass unrefuted now, placed as they have been on permanent record, attested by the signature of a writer whose official positions, past and present, are such as could not fail, in the absence of a formal protest in the next number of the REVIEW, to lead the ecclesiastical historian of a future age to regard them as unquestionable.

But having thus disposed of all necessity to make further reference to the learned writer of the Article, I shall endeavour to deal with the statements it contains, altogether abstracting from their authorship, and viewing them solely as regards the so-called "facts" which they set forth. Of those statements, then, I shall select three, which seem to me to comprise the entire gist of the charge with which I have to deal. And lest, from the strangeness of some portions of this charge, I should

The passages marked in this paragraph as extracts from the Article will be found in the October number of the REVIEW, on pages 455 and 461.

seem to do injustice to the distinguished author of the Article, I shall set them down in his own words-first, however, stating, as it surely is not out of place for me to do, that as regards the really objectionable portions of the statements, there is not in the Article, from first to last, any proof, or attempted proof, put forward in sustainment of them: they come before us resting solely on the unsupported authority of the writer, who, notwithstanding all the weight that would unquestionably be due to his opinion if there were any controversy on the merits of the theological questions involved, cannot surely object to our desiring something beyond mere statement, something in the shape of evidence, when the question raised is exclusively one of historical fact.

Although, however, the burthen of disproof does not lie upon me, I should not have thought of writing at all, if I were not in a position to undertake it and to place beyond question, as I hope to do before the close of this Paper, the utter impossibility of reconciling the statements of the Article with the ascertained facts of the case-facts, of which, fortunately for the theological reputation of the College, abundant and incontrovertible evidence is still extant and forthcoming.

§2. The Three Counts of the Indictment.—(1) “The careful Cultivation in Maynooth, for nearly half a century, of the Gallicanism of the Sorbonne;" (2) "The College Class-Books, its faithful expression;" (3) "The Irish Clergy thus Gallicanized to the core."

Let us, then, take the three statements in the words of the Article itself. The first is this:

I. Gallicanism in dogmatic theology, Gallicanism in moral theology, the Gallicanism of the Sorbonne, the Gallicanism of the Clerus Gallicanus of the last century, was the teaching brought to Maynooth by the French refugee professors, and there carefully cultivated for nearly half a century (p. 455).

Furthermore, lest any misconception should exist as to the full meaning of the charges thus conveyed, it may be well to quote from the Article the circumstantial exposition of this "Gallicanism of the Sorbonne," as set forth with characteristic precision of statement by the writer himself.

The dominating influence of the Sorbonne.

which unfortu

nately stands before us in history as the mouthpiece of the Clerus Gallicanus. contributed, and largely, to make the whole Church of France appear to be responsible for Gallicanism.

The French theology of the eighteenth century exhibits two anomalous departures from the common teaching: first, Gallicanism; second, an exorbitantly severe system of Ethics. The former had for its end