its revolution round the earth and of the earth's immobility in the centre of the universe. Think calmly and prudently whether the Church can allow a meaning to be given to Holy Scripture which is contrary to that of the Fathers and all interpreters, Greek or Latin. Do not say that this is no matter of faith: if it is not a matter of faith ex parte objecti, it is a matter of faith ex parte dicentis. Thus it would be heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons or Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny that Christ was born of a Virgin, because both assertions are made by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the Prophets and Apostles. If there were any true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe and that it does not revolve round the earth but the earth round the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed very solicitously and carefully in the explanation of those passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and rather to say that we do not understand than to say that what is demonstrated is false. . . In case of doubt we ought not to abandon the interpretation of the Fathers." 1

Here the Cardinal says, as plainly as words can speak, that geocentricism is the interpretation of the Fathers and all interpreters; that we must not say it-the literal interpretation—is no matter of faith; for although the relation of the sun to the earth is a physical and not a religious truth (ex parte objecti), the truth of the Scripture which affirms it is a religious truth (ex parte dicentis). Just as Abraham's having had two sons may not be denied, not because that is a religious truth, but because the truth of the Holy Spirit is as much involved in it as in the Gospel statement that Christ was born of a Virgin.

Now, how does Bishop Hedley torture this plain statement? He says:

'The Cardinal sees all the time that the Scripture statements as to the earth and the sun are not [!] really so plain and categorical as the statement about the sons of the patriarch. He sees, therefore, that the literalness of these statements could be denied [!] without necessarily proclaiming Scripture false. He sees, in other words, that the literal meaning cannot be of faith either ex parte materiæ or ex parte dicentis' ! !

Before such comment as this we can only rub our eyes and ask if black really can be white, and yes and no mean the same thing. 'Do not say,' writes Bellarmine, that this is no matter of faith: if it is not of faith ex parte objecti, it is of faith ex parte dicentis.' 'He sees,' coolly explains Bishop Hedley, 'that the literal meaning cannot be of faith either ex parte objecti or ex parte dicentis. But then we only know what Bell

1 Italicised by Bishop Hedley.

armine said: Bishop Hedley doubtless knows not only what he said but what he intended to mean.'

But how then, Bishop Hedley will ask, shall we deal with the passage he has italicized, which surely speaks of a doubt, and entertains the possibility of a future demonstration of the Copernican theory. Could he consider a view to be possibly reformable which had been declared to be a matter of faith? We do not think it difficult to answer this question. It is common in argument to put a case per impossibile. When a certain bookseller complimented a certain poet by saying, 'Sir, your epic will be read when Homer and Milton are forgotten-but not till then,' the poet was probably not very much flattered. The common saying, 'If the sky falls, then we shall catch larks,' does not imply any doubt of the stability of the firmament. In the same way, we submit, Bellarmine, per impossible, supposes a future demonstration of the Copernican theory, and speculates as to what course would then have to be adopted in interpreting the Holy Scripture, without at all admitting that such a demonstration would ever really be furnished. This was certainly the case with Caramuel, whom Bishop Hedley quotes on the next page as, 'notwithstanding the judgment of the Inquisition, considering that the heliocentric view might prevail.' Fortunately, Caramuel has explained the nature of his doubt. treating this question, he says:

Assero igitur, esse impossibile quod olim moveri terram demonstrative suadeatur. Quid si suaderetur demonstrative? Respondeo: Uno impossibili admisso, non esse absurdum si impossibilia et absurda sequantur.' 1

These are the words of Bishop Hedley's own witness, and we put it to him, Do they express the doubt of one who did or did not believe that the condemnation of heliocentricism was irreformable, and the supposition of its truth a manifest absurdity?

But, after all, Bellarmine is for ever silent, and although we know what he said, we do not profess to know, although Bishop Hedley is ready to inform us, what he intended to mean. That is not the case, however, with the Rev. Jeremiah Murphy, who has expressed a doubt concerning the possibility of demonstrating the evolution of man in almost exactly the same terms as Bellarmine's doubt as to the possibility of demonstrating Copernicanism.

1

P. 34.

Theologia Fundamentalis, lib. i. n. 28, p. 210; quoted by Roberts,

'On this ordinary meaning [of the text of Scripture] we can insist, unless the evolutionists show that there is sufficient reason for departing from it. This they have not done, and consequently the prima-facie Scriptural view need not be abandoned.'1

'If there were any true demonstration that the sun was in the centre of the universe &c., then it would be necessary to proceed very solicitously and carefully in the explanation of those passages of Scripture which appear to the contrary. In case of doubt, we ought not to abandon the interpretation of the Fathers.' 2

To Mr.

Here are doubts expressed in perfectly equivalent — practically identical-terms. Bellarmine, as we have said, is beyond our questioning, but Mr. Murphy is not. Murphy, therefore, we put the question: Does he consider 'the immediate formation of our first parents' to be doubtful, although, in his own words, it is asserted by the ordinary magisterium of the Church which we are as strictly bound to believe as if it had been defined by a General Council or by a Pope speaking ex cathedrâ'? Has he condemned Mr. Mivart's theory with the implicit understanding that it may possibly one day be proved to be correct'? If not, then we make answer to Bishop Hedley: 'Cardinal Bellarmine's doubt means just as much and just as little as Mr. Murphy's or Caramuel's.' If, on the other hand, Mr. Murphy only means. that Roman Catholics must hold the immediate formation theory to be infallibly true until science has proved it to be untrue, then we conjure him to say so, and put an end to a ridiculous discussion that begins and ends in an infallible doubt.

