Sidor som bilder

except, perhaps, at once to form the plan of a summer tour, in order to gaze at the mountains bathed in rose-coloured and purple light, and to stand under the hoary oaks and pines rising above the silvery lake of Annecy? Surely it would be a mistake to call the reading of a saint's life, written in this way, “spiritual reading." Nor are we, we think, in any way unfair in quoting the above passage, for the life of S. Jane Frances is literally full of similar picturesque descriptions. To us it seems that for lives of the saints designed for spiritual reading, the advice of S. Francis de Sales with regard to the ecclesiastical music of his holy daughters of the Visitation should be followed, of which we are told (p. 109) that it was his carnest desire that “the natural pleasure (taken in it) should be sweetly, gradually, and without violence checked and pruned, and never be allowed to stifle the growth of grace,” and that therefore the office tones should have no beauty to recommend them. We do not, of course, say that the natural pleasure we must all feel in such descriptions as that given above stifles the growth of grace in the soul ; but we do say that it distracts the mind from the true object, and deprives the soul of the true fruit of spiritual reading, just as beautiful figured music, although under certain restrictions it has its own work to do in the Church of God, would be both a disturbance and a bindrance to the worship of religious communities who have to sing the Divine Office or the Office of our Lady, much in the same way as spiritual books ought to be read, but of course in a less degree,-pausatim, and with reflection.

We may seem to have been pointing a moral at Miss Bowles's expense, for she does not profess to have written her work as a provision for spiritual reading. Again, therefore, we will say that such lives as that which she has written are especially valuable at the present time, and we know none more so than the one before us. As helping to correct the corrupt influence of the literature of the day, and as encouraging a pure and healthy taste in the place of so much that is sentimental and enervating, as well as making known this great Saint to many who would never read about her in any other way, it will be of incalculable benefit ; in hours of recreation, above all in the refectories of our religious houses, convents, and colleges, it will be most warmly welcomed ; nay, it will even importantly assist its readers in knowing those depths of the Saint's soul which cannot adequately be exhibited, except in some life framed on a different type. We are most anxious that we should not be thought to be desirous of discouraging biographical lives in their own proper place. It was to prevent this misconception that we repeated, over and over again in our April number, even at the risk of wearying our readers, that such lives were most important. But we contended then, and still contend, that what we have called the Italian or “hagiological” method, should not be allowed to fall into disuse, because of all methods it is the best adapted for the nourishment of the soul, inasmuch as it is founded on the actual results of the Saint's heroic lives, as brought to light and established in the Processes of Canonization,-results for which alone the Church now honours them upon her altars. We freely confess, that apart from spiritual reading, the biographical method has many advantages which might render it preferable to any other method; but if the Lives of


the Saints are to form, as they ought to form, a most important part of spiritual reading, the place of which no other spiritual works, even those of Rodriguez or Scaramelli, can supply ; if, according to F. Faber, all masters of the spiritual life tell us that the Lives of the Saints should be read slowly, pausatim, and a little at a time, then surely the style of the Processes is more suitable than the biographical method, which from its human interest is almost incompatible with spiritual reading in its strict sense.

We dwell at length upon this point, because we fear, notwithstanding all our efforts in our April article to prevent misunderstanding, a much valued contemporary, from whom we always differ with pain, and whose opinion on such points we should always wish to treat with the greatest respect, has in his last number, while noticing the very work before us, somewhat misunderstood the arguments on which the advocates of the Italian method would wish to rest their position. Far be it from us to run down any style of life which can do good to souls. The boundaries of the Church of God are wide, the wants of men's souls are many, and our mother's heart is large. All styles of Saints' lives are good, all are useful Writing in April we said : “By all means let us have Lives of the Saints of as great literary merit as possible, written from different points of view,-biographical, historical, psychological, intellectual,--all these are good and useful.” Surely, then, we could not be understood as running down the biographical method when we added : “But if we have at heart the growth of our people in holiness, do not let us lightly set aside or undervalue a method consecrated by the wisdom of past generations, which the foresight of our first Cardinal Archbishop inaugurated in the midst of us, and for which F, Faber so earnestly contended.” Who could say, for example, that the intellectual life of S. Thomas of Aquin, as written by F. Vaughan, was not greatly needed in England ; yet if we should contend that a life in which the heroic sanctity of the Saint should be more definitely brought forward still remains to be written in English, could we be said in any way to be running down F. Vaughan's admirable life? If not, then in contending for the necessity of “hagiological” as well as biographical lives, we can in no way be said to be running down the latter. To us it seems that in England, at the present moment, there is greater danger of the former being altogether superseded.

