218 Notices of Books. Sermons on our Lord Jesus Christ and on His Blessed Mother. By his The Attitude of the Anglican Bishops towards Rationalism and Revolution. London: Burns & E have here two different theological works of His Eminence to be both in character and origin. The volume of sermons is probably a more simple and spontaneous expression of the writer's favourite thoughts than any other which he has published. It has always appeared to us that no class of theological subjects exercises so powerful an attraction on the Cardinal as that which includes the mysteries of Jesus and Mary, and their scriptural treatment. These sermons are entirely occupied with such subjects, and we cannot be surprised therefore that they abound in passages of touching beauty. On the Pastoral we have little to say, as its two chief topics-the Privy Council judgment and the recent disgraceful Garibaldi mania—are so nearly interesting to English Catholics that we have an article on each in our present number. How keenly the English public has felt the Cardinal's caustic criticism is evident from the bitterness with which this Pastoral was attacked at the first moment of its publication, and from that shameless attempt to fasten on its author a charge of misrepresentation, which we have noticed elsewhere. Il Valore e la Violazione della Dichiarazione Pontificia sopra il Dominio Temporale della S. Sede. Per il P. VALENTINO STECCANELLA, D.C.D.G. Roma. THIS HIS work is an enlargement of some papers which appeared last year in the Civiltà Cattolica. It occupies a ground which is singularly important at the present time, not only in regard to the Pope's temporal power, but to many other subjects also; and its reasoning has a close affinity with that which we have ourselves pursued in this number on the Munich Brief. At the time when so much excitement existed among good Catholics on the temporal power, there must have been some even well educated men who felt themselves unable to form any judgment of their own, and had no other wish in the matter than simply to accept the declarations of ecclesiastical authority in the very way in which such authority desired their acceptance. But there was some little difficulty in understanding what that precise way was: in understanding, e.g., how far such authority required from the faithful their interior assent, and (if so) to what exact doctrine. This difficulty, we venture to think, did not receive all the attention which it deserved; and F. Steccanella deserves our best thanks for treating it so frankly and intelligibly. The foundation of his argument is the Holy Father's authoritative statement put forth in the "Encyclical" of June 18th, 1859. "We publicly declare (palam edicimus) that the civil princedom is necessary to this Holy See, in order that she may exercise her sacred power for the good of religion without any impediment." Two explanations, however, must be added, if we would rightly apprehend the Pope's meaning in this statement. Firstly, he does not, of course, say that the civil princedom is necessary for the Church's existence, as though God had promised that it should never be taken away ; but only that it is necessary for the unimpeded exercise of her sacred power, and so for her well-being (see Steccanella, p. 135). And, secondly, he does not mean that the temporal power is necessary even for this end under all imaginable circumstances, but under the particular circumstances of modern society. So he has expressly explained himself in the Apostolical Letter of March 26th, 1860. "Since," he says, "in order to act with due freedom, she needed those helps which suited the condition and necessity of the times, it came to pass by an admirable counsel of divine providence, that when the Roman empire fell and was divided into many kingdoms, the Roman Pontiff obtained a civil princedom. By which circumstance it was most wisely provided by God himself, that amidst so great a multitude and variety of temporal kings, the Supreme Pontiff should enjoy that political liberty which is so greatly necessary for the unimpeded exercise of his spiritual power over the whole world." The declaration of the Holy Father which we began by citing was undoubtedly put forth by him, not as a private doctor, but as universal teacher ; and the whole Catholic Episcopate has expressly or tacitly given assent. Both these statements are absolutely evident from the address presented by the great multitude of bishops assembled at Rome on June 8th, 1862. "But," they say, "it is scarcely becoming in us to speak more at length on this so grave matter; in us, who have often heard thee, not so much discussing it, as [authoritatively] teaching on the subject. For thy voice, as a sacerdotal trumpet, hath loudly proclaimed to all the world that 'the temporal power is providential:' it must, therefore, be held by us all as most certain that this rule hath accrued to the Holy See, not fortuitously, but by a special Providence, &c., &c." No one has affected to doubt that the bishops then present at Rome did but represent, in so expressing themselves, the judgment of their absent brethren also. The bishops themselves, therefore, proclaim that, in consequence of the Pope's