peculiarity of the bones being in a bark box, evidently of small size
for convenient transportation, the fact that no other priest died at the
mission who could have been similarly interred, leads irresistibly to
the conclusion that Father Jacker is justified in regarding the remains
found as portion of those committed to the earth two centuries ago.
It is now for the Catholics of the United States to rear a monument
there to enclose what time has spared us of the “Angel Guardian of the
Ottawa Missions.”
JOHN GILMARY SHEA.
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
MISCELLANIES. By Henry Edward, Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster. First
American Edition. New York: The Catholic Publication Society Co., 9
Barclay Street. 1877.
The various papers contained in this assortment of miscellaneous
articles from the pen of Cardinal Manning consist of addresses before
several _Academias_ or other societies, contributions to the _Dublin
Review_, and short essays, most of which, we believe, have been before
published in English magazines or newspapers, or in the form of
pamphlets. They are on current topics of immediate interest, well
adapted to the times, and written in a plain, popular style. One general
tone of defence and explanation of the Catholic cause in respect to
matters now of conflict and controversy between the Catholic Church and
her opposers runs through them all, giving a real unity of purpose and
objective aim to the collection, various and miscellaneous as are its
topics. The most important and interesting papers, in which the force of
the whole volume, of all the cardinal’s principal works, of the efforts
of his entire career as a prelate in the church, is concentrated and
brought to bear upon the central point of anti-Catholic revolution, are
the first and last. The first one is entitled “Roma Æterna: a Discourse
before the _Academia_ of the Quiriti in Rome on the 2615th anniversary
of this city, April 21, 1863.” The last one is entitled “The
Independence of the Holy See,” and we do not know whether or not it was
published before it appeared in the present collection. It has always
been characteristic of the cardinal’s mind, and of the doctrinal or
polemic expositions of Catholic truth put forth by him, to perceive and
seize the principle of unity. While he was still an Anglican archdeacon
he embraced and advocated general principles of Catholic unity, so far
as he then apprehended them, with remarkable clearness and precision.
These principles led him into the bosom of Catholic unity, and their
complete and consequent development in all their conclusions and
harmonious relations has been the one great aim and effort of his
luminous and vigorous mind since he became a Catholic ecclesiastic, both
as an orator and as a writer. This clear, direct view of the logical
order and sequence of constitutive, Catholic principles made him one of
the most thorough and firm advocates of the spiritual supremacy of the
Holy See, before and during the sessions of the Vatican Council. The
Papacy, as the very centre and foundation of Christianity, and therefore
the principal point of attack and defence in the war between the
Christian kingdom and the anti-Christian revolution, has been the
dominant idea in the mind of Cardinal Manning. The indissoluble union of
the papal supremacy with the Roman episcopate, and therefore the
dependence of Christendom on the Roman Church as its centre, its head,
the great source of its life, is the topic to which at present his
attention is more specially directed. The Roman Church, and, by reason
of its near and close connection, the Italian Church, as the permanent,
immovable seat of the sovereign pontificate, is identified with the
prosperity of Christendom. The head and heart of the Catholic Church are
there, whereas other members of the great, universal society of
Christians are only limbs, however great and powerful they may be. The
logical and juridical mind of Cardinal Manning grasps in its full import
the whole Roman and Italian question of present conflict as the vital
one for all Christendom. And, as we have said, the first and last papers
in his volume of _Miscellanies_ are of permanent value and importance,
on account of his clear and masterly exposition of this great
controversy. We will quote a few salient paragraphs in illustration and
confirmation of our opinion on this head:
“It is no wonder to me that Italians should believe in the primacy of
Italy. Italy has indeed a primacy, but not that of which some have
dreamed. The primacy of Italy is the presence of Rome; and the primacy
of Rome is in its apostleship to the whole human race, in the science of
God with which it has illuminated mankind, in its supreme and world-wide
jurisdiction over souls, in its high tribunal of appeal from all the
authorities on earth, in its inflexible exposition of the moral law, in
its sacred diplomacy, by which it binds the nations of Christendom into
a confederacy of order and of justice—these are its true, supreme, and,
because God has so willed, _its inalienable and incommunicable primacy
among the nations of the earth_.... The eternity of Rome, then, if it be
not an exact truth, is nevertheless no mere rhetorical exaggeration. It
denotes the fact that Rome has been chosen of God as the centre of his
kingdom, which is eternal, as the depository of his eternal truths, as
the fountain of his graces which lead men to a higher life, as the