Our contemporary has also taken exception to the use of the term hagiological” in reference to the Italian method. For our own part, we have made use of the term partly for the sake of convenience, as opposed to “ biographical,"—the inner life of the Saint being more prominently set forward in the one case, the outer life in the other,--but much more because, as canonization has to do with the results of heroism, and not with historical or biographical interest, or with natural character; so the method which treats of those results seems to us more worthy of having applied to it the term “hagiological,” than that which deals more prominently with characteristics of the Saints, that had nothing to do with placing them on the altars of the Church. Hagiology, of course, may be taken in a wido sense ; but in the common language of the Church it bears, as we take it, a distinct and definite meaning, namely, the science of holiness as studied in the lives of the Saints and servants of God.

There is yet one other remark of our contemporary upon which we can hardly refrain from saying a word. F. Faber, it is said, the great advocate for the Italian method, was also the author of "All for Jesus," and of those other spiritual works by which his name will hereafter be chiefly known. " These books," it is further remarked, were meant, we suppose, for spiritual reading, as well as for other purposes, and we can hardly help smiling when we compare their attractiveness, their popular character, their absence of technical arrangements, their general brilliancy and discursiveness, with the series of Lives which he seems almost to have rejoiced in making comparatively stiff and ungainly.” Now we suppose F. Faber would have been the very last to wish his own spiritual writings to supersede the more methodical spiritual works which have treated of the science of holiness. He wrote to popularize dogma and spirituality, and t8 make men read about the doctrine of the Church, and the spiritual life, with which they would never become acquainted in any other way. We feel sure he believed—and his own attractiveness as a writer adds weight to his belief-that a far higher kind of spiritual benefit would be derived from reading, under due circumstances such Saints' lives as those which he edited, than could be obtained by the most constant study of such religious books as those which he wrote. The latter in his judgment, we are confident, would have achieved one of their very highest ends, so far as they might stimulate their readers to make due use of the former.

We can assure our readers that we write in no narrow spirit, with no wish to exclude any kind of life, with no desire to cripple the efforts of others who are trying to work for God's glory in the way which seems to them best, but simply and solely from a deep conviction of the immense importance of Saints' lives written upon the method which we have been advocating. Far then from running down biographical lives, to which we wish all success, we are but pleading for that other, and as we believe higher, method which has given so much spiritual nourishment to so many souls, that it may not be altogether set aside or forgotten. To us it seems, that “the life of a Saint on paper is the most perfect for all spiritual uses, when it represents, as far as may be, in its effect and influence on others," not so much "the life of the same Saint as it influenced those who saw and knew most of him while upon the earth," as the life which influenced the Church of God in declaring him to have reached the level of heroic sanctity, and therefore to be worthy of a place upon the altars of her Lord.

We have only to add that the materials for the biography of S. Jane F. de Chantal are stated to have been chiefly taken from two French works, Les deux Filles de Ste. Chantal, and the Abbé Bougaud's Histoire de Ste. Chantal, et des Origines de la Visitation.

[ocr errors]

English Church Defence Tracts, Nos. 1, 2, 3. London: Rivingtons. OT the least benefit, accruing from the Vatican Definition, has

been the cessation of that frivolous and shallow talk about corporate reunion with Rome, which at one time was in fashion with Dr. Pusey's friends. This talk produced a very undesirable result with certain excellently-intentioned but not clear-sighted Catholics, by inducing them to labour, in the supposed interests of charity, to pare down and minimize the Church's doctrines. We have ourselves always thought-and have often expressed our reasons for thinking—that one minimizing Catholic may easily inflict greater injury on the Church, than a hundred m

men of equal ability could do who assail her from without; according to the proverbial contrast, between open enemies and traitors (however unintentionally traitors) in the camp. Now, thank God, all this coquetting with heresy is necessarily at an end ; and we are glad to see that the Tracts before us assume towards Catholics the one reasonable attitude of Anglicans, uncompromising hostility. At the same time this position of public hostility (if we may so call it) affords no defence for the personal imputations, which here meet us at every turn; and which culminate in the denunciation of S. Alphonsus and “Jesuit casuistry,” wherewith the first tract concludes. One learns to be surprised at nothing : otherwise one would be transfixed with amazement that an admirer of Dr. Pusey-with the notorious “Eirenicon” fresh in his memory—should twit his opponents with being “unscrupulous in assertion ” and “ culpably careless as to the grounds of their statements.”