declaration, they are under the obligation of "holding most certainly" the doctrine which it enounces; in other words, they proclaim that it is a declaration which demands our interior assent. Since, therefore, the Ecclesia Docens requires our interior assent to this declaration, it follows, even on Gallican principles, that we are bound to yield such assent. We are not, indeed, required or permitted, as our author observes (p. 88), to invest this proposition with the certainty of divine faith, but we are required · to regard it as indubitably certain in a lower grade. Its pertinacious disbelief would not involve the guilt of heresy, but it would deserve some lighter theological censure. An objection, of course, is at once raised against this conclusion; viz., that the whole question is external to the limits of the Apostolic Depositum, and that the Ecclesia Docens therefore possesses no infallibility in its decision. The most valuable part of the present work consists of its various replies to this critical objection. We cannot, indeed, here attempt any detailed analysis of these replies; but we will give a general notion of their character. Our author maintains strenuously that the Ecclesia Docens is infallible, not only in those matters which directly concern dogma, but in those also which indirectly concern it. It is most certain that the Church may not only declare infallibly the Catholic doctrine on any head, but may also denounce infallibly some given book as adverse to such doctrine in its drift and tendency. No one, indeed, but a heretic can deny this. In like manner argues our author, she may not only declare infallibly the extent of her own powers, but she may also declare infallibly that certain given external circumstances are inconsistent with the unimpeded exercise of those powers. True, the Apostles never expressly taught the Church that under certain future circumstances the temporal power would be necessary; but neither did they teach the Church that a certain book would be written by a certain Jansenius in the sixteenth century which would contain five certain erroneous propositions. If any one, however, argues on that ground that the Church is not infallible in ascribing those propositions to Jansenius's book, he becomes ipso facto a (material or formal) heretic. It cannot, therefore, be valid to adduce the very same argument against the Church's infallibility in her doctrine of the temporal power. The one conclusive answer, however, to the above-named objection is, of course, that on which F. Steccanella lays his principal stress. The Ecclesia Docens does regard the Pope's declaration as demanding our interior assent. If she were mistaken on this head, she would be mistaken on a matter which is directly and exclusively doctrinal; viz., the limit of her own prerogative. And this no Catholic will admit to be possible. Die Sprachverwirrung zu Babel. Linguistisch-Theologische Untersuchungen über Gen. xi. 1-9. Von FRANZ KAULEN, Rep. der Theol. zu Bonn. Mainz: F. Kirchheim. 1861. T is not every day that we see a professor, clearly a man of erudition and philological discussion, and fearlessly vindicating upon scientific grounds the absolute truth of the Scriptural narrative of the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the consequent dispersion of the human race. Some of the great philologers of the present day have abandoned or even impugned this account as untenable; and many others are unwilling to admit the direct interposition of the Almighty in a case where the natural course of events would bring about the same result. Herr Kaulen has brought to bear upon the question the latest results of research, both linguistic and archæological, and placed them before the reader as often as possible in the exact words of the authors cited. He remarks that as human knowledge in general bears on it the stamp of imperfection, so, in an especial manner, deductions from those sciences which furnish so many charges against the revealed word, are far from incontestable. In these inductive and experimental branches of science, we often find a set of facts taken for granted, which depend on the assumed truth of hypotheses mutually contradictory. On the other hand, the more the results of these sciences are stripped of their hypothetical character, the more closely are they found to be in harmony with the statements given in Scripture. So true is this, that in all cases where, in the present state of imperfect investigation, no agreement can be discovered, and no reconciliation effected between the conclusions of science and the right interpretation of Scripture, we may, led by experience alone, confidently question the accuracy of those results, and trust for a confirmation of the inspired records to the further progress of science. With reference to the particular question before us, our author shows in the course of the work, that, so far from opposing or contradicting the Biblical narrative, recent researches and discoveries have only served to shed a clearer light upon the statements of inspiration. After recapitulating the more important events recorded in the earlier chapters of Genesis, and examining the context of the passage of which he is about