ever increasing amazement, how assertions of this kind can ever have been made. Certainly, if ever there were a matter on which a Catholic public writer is bound to speak-with which every educated Catholic layman is intimately concerned-it is the obligation of assenting to the Church's judgment on things primarily philosophical or political. It is quite imaginable, undoubtedly, that the Catholics of some given country fully recognize the obligation of accepting these judgments with firm interior assent, but that they do not care to inquire which of their number are strictly infallible. We have more than once expressly admitted (see, e. g., Oct. 1867, p. 333) that had this been the case in England, it would have been quite indefensible on our part to intrude on their notice theological discussions about infallibility. We have expressly admitted that, on such a supposition, the controversy on the extent of infallibility should have been reserved for the theological schools. But facts were directly the other way. A constantly increasing number of educated Catholics took for granted, that those judgments (though they should not be spoken against) were altogether to be ignored; and that Catholic speculation was to proceed irrespectively of their instruction. Yet the Holy Father expressly declared in the "Quantâ curâ," that he had condemned "the chief errors of our most unhappy age in many Encyclicals, Allocutions, and other Apostolic Letters"; and it was eminently to the teaching of such Allocutions and Apostolic Letters, that these thinkers disavowed all obligation of firm interior assent. It cannot be a small matter, that various "chief errors of this our most unhappy age" should be embraced by children of the Church. And the evil would of course have become greater and greater, in proportion as higher education should make further advance among Catholics, without this particular mischief being corrected. If any one will explain to us, how we could have laboured with any success against the mischief in question, otherwise than by introducing these discussions about infallibility, we will listen carefully to his suggestion. We only say that we could not and cannot think of any other possible means. But our sole wish in the matter has been, that those various ecclesiastical judgments, which are not definitions of faith and which pronounce on matters primarily philosophical or political, should receive that firm interior assent which is their due. Here, in conclusion, we must digress a little from the general drift of our argument, to explain what has just now been said. We must speak of the firm assent due from every VOL. XII.—NO. XXIV. [New Series.] 2 c Catholic to those doctrinal instructions officially sanctioned by the Holy Father, which are either not certainly infallible, or are even certainly not infallible. An obvious and prominent example of the last case is afforded, by those doctrinal decrees of a Pontifical Congregation, which are not in such sense made his own by the Pontiff himself as to be pronouncements ex cathedrâ. Concerning these non-infallible decrees—Pius IX. expressly teaches in the Munich Brief, that perfect " adhesion towards revealed truths" cannot be obtained, unless "men of science submit themselves to " the said decrees: and the whole course of proceeding at Rome invariably implies, that firm interior assent to them is due from every Catholic. We have often illustrated the nature of this assent, by referring to a youth of fourteen years old, instructed by a father (whose character he has every reason for respecting,) in the facts and principles of history. He accepts the whole instruction with unreserved assent, nor does the very thought of its being erroneous in any one particular so much as enter his mind; and yet he knows that it is not infallible. But the reasons for firm assent in the case before us are far stronger than in that which we have given as parallel. The endemic and pervasive tradition of the local Roman Church is really infallible; and from that Church all other churches, as Pius IX. declares, are to derive their doctrine. But of that tradition the various officials of the Pontifical Congregations, acting as they always do under the Pope's immediate supervision and direction, are the special depositaries and guardians. Moreover it is the Holy Father-entrusted as he is by God with the office of "teaching, governing, and piloting the whole Church"-who places these decrees before his children as claiming their assent. Living theologians of very high authority do not hesitate to assert, that every such doctrinal declaration possesses what they call "the infallibility of security, even where it does not possess "the infallibility of truth." In other words, they consider it infallibly certain that, under the circumstances of the time, religious truth is gravely injured if such declaration be interiorly disbelieved; and, on the other hand, is importantly promoted, in proportion as firm interior assent is yielded to it by the body of educated Catholics. We are only aware of one instance, in which it has even been alleged that any such declaration was erroneous; viz., the condemnation of Galileo. Different theologians solve this case differently. For ourselves we have repeatedly argued, that the doctrine of that decree was the one legitimate conclusion from all then cognisable data; and that those who did not at the time yield firm assent to that doctrine, by necessary consequence fell into one or other serious doctrinal error. In fact, "Liberal Catholics" in their own persons emphatically testify, that intellectual submission, to an authority not strictly infallible, may often be the imperative dictate of reason. They will often use language of this kind :-"I neither hold," they will say, "that the Mirari vos' is infallible, nor even "that I am under any kind of obligation to accept its teach"ing. I am no theologian; I cannot examine the matter for "myself. But A. B., that distinguished French bishop,"-or "C. D., that distinguished German theologian,"—or "E. F., "that distinguished Catholic of some other country,"-as the case may be "in whose opinion I have unbounded confidence, assures me that there is no such obligation; nay, that he "does not himself assent to the teaching of the Mirari vos."" Well, but Pius IX. distinctly said, in his letter to M. de Beaulieu, that "humble submission " is due to that Encyclical; and Gregory XVI., who issued it, pronounced the same judgment in every variety of shape. "Yes," reply the Liberals, "but these statements were not ex cathedrâ and infallible."