ART. V. THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC REACTION.

1. Renaissance in Italy. The Catholic Reaction. By JOHN ADDINGTON SYMONDS. In two volumes. (London, 1886.)

2. Chapters in European History. By W. S. LILLY. In two volumes. (London, 1886.)

3. Short Studies in Ecclesiastical History. A Biography. By the Rev. H. N. OXENHAM. In one volume. (London, 1885.)

IT was recently suggested in the leading literary journal of the day, that an inquiry into the reason for the interest which 1 Mr. Murphy quoted and italicized by Bishop Hedley, p. 405. 2 Cardinal Bellarmine quoted and italicized by Bishop Hedley, p 408..

the study of Italian literature has always aroused in this country would form a good subject for a prize essay. Such an essay might well rest for its basis upon the works of Mr. Symonds; for, among the many enthusiasts whom Italy enrols under her banner, it would be difficult to find one who has studied more profoundly the fascinating subject under all its aspects.

In the great highway of Italian literature, beginning with the Introduction to the Study of Dante, published some years back, through the more recent Italian Byways; from the broad political problems, spiritual and secular, first propounded in the Divina Commedia, and ever since the text to which the great writers of all nations and ages have referred, down to the narrow issues of every petty principality which now appear so insignificant, but which have yet in their time contributed their little piece of mosaic to make up the wonderful pietra dura of Italian life, and literature and history, Mr. Symonds has studied and observed, and noted and compared, till it becomes a subject of speculation whether the hitherto apparently inexhaustible mine will not some day yield up its last treasures to his indefatigable pen.

The Catholic Reaction represents one of his largest studies upon Italy. It forms, as he himself says, 'a logically necessitated supplement' to the five former volumes upon the Renaissance, and it is treated on a method analogous to that adopted for the former study. In the volumes now before us for consideration, their subject may be said to divide itself under three distinct heads. The Spanish influence and position in Italy; the conduct of the Council of Trent; and the organization of the Jesuits. With these three clues in his hand the reader may thread with comparative ease the labyrinth of political intrigue, the gloomy horrors of the Inquisition, and the tangled social skein presented by the close study of Italian history during the first seventy years of the sixteenth century in Italy. The retrospect of the period immediately preceding this epoch (1494-1530) is given in a few masterly strokes describing the character and condition of the five great powers which represented Italy. The kingdom of Naples, largest in extent, but stupefied by conquest, and ground under the iron heel of Spain, the most backward in civilization. The Papal States, which each successor in turn to the chair of St. Peter, whether Riario, Della Rovere, Borgia, or Medici, tried in vain to form into one homogeneous kingdom. Equally futile for its purpose and fatal in its consequence, their policy, which must have appeared so crooked and complicated to

their contemporaries, was in reality simple. It consisted in placing the wealth and authority of the Holy See at the disposal of their relatives, military delegates, of whom Cæsar Borgia will ever remain as a typical representative. For their own part, despite the absorbing fascination exercised to this day by the temporal interests of the Papacy upon each successor to the Holy See, their attention was at that time forcibly diverted by the pressing claims of General Councils and the hardy attacks of the Reformers, which threatened to shake to its very foundation the spiritual authority of the papacy.

The Duchy of Milan is included in the five great powers, not on account of its size, but, because of its position, its agricultural and commercial resources, it was ever the apple of discord cast down at the opening of each fresh campaign between France and Germany, tossed to and fro till, after the disaster of Pavia, it eventually fell into the lap of Charles V.

Venice had only begun to play a part worthy of her position and power upon the scene of Italian politics. Hitherto her attention had been concentrated upon her Levantine dominions and commercial interests, but when across the golden East, with its sparkling gems and exhaustless treasures, there fell the dark shadow of the advancing infidel invasion, Venice bethought herself in time of strengthening her position by the acquisition of territory upon the mainland. When her seaboard extended till it reached from Aquileia to the mouths of the Po, and her possessions in Lombardy as far as Bergamo, she could stand in the first rank among the powers who made up the scheme of Italian politics, a position from which she was afterwards dethroned, having incurred the displeasure of Rome by the league of Cambrai.

To Florence, the sister republic, this period, one of transition while the republican constitution made its last stand for existence, had resulted in the final triumph of the Medici, and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany now represented in one compact principality the struggle of the last three centuries within and without the ancient walls of the city.

Such was the federation which formed what can only be called the independence of Italy by contrast with the surrender of the country to the Empire, when, after the duel in which the ambition of France received a mortal wound, Charles V. came out with triumphant laurels to receive at the hands of Clement VII. at Bologna the Imperial insignia of the iron and golden crowns.

Mr. Symonds needs no excuse for enlarging on so solemn an epoch in Italian history, and the only lines which could