witness and guardian of law and principles of which the sanctions and
the fruit are eternal.... I shall say little if I say that on you, under
God, we depend for the immutability not only of the faith in all the
radiance of its exposition and illustration, and of the divine love in
all its breadth and purity and perfection; you are also charged with the
custody of other truths which descend from this great sphere of
supernatural light, and with the application of these truths to the
turbulent and unstable elements of human society.... You are the heirs
of those who renewed the face of the world and created the Christian
civilization of Europe. You are the depositories of truths and
principles which are indestructible in their vitality. Though buried
like the ear of corn in the Pyramids of Egypt, they strike root and
spring into fruit when their hour is come. Truths and principles are
divine; they govern the world; to suffer for them is the greatest glory
of man. “Not death, but the cause of death, makes the martyr.” So long
as Rome is grafted upon the Incarnation it is the head of the world. If
it were possible to cut it out from its divine root, it would fall from
its primacy among mankind. But this cannot be. He who chose it for his
own has kept it to this hour. He who has kept it until now will keep it
unto the end. Be worthy of your high destiny for His sake who has called
you to it; for our sakes, who look up to you as, under God, our light
and our strength” (“Rom. Ætern.,” pp. 3–23). These words were spoken
fourteen years ago, but they are reaffirmed now by their new
republication, and the similar language of the closing paper of the
volume.
In this last paper, on “The Independence of the Holy See,” the cardinal
speaks more particularly and definitely of the temporal sovereignty of
the Holy See. As the spiritual supremacy of the Pope, in his office as
Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter, is closely bound to his
Roman episcopate, and the unity of the church depends on the Roman
Church, the “mother and mistress of churches,” so the peaceful and
uncontrolled exercise of the supremacy depends on the freedom of the
Pope in Rome. This freedom is secured only by complete independence,
which requires the possession of both personal and political sovereignty
as its condition. This citadel of all Catholic and Christian interests
being now the very object of the most resolute and uncompromising attack
and defence—the Plevna of the war between the Catholic religion and the
anti-Christian revolution—the cardinal, as a wise leader and strategist,
directs his principal efforts to sustain and advocate the right and
necessity of the Pope’s temporal sovereignty. The spoliation of this
temporal sovereignty has for its necessary effect, says the cardinal,
“the disintegration and the downfall of the Christian world” (p. 860).
Consequently, as the cardinal continually affirms, the redintegration
and reconstruction of the Christian world require the restitution of
that same sovereignty. “There is one hope for Italy. It is this: that
Italy should reconcile itself to the old traditions of the faith of its
fathers, and should return once more to the only principle of unity and
authority which created it” (p. 848). “If the Christian world is still
to continue, what is happening now is but one more of those manifold
transient perturbations which have come through these thousand years,
driving into exile or imprisoning the pontiffs, or even worse, and
usurping the rightful sovereignty of Rome. And as they have passed, so
will this, unless the political order of the Christian world itself has
passed away” (p. 804).
In these last words is presented an alternative of the utmost
consequence and interest. Is the perturbation and disintegration final
or transient? If final, the church goes back to the state of
persecution, the reign of Antichrist is at hand, and the end of the
world draws near. _When Rome falls, the world._ If the Roman and Italian
people, as such, have apostatized, or are about to apostatize, then the
Roman Church, the foundation, sinking in the undermined and caving soil
beneath it, will bring down the whole crumbling fabric of Christendom
and of the universal world. If, therefore, there is any ground to hope
that this evil day is not yet, but that there is a triumphant epoch for
the church to be awaited, it is of the utmost consequence not to
exaggerate the present revolution in Italy and Europe into a national
and international apostasy, but to show that it is a revolution of a
faction whose power is but apparent and temporary. This is the
cardinal’s conviction, and a large part of his argumentation is directed
to its proof and support. “Why, then, is this gagging law necessary in
Italy? Because a minority is in power who are conscious that they are
opposed by a great majority who disapprove their acts. They know, and
are afraid, that if men speak openly with their neighbors the public
opinion of Catholic Italy would become so strong and spread so wide as
to endanger their power. And this is called _disturbing the public
conscience_. The public conscience of Italy is not revolutionary, but
Catholic; the true disturbers of the _public conscience_ of Italy are
the authors of these Italian Falck laws.... I know of nothing which has
imposed upon the simplicity and the good-will of the English people more
than to suppose that the present state of Italy is the expression of the
will of the Italian people” (pp. 842–47).
