« FöregåendeFortsätt »
Church. S. Cyprian is as urgent and clear on this point as any modern Roman Catholic can possibly be. And their actions are even more irrefragable proofs of their true mind, than their words. If any one proved to demonstration that the modern Roman Catholic doctrine on Papal prerogatives is false, he would thereby show,--not at all that the Anglican communion is part of the Catholic Church,—but, on the contrary, that the Catholic Church has ceased to exist.
We have been not a little surprised by the absence of novelty in these Tracts ; not a point being attempted in them, which has not been long ago substantially met by Catholic controversialists. We have been more grieved than we can say, that Canon Liddon, who has elsewhere so powerfully defended a vital portion of the Faith, and for whom we desire to entertain unmixed respect, prefixes his initials to these truly discreditable productions.
Anglican Misrepresentations : a Reply to “ Roman Misquotations."
By E. W. Addis, of the Oratory. London : Burns & Oates. WHIS is (we think) the first publication of a writer, from whom we
expect signal services to the Church. He is no merely old-fashioned theologian ; but, on the contrary, while standing of course on the solidity of the ancient Rock, he labours to be thoroughly acquainted with the phenomena, and equipped with the weapons, of the present. We only wish he had begun with a worthier antagonist ; for it is poor work indeed, to deal with such wretched performances as these “ English Church Defence Tracts." We may add however, that he does his best under this disadvantage, by refusing to content himself with what might suffice as an answer to his feeble opponent, and by grappling thoroughly with the various questions he treats.
We cannot reprint the whole pamphlet, and we have some difficulty in making a selection out of its excellent materials. “By far the most important subject of which his opponent treats,” as F. Addis himself remarks (p. 4), is S. Irenæus's well-known passage on the “ potentior principalitas." We are not acquainted with any other controversialist whomsoever, to whom we would refer for so fair, complete, and lucid an exposition of this passage as F. Addis's (pp. 4–12). Then he has treated admirably (pp. 14-16) the recognition of Roman supremacy by the Council of Sardica. Again, in pressing the unanswerable arguments derived by Catholics from the phenomena of Nestorianism, he has added (what we have not otherwise seen adduced) the singularly strong language of Pope Sixtus III., on John of Antioch's submission (p. 29).
In pp. 30, 31 he says : “ Though the infallibility follows as a logical consequence from the constant teaching of the Fathers ...... it is not necessary to maintain that this consequence was in all ages of the Church
as clearly apprehended by every one as it is at present." We are disposed to wish he had pressed this a little further. We cannot ourselves see reason for confidence, that S. Cyprian (p. 14) or even S. Augustin (pp. 26-28) held explicitly and reflexly the full doctrine of Papal infallibility. We expressed more fully what we here intend, in July, 1867, pp. 29-33.
We shall look with keen interest for F. Addis's next publication.
Discussions and Arguments on various Subjects. By John HENRY NEWMAN.
London: Pickering. Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England. By John HENRY
NEWMAN. London : Burns, Oates, & Co.
E have to commemorate two new volumes of this new issue of
Newman's works. The first-named volume is composed of papers, some written before and others after his conversion. We confess we should have somewhat preferred an arrangement, under which the two classes had been kept apart, and the former accompanied throughout by corrective Catholic notes. But this is a comparatively small matter; whereas it is no small matter at all, that posterity shall have ready access to such masterly productions, as the lectures on Antichrist and on the relations of Scripture to Catholic dogma.
The second volume we have named shows, by a certain lightness and one might almost say jauntiness of tone, its anthor's then fresh delight in his escape from the heavy shackles of Anglicanism ; from those services which made him “shiver," and those formularies which made him “shudder.” We believe that the volume has produced a most powerful effect on English public opinion, in removing a thousand misconceptions of Catholic doctrine and practice, among multitudes even of those who are never likely to becomo Catholics. To mention one only of its many excellences, we have always thought that his treatment (Lecture IV.) of Mr. Blanco White's testimony on the state of religion in Spain, is among the most complete and exhaustive pieces of criticism anywhere to be found.