* Is A.B., then, or C. D. or E. F. infallible? Of course not. These men will yield firm interior assent to the dicta of a mere A. B., or C. D., or E. F.; and will yet refuse credence to the most emphatic words of him, whom the Church has infallibly declared to be "the teacher of all Christians." We have been led into the whole course of thought which this article has exhibited, by some recent criticisms of the DUBLIN REVIEW. And we will now briefly apply it-so far as we have not done so already-to our own case. It is the duty of a Catholic Review to enter on various matters of philosophy and religious politics; and it is of course therefore also its duty, to impress on its readers the obligation of accepting heartily all the Church's decisions within those spheres. Here in England there is a class of Catholics, uninfluential perhaps in numbers but certainly influential in ability, who expressly deny the existence of any such obligation and it was therefore our duty to contend against these Catholics. But we have always felt the greatest objection to indulging in mere invective and declamation; in expressing strongly any doctrine, not universally received, without also expressing our reasons for its acceptance. To act otherwise has always seemed to us a course, both in itself unworthy, and also quite sure to fail in impressing opponents. Now (as we said a page or two back) we did not, and do not, see *It can hardly be necessary again to say, how overwhelming is the evidence establishing the strictly ex cathedrâ and infallible character of the "Mirari Vos." how we could have given reasons for the obligation of which we speak, without discussing the extent of the Church's infallibility. It was precisely (what we must account) their contracted notions on this head, which seemed to us the very foundation underlying the various errors of those whom we desired to oppose. We have said this repeatedly. We have begged those of our critics who agree with us on the perilousness of these men's intellectual habits and tendencies, to explain how we could have opposed such habits and tendencies in any other way. No one has yet responded to our appeal and favoured us with any suggestion; yet we do not find that their animadversions are on that account the less severe. We have argued in the present article that the Church encourages these "aggressive controversies"; and that there is nothing in them which tends to obscure or disparage her unity of faith. And we further think that a Catholic Review is more suitably occupied with such controversies as these, than even with attacks on Protestantism. We have three reasons for this opinion. Firstly, a far smaller number of Protestants, than of Catholics whom we account unsound, hear of what is said in a Catholic Review. Secondly, there is much less danger of Catholics apostatizing, than of their unwarily embracing this or that condemned non-heretical error. And thirdly, though the former course is an immeasurably greater evil to themselves, it may in some cases be a less evil to the Church: for they do not remain to corrupt and taint her atmosphere. At the same time we fully admit, that a right thing may be done in a very wrong way. We do not here refer to any doctrinal mistakes into which we may be thought to have fallen, for that would be to revive a controversy of which our readers have had a surfeit: we refer to faults of language, of tone, of manner. We have no doubt at all—and we deeply regret the circumstance that we have fallen into many such faults; and we heartily wish we saw their character more clearly, that we might learn to avoid them in future. We may be allowed to mention however-what we are sure will be borne out by all who have kindly made the experiment that we have always received with much gratitude every suggestion for our improvement. And we will only add, as pleas in mitigation of judgment, (1) that every one has his own way of doing things, which is not exactly the same as other people's; and (2) that as our critics will themselves be the first in admitting it is very far easier to criticise than to perform. ART. V.-THE CONVENT CASE. Saurin v. Star and Kennedy.-Sole Unabridged and Authentic Report, with a Preface by JAMES GRANT, author of God is Love. Ward, Lock, & Tyler. "HOW TOW will you be tried ?" asks the officer of an English court of every man put on his trial? and the formal answer is, "by God and my country." The prisoner is said, in legal phrase, to "put himself upon his country," "which country," adds Blackstone," the jury are." We have then high legal authority for saying, that trial by jury tests not only the guilt or innocence of the prisoner at the bar, but the justice or injustice of his country. It has been made a charge against Ireland, that there have been times when men guilty of crimes against the law of the British Empire cannot be convicted by an Irish jury fairly chosen, and hence men have inferred, not merely "judex," but " Patria damnatur cum nocens absolvitur." If then, in any country the innocent have but too much cause to dread a jury, and would choose, if they could, to be tried by a judge alone, rather than by "their country," we must repeat "Patria damnatur." This seems to be the first teaching of the trial in the suit against the Irish nuns at Hull. It affords us some degree of test, how far England has yet learned to do justice to Catholics. It may seem at this moment almost superfluous, to remind our readers what the question was, which the jury was empanelled to try. But in these days more than ever before, new matters chase each other through the public mind like the shadows of clouds over the sea, and before our article is in our readers' hands, what "everybody" knows while we are writing, half the world may already have forgotten. Let us say then, that Miss Saurin, an Irish lady, demanded damages for a civil injury done her, as she alleged, by Mrs. Star, late superior of the sisters of mercy at Hull, and Mrs. Kennedy her assistant. She entered the Institute in Baggot Street, Dublin, in August, 1851, and was professed in 1853. In 1858, she was sent to a house at Clifford, in Yorkshire, of which Mrs. Star was superior, and from thence to Hull. She swore in court : I was on excellent terms with Mrs. Star and Mrs. Kennedy. Until 1860, my life passed very happily. Sometime in that year Mrs. Star asked me to tell her my confession-what had passed between me and my father |