We cannot exceed the limits of a notice by adding more extracts or
giving the cardinal’s proofs and reasons. We trust our readers will seek
for them in the book itself. As there is no one more intelligently and
consistently Catholic and Roman in all his ideas than the cardinal, so
there is no one who can so well explain and interpret the same to the
English-speaking world. He is not only a prince of the Roman Church by
his purple, but an intellectual and moral legate of the Holy See, by his
wisdom, eloquence, and gentleness of manner, to all men speaking the
English language, a sure teacher and guide to all Catholics, whose words
they will do well to read and ponder attentively.
Before closing we cannot omit indicating one paper quite different from
anything we have before seen from the cardinal’s pen. It is the one on
Kirkman’s _Philosophy without Assumptions_, in which the eminent writer
shows how much he has studied and how acutely he is able to discuss
metaphysical questions. We may remark that this volume has been
republished in a very handsome style and form, and we cannot too
emphatically recommend it to an extensive circulation. The appendix,
containing in Latin and English the late splendid allocution of Pius IX,
whose thunder has shaken Europe, adds much to its value. This great
document is one of the most sublime utterances which has ever proceeded
from the Holy See. St. Peter never had a more worthy successor than Pius
IX. He watches by the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles, by God’s
command, as the angels watched by the sepulchre of Christ. What better
guarantee could we desire that the sovereignty and splendor of the
Papacy will come forth in glory from the tomb of St. Peter when the long
watch is ended?
BIBLIOTHECA SYMBOLICA ECCLESIÆ UNIVERSALIS. THE CREEDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
With a History and Critical Notes. By Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Biblical Literature in the Union Theological Seminary,
New York. In three volumes. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1877.
In respect to the literary and typographical style of execution, this is
a work worthy of commendation. Its intrinsic value for students of
theology is chiefly to be found in the contents of the second and third
volumes, where the author has collected the principal symbolical
documents of the Catholic Church, both ancient and modern, of the
Orthodox Orientals, and of the Protestant denominations classed under
the generic term “Evangelical.” The original text is given, with English
translations of documents from other languages. Among these documents,
those appertaining to the Eastern Christians have a special interest and
importance, because more rare and not so easily obtained as the others.
As a book of reference, therefore, the _Bibliotheca Symbolica_ deserves
a place in every Catholic theological library. The author is a scholar
of extensive erudition, and a very painstaking, accurate compiler, after
the manner of the Germans, and he has fulfilled a laborious and
serviceable task in gathering together and editing with so much
thoroughness and accuracy the collection of authentic documents
contained in these two bulky volumes, so well arranged and clearly
printed as to make them most convenient and easy for reading or
reference.
The first volume is not without some value as a historical account of
the origin and formation of the symbolical documents contained in the
other parts of the work, especially so far as relates to those emanating
from Orientals and Protestants. One important service his scholarly
accuracy has rendered to the cause of truth deserves to be particularly
noted—the distinct light in which he has placed the agreement of the
orthodox confessions of the East with the doctrine of the Catholic
Church, _exceptis excipiendis_, and their diversity from the specific
doctrines of Protestantism.
In his treatment of topics relating to the Catholic Church the partisan
polemic appears, as we might expect. The author professes to follow the
maxim that “honest and earnest controversy, conducted in a Christian and
catholic spirit, promotes true and lasting union. Polemics looks to
irenics—the aim of war is peace.” He expresses the wish to promote by
his work “a better understanding among the churches of Christ.” He
declares his opinion that “the divisions of Christendom bring to light
the various aspects and phases of revealed truth, and will be overruled
at last for a deeper and richer harmony of which Christ is the key-note”
(preface). This sounds very well in general terms; yet when the author
descends to particulars and practical questions, it is evident that
whatever meaning his terms have is only equivalent to the truism that
increase of knowledge is favorable to the cause of truth alone, and that
the prevalence of truth over error through genuine science, sincere
conviction, and conscientious obedience to known truth produces peace,
harmony, and charity by uniting the minds of men in one faith.