A Sermon Preached at the Requiem Mass for Miss Catherine Boys. By
AMBROSE ST. John, M.A., of the Oratory of S. Philip Neri, Edgbaston.
the sermon itself, lest we might be accused of exaggeration. Miss Boys was
a pious "evangelical" in the Church of England, when she first came across Mr. Henry Wilberforce and Mr. Ambrose St. John, as her Anglican incumbent and curate. Mr. St. John soon became a Catholic; and after heartrending conflicts and perplexities, not without quasi-miraculous help from the Mother of God, Miss Boys followed his example. She deliberately resolved on a single life ; for twenty years she devoted herself to deeds of charity ; she was (it may be said) sole foundress of the Deal Mission ; sh 2 constantly supported sixteen persons, having no more means on which to reckon than an income varying from £80 to £100 a year.
She was so venerated by her Protestant and Catholic neighbours alike, that on the day of her funeral, as F. St. John expresses it (p. 1): "The windows of the shop : are closed, blinds drawn down, work at a standstill, as if for the funeral of some member of the Royal Family." May she pray for those of both communions whom she has left behind, that they be brought into union of min. I and heart with each other, by union with the full truth!
We wish F. St. John had not introduced debateable matter into his otherwise so exquisite sermon. But we cannot agree with his implied opinion (p. 18, that Englishmen excel inhabitants of other countries in their hatred of hypocrisy and their love of truth ; nor do we see that any advantage results from “comparisons," which are proverbially “odious.” Indeed, F. St. John has worded his last paragraph strangely enough : “Though a most fervent Catholic and ardent lover of the Holy See and of every Catholic devotion, she was English to her heart's core ... especially in her hatreds and her loves. She hated dirt, she hated hypocrisy, and was, above all things, an intense lover of truth.” Such words run as though there were a certain antithesis, between loyalty to the Holy See or the practices of Catholic devotion on one hand, and hatred of hypocrisy or love of truth on the other. Tha: Miss Catherine Boys possessed these last qualities in truly noble fashion, we have no doubt whatever ; and she obtained every assistance towards this -not at all by being English—but by being “a most fervent Catholic, and ardent lover of the Holy See and of every Catholic devotion.”
The Creed of St. Athanasius. Charlemagne and Mr. Ffoulkes. By the Rev.
I. JONES, S.J., Professor of Theology at St. Beuno's College. London:
Burns & Oates. 1872. THIS admirable pamphlet of the learned Father Jones is a most welcome
publication in its present form. Our readers probably know it already in substance, for it appeared before in the “Month” for March and April of this year. It has been recast ; and if we had not been entirely satisfied with it in its previous form, we should say that the remodelling has added to its clearness and force. It is a thorough sifting of a theory rashly hazarded, and in a short compass contains all that has been said against the authority of the “Quicunque vult,” and at the same time most lucidly shows how utterly
baseless is that reasoning which would deprive us of that most marvellous compendium of Christian belief.
Mr. Ffoulkes is a prolific writer, who has been for some years busy with the traditions of the Church, with the faith we profess, and the discipline under which we live ; nor need we now repeat what we set forth a few years ago on his utter incompetency for such topics as he loves to handle. He has now openly deserted the communion of saints: he has entered the army of the adversary, in the midst of which he is fighting, apparently unaware, to his great loss, that they who fight against God will never want an enemy, and that God has never yet foregone the challenge. “ Cui deest gratia ecclesiæ," said John of Salisbury ; “ tota creatrix Trinitas adversatur.”
It is well known that since the revolution of 1688 the “Quicunque vult," or, as it is commonly called, the Athanasian Creed, has been regarded with disfavour among the Anglicans. Laymen denounced it, and the ministers of the established religion faintly defended it. Some of the latter never took any notice of it, and never read it from one year's end to the other. Of late this dislike has become strong, and the public sees, with a grim satisfaction, the men it has called learned and pious cry out for the suppression of a formula which very few believe, and which is not defended by those who think they believe it. This being the state of what is called the public mind, Mr. Ffoulkes very naturally took advantage of it, and, in another form, repeated a previous attack on the doctrine of the Most Blessed Trinity, which he had delivered in the book called " Christendom's Divisions," and again in an “Occasional Paper of the Eastern Church Association, No. VII.” The immediate object of attack then was the “Filioque”; but the assailant of the “Filioque” is, of necessity, an assailant of the whole Catholic faith. In some places, no doubt, Mr. Ffoulkes seemed to attack only the insertion of the “ Filioque" in the creed. Yet in other places he assailed by implication the doctrine itself.'