Again we have read with much pleasure some remarks in the third Tract. It is of great importance, we quite agree, that inquirers should fully understand, how wide and how profound is the intellectual submission required from every Catholic. Doubtless there are two or three overstatements on this head: to talk e.g. about “the pitiless energy of a Spanish inquisitor” is very misplaced rhetoric (p. 7); and to call thu “Cùm ex Apostolatûs officio” a dogmatic definition, is to trifle with a serious subject. But then on the other side there are actually passages, which might be more vividly coloured. We cannot admit (p. 10) that no utterance is ex cathedrâ which is not, in point of form, "addressed to all Christians”; nor can we admit the implication of the first Tract (p. 8) that S. Leo's Dogmatic Letter was not, on Vatican principles, an ex cathedra Act. As to the remarks on Pope Honorius (tr. 3, p. 10), and on what is ridiculously called the "qualifying clause " of Florence (tr. 1, p. 9)-these show that their writer has not even given himself the trouble to look at recent controversial literature.

Perhaps the most singular circumstance connected with these “ English Church Defence Tracts” is, that they do not contain one syllable of “defence” of the “English Church.” The second, indeed, upholds the validity of Anglican ordinations; but supposing its whole argument were conceded, it would only follow that the English Establishment possesses one charac

teristic, which every Anglican admits to be possessed by various bodies which he himself denounces as heretical. Yet even as regards this small matter, one most curious circumstance meets us in the Tract. There is no controversialist whose objections have a more peremptory claim on the attention of Anglicans, than F. Newman ; because he writes with special reference to Anglicanism, and against a theory which he himself held for many years of his life. No one would have thought it possible beforehand, that his arguments have been as simply ignored as though he had never written, and that his very name is passed over in silence. A greater compliment could not be paid to the irrefragable solidity of his reasoning.

Now for the first and third Tracts. There are two different classes of men, who may derive much theological light from ecclesiastical history, They who possess learned leisure, are able thoroughly to investigate the various facts and citations on which controversy turns; and the greater the

; number of those who do so, the better for Catholic interests. But there are many educated men, quite incompetent for this, who may nevertheless form a trustworthy judgment for themselves on the general bearing of ecclesiastical history. It is to this latter class that these Tracts purport to be addressed ; "readers who may not have time for deeper investigation”: and yet the Tracts do not touch the general features of ecclesiastical history, but are confined to those isolated passages which are only for men of learned research. How unscrupulously they handle these passages, F. Addis abundantly shows in the pamphlet to which we devote our next notice.

Suppose then such a reader as is professedly addressed in these Tracts, gave his mind to the issue involved: it is obvious what his first question would be. He would ask, What are the theses maintained by the respective combatants? what is that divinely-given constitution of the Church, which either party maintains to be testified by Tradition? The Roman Catholic answer is most intelligible. " The Church by divine appointment possesses corporate unity; and the means given her by God for preserving that unity, is the precept of strict union with the Holy See, imposed by Him on every baptized person.” Our inquirer next turns to the Anglican controversialists. “What then is your statement, gentlemen, as to that divinely-given constitution of the Church, which you allege to be testified by Tradition?” But not one word of reply could he obtain. Take e.g. the fundamental attribute of corporate unity. If they say that corporate unity is involved in the Church's divinely-given constitution, they ipso facto exclude themselves from the Church. If they say that corporate unity is not therein involved, they are brought into shameless contradiction with the unanimous and most express testimony of Antiquity. Let any educated man read through those impressive patristic passages on ecclesiastical unity, which Mr. Allies has brought together in his volume on "Dr. Pusey and the Ancient Church” (pp. 90-115). He begins with S. Clement, who was Pope before S. John's death, and carries the series un. interruptedly down to the time of S. Augustine. No one doctrine, so he plainly shows, more absolutely possessed the mind of the Fathers-not even the doctrine of our Lord's Incarnation and Resurrection—than the doctrine, that visible and indefectible unity is an essential attribute of the


« FöregåendeFortsätt »