“Irenics,” in any proper sense, can refer only to parties who agree in
substantials, but, through mutual or one-sided misunderstanding, are not
aware of it, or to those who are in controversy about matters which do
not really break unity of essential doctrine between the contending
sides, but are carried on with too little moderation and candor by
vehement disputants. There is no “irenics” in matters essential and
obligatory between the right side and the wrong side, except the irenics
of combat, and no peace except that which follows the victory of the one
over the other. That an advocate of the truth of Christ should be honest
and candid in his argumentation against error, and charitable toward the
persons whose errors he attacks, is of course indisputable. Practically,
when Dr. Schaff finds himself in face of the Roman Church, he is obliged
to recognize that this view of the case is the only one possible. If the
Catholic hierarchy, and all the heads or representatives of the
different bodies of the so-called orthodox Christians, would consent to
meet together and adopt a confession in which all should agree as
embracing the essentials of Christianity, with a law and order which all
should likewise consent to establish, a visionary believer in progress
and the church of the future might with some plausibility argue that the
evolution of a higher form of Christianity would be the result. But Dr.
Schaff’s historical mind is too much accustomed to look at facts to be
deluded by such a chimera. “The exclusiveness and anti-Christian
pretensions of the Papacy, especially since it claims infallibility for
its visible head, make it impossible for any church to live with it on
terms of equality and sincere friendship.” We suppose that the view of
these pretensions which claims for them a divine origin and sanction,
and that which considers them “anti-Christian,” can hardly be called
“various aspects and phases of revealed truth.” The “exclusiveness” of
the claims is a point in which we both take the same view. The
ecclesiastical friendship to which the doctor alludes he justly regards
and proclaims an impossibility. While the Roman Church, and any other
church not in her obedience, co-exist, there must be polemics. Irenics
can succeed only when the Roman Church abdicates her supremacy, or any
other church or churches, refusing submission to it, yield to her
claims. The practical issue, therefore, is reduced to this: the old and
long-standing controversy between Rome and Protestantism. Dr. Schaff
comes forward as a champion of Protestantism and an assailant of what he
is too wary to call by its legitimate name of Catholicism, and therefore
nicknames after the manner of his predecessors in past ages, calling it
“Romanism” and “Vatican Romanism.”
We agree, then, on both sides, that the polemics and controversy must be
carried on. Yet, on the part of Dr. Schaff and those who fight with him,
it appears that a considerable part of the ground we have been
heretofore contending for is evacuated and given up to our possession.
“And yet we should never forget the difference between Popery and
Catholicism.” The issues, it appears, are a good deal narrowed, and that
will facilitate our coming to close quarters and to decisive, polemical
discussion, which we desire above all things. Dr. Schaff continues: “nor
between the system and its followers. It becomes Protestantism, as the
higher form of Christianity, to be liberal and tolerant even toward
intolerant Romanism” (p. 209). Probably the collective terms in this
clause are used distributively, as required to make it agree with the
preceding sentence. This is graceful and dignified in Dr. Schaff. Our
exclusiveness is indeed something hard to bear; we freely admit it. Our
apology for it is that we are acting under orders from above and have no
discretionary powers. Our own personal and human feelings would incline
us to open the doors of heaven to all mankind indiscriminately, and give
all those who die in the state of sin a purgatory of infallible efficacy
to make them holy and fit for everlasting beatitude. Yet as we have not
the keys of heaven, which were given to St. Peter with strict orders to
shut as well as to open its gates, we can do nothing for the salvation
of our dear friends and fellow-men, except to persuade them to take the
king’s highway to the gate of the celestial city, and not follow the
example of green-headed Ignorance in the _Pilgrim’s Progress_, who came
by a by-road to the gate, and, on being asked by the Shining Ones for
his certificate, “fumbled in his bosom and found none.”
We consider that we have not only the higher but the only genuine form
of Christianity. Dr. Schaff thinks Protestantism is the higher form
simply, and, therefore, that Protestants ought to be tolerant of our
intolerance. This is the most dignified attitude he could assume. On our
part, we agree with Ozanam that, in a certain sense, we ought to be
tolerant of error—_i.e._, in the concrete, subjective sense, equivalent
to tolerant of those who are in error, charitable, and, to those
especially who are themselves honorable and courteous in their warfare,
respectful.