seen, was little if at all cared for or spared in others. Father Ballerini, therefore, attaches the following objections or censures to the many propositions or points of doctrine or assertions of St. Alphonsus which he refuses to agree with :—“ Groundless inventions". "Unreasonable citations" "Worth nothing "-" A deception "-"No solid reason"-" No authority"" A contemptible argument "-" Not even the slightest probability"-"A false supposition"-" Something absurd"

An argument rejected by all"-" Altogether singular". "Most absurdly and against first principles ”—“A vain, absurd, ridiculous, chimerical hypothesis," &c., &c. In these censures, and the like, with which the Ballerinian notes abound, we have the principal objections against the Doctorate of St. Alphonsus, and the subject matter of the "Vindiciae" before us. Assuredly the objections are strong individually, and stronger still collectively. Well might the Promoter of the Faith maintain, as he did, that one thus justly censured could never be declared a Doctor of the Church; and, therefore, was each censure examined, and censured in its turn, before the petition of the world was granted, and St Alphonsus ranked with the Fathers.

These celebrated objections are gathered into five classes in the Dissertation, according to which classification the Ballerinian Thesis, which the "Vindiciae" undertakes to refute, is the following:-"The Moral Doctrine of St. Alphonsus is in many points singular, borrowed, groundless, gratuitous, and absurd." It may not be strictly fair to compress an author's teaching into a Thesis, to be attacked as his without his knowledge and approbation; yet have we no choice in his absence and our desire to make clear the issue between him and the "Vindiciae." The above proposition was never indeed penned by him, but it is all the same the epitome of his censures, and what the "Introductory Dissertation" undertakes to refute. The Redemptorist Theologians therefore pronounce the Thesis in question to be "opposed to sound and temperate criticism," and forthwith pour in copious arguments from Reason and Authority, superabundantly proving it untenable and intolerable. Three are the great engines they uplift against the enemy, from each of which such shafts are thrown, that he must indeed be mad for war who is not thus driven from it. The first argument is the learning of St. Alphonsus irrecon-. cilable with the Ballerinian Thesis? This learning the Vindicators have not to prove, for it is not called in question by the Objector; they have, however, to remind him of it as of their other arguments, all of which, for his own sake, 'tis well to believe or suppose forgotten by him. He is, then, in the first place, reminded of the very great learning of St. Alphonsus,

admitted, respected, and celebrated by the whole Catholic Church, and most especially by the Sovereign Pontiffs Benedict XIV., Clement XIII., Pius VII., Leo XII., Pius VIII., Gregory XVI., and Pius IX. The Objector would entrench himself in the fortress of Reason Individual, and hold it impregnable by his sole judgment. For him words are nothing: he must have arguments. Yet, on reflection, he must admit that great men's words are reasons in themselves - far stronger than all the reasoning of their admitted inferiors. This, indeed, he would seem himself to require, for his own censures are mere words-hard words, reckless words-poured out without proof, and supposed to be accepted on the sole ground of their speaker's authority or learning. Reasons, however, are not wanting for great men's words, and St. Alphonsus is ever reasoning and reasonable to such a degree that, foreseeing in his consummate wisdom the objections of his modern critics, he has removed all worth removing beforehand.

If the teaching of the Saint be thought singular, when not followed by a multitude of authors, the critic is thus instructed by the Saint himself:-"It must be ever remembered that the authority of writers is constituted, not by their number, but by their weight. Azor, Castropal, Vasquez, &c., &c., say with Saint Thomas, that sometimes the authority of one Doctor may establish the probability of an opinion, and even render it more probable than the common teaching of many; and St. Augustin taught the same. Moreover, Viva, Croix, &c., assert with St. Antonine, that if any great Theologian declare any opinion to be probable, this is quite enough to make us morally certain of its probability. If I, less learned than St. Thomas, follow his teaching against