to treat (i.e. Gen. xi.), he applies himself to the investigation of the sense in which a primary unity of speech is asserted, referring, in corroboration of the obvious meaning, to Jewish and Christian tradition, and to the original text and ancient versions. Perfect unity of speech can find a place only where uniformity prevails, as well in the stock of words used, as in their grammatical adaptation. Such is the unity ascribed to the language of the earliest of mankind in Scripture. At present, the number of existing languages is about 860, with a subdivision into 5,000 dialects. Are there any palpable traces of the former unity? Herr Kaulen thinks that there are. The discovery by Grimm of the law regulating the displacement and substitution of consonants (Lautverschiebung) in the Indo-European tribe of languages, has led to the observation of similar or analogous laws in the Semitic and Turanian tribes, and again in these as compared with each other. Ever since the labours of Hervas, in the last century, the course of study in this respect has brought to light, not fresh differences, but fresh affinities; and we have still much to expect from further comparisons with languages as yet little known to us. In this way the number of separate tribes must go on diminishing. In fact, science has already succeeded in showing an unmistakable connection between two great tribes, the Indo-European and the Semitic. Most of the learned scholars competent to judge in the matter, including both Bunsen and Max Müller, acknowledge the same claims to affinity for the third great tribe. We thus ascend to one primitive tongue. Bunsen, however, who will not admit the miraculous cause of the present diversity, requires a period of 20,000 years since the first appearance of man upon the earth, in order to account for the various developments. To understand this the better, we must not lose sight of the fact that, just as the English language is partly of the Gothic, partly of the Classic families, so there are found languages which are partly of one tribe, partly of another. The ancient Egyptian, for instance, in all its forms-the hieroglyphic, the demotic, or the still later Coptic-bears marks of affinity with each of the three great tribes to which all languages are commonly referred. As we now possess it, observes Bunsen, we cannot but see in it a form of speech just emerging from the monosyllabic state and the absolute isolation of words. Again, Meyer has remarked of Celtic, that in all its non-Sanscrit forms it most strikingly resembles the old Egyptian. Professor Max Müller divides languages into four classes, but Bopp's classification still holds its ground. The latter divided them into three great tribes, the isolating, the agglutinating, and the amalgamating. The languages of isolation are those whose roots or themes are incapable of modification or composition, and which, therefore, have no grammar. To this tribe belong the Chinese and South Indian. The languages of agglutination are those which are formed out of monosyllabic roots capable of composition. This tribe contains the Egyptian, the Polynesian, the American, the South African, the Turanian, and the Indo-European languages; though it is to be remarked that Max Müller wishes to limit the term to the Turanian tribe alone. This tribe he thus places by itself. The languages of amalgamation are those which evolve their grammatical forms, not only by composition, but also, and principally, by internal modification of the roots. These constitute the Semitic tribe. So far, then, as we have the means for forming a judgment at our command and calling to our aid the opinions of the learned, we conclude that, these three great tribes being proved akin, science agrees with Scripture in tracing all known languages to one primeval tongue. What was that tongue? It may be observed that the more we trace languages back to their earlier stages, the more we find their inflecting forms to have consisted of separate words. Hence Herr Kaulen, following in the steps of Bunsen, draws the inference that originally all languages were of the isolating class. Traces of this method of formation may be plainly seen in Latin and Greek, and still more in Sanscrit and Zend. The tendency in modern times is to bring languages back to an isolating form, and of this English is frequently cited as an example. Herr Kaulen adduces many facts leading to the conclusion that in the first language, as spoken by Adam and his immediate descendants, all sounds or words had a symbolic force, by virtue of which they were as closely connected with the thought as the body with the soul. This connection between idea and sound is, not symbolic only, but also organic, or, as Steinthal calls it, pathognomic. Grimm, Heyse, Curtius, and Schelling share the same conviction. It is unmistakable that every language possesses a system of ideas, the depth and originality of which force our admiration. This, the genius of a language, is not anything introduced from without, but something belonging to its essence, and a condition of its substantiality. Schelling observes,-"In the formation of the oldest languages a treasure of philosophy may be discovered. . . . which was not |