Besides, Mr. Ffoulkes is in favour, or was at one time, of union with the Greeks, who not only will not admit “Filioque” into the creed, but deny the doctrine. He was of opinion that the words in the creed “perpetuate the miserable schism.” Now, if the public use of them perpetuates a schism, so most assuredly will the belief in them ; for it is impossible to preserve the
. unity of the church without preserving also the unity of the faith.
Let us now return to the pamphlet of the learned Jesuit professor. Mr. Ffoulkes had undertaken to show that the Athanasian Creed is a dishonest forgery of Charlemagne and his friends,--a forgery, according to him, made for the purpose of changing the doctrine of the church. The Emperor has been for some time a bugbear to Mr. Ffoulkes, and we ought not to be surprised at any villany attributed to him. In this particular villainy of forging a symbol of orthodox doctrine he was aided, it seems, by good men, to say nothing more of them ; and yet good men in general abstain from forgery. But as the proofs are convincing to Mr. Ffoulkes, the character of Alcuin and others may not stand in his way, when he has made up his mind to bring so terrible a charge against them. Father Jones discusses this part of the case with admirable clearness and force, and even takes the trouble to show very grave reasons why it was very unlikely that Charlemagne should
VOL. XIX.-NO. XXXVII. [New Series.]
have given way to the criminal folly involved in forging a new creed. Though he does not make Charlemagne a perfect Christian, he does a good service by bringing out the excellences of his character, and the real nobleness of mind which he undoubtedly possessed : his sagacious rule and iron will, but at the same time his filial reverence for the Holy See.
It is not necessary to justify all the acts of Charlemagne, nor would it be necessary to lay aside the Athanasian symbol, even if it could be proved that it was a composition of the Emperor alone. There are many things in use in the church the authorship of which cannot be settled, or at least has not been settled up to this day. We should not be disposed to give up the “Veni sancte Spiritus,” if it could be proved to have been the work of King Robert : we recite it because it comes to us on another ground, not that of authorship or of beauty. So in the same way the symbol of St. Athanasius, even if it were the work of Charlemagne, will retain its place in the divine office in spite of its supposed origin. But, then, that origin cannot be proved. At present, however, there is no reason shown why we should change even its name. We and our fathers have received it as the “Symbolum S. Athanasii," and the designation is a thousand years old, by the confession of its adversaries. It is not very reasonable to suppose that so important a summary of Christian doctrine should have been accepted in ignoranee, and its name supplied by hazard or by fraud. Nor can we imagine any state of circumstances which could have helped it into the divine office, if its origin be, what Mr. Ffoulkes would have us believe, a fraudulent forgery.
“As long, therefore, as this creed cannot be shown to be of later date, or of another source, as long as it cannot be shown that there is in it or its history that which forbids us to cling to the time-honoured tradition that he, if not the author, gave it at least his sanction, I will not deem it a duty to call it by any other name ; but if the interest the present question has excited should be the occasion of revealing to us anything more of its obscure origin, I shall have no difficulty in accepting whatever may be in store for us” (p. 65).
These observations of Father Jones are most just ; for what right has anybody to suggest the abandonment of the creed, on the ground that he thinks it a forgery of somebody? Let us have some proof of the assertion, for most assuredly we ought to have something better to rest on than the guesses of men who do not believe the doctrine it contains, and who, for that very reason, perhaps, are too ready to discredit a writing which is inconvenient for them, and at variance with the opinions which they think they hold.
It seems to be admitted that the word or words, “Filioque” in the Nicene Creed had not received the sanction of the Pope for some time after that creed had been so “interpolated,” to use the words of Mr. Ffoulkes. But how, where, and when the change was made is a matter not quite so clear. We know that the chaplains of Charlemagne used the creed in its new form, and that it had been so used also in Spain for some 200 years before Charlemagne. Beyond this, the words “Filioque” in the Creed have not been traced ; nevertheless, it would be rash to say that the insertion was made for the first time in Spain, because there is no appearance of novelty about that insertion, and, for all we know, the Spanish bishops may have used the creed in its present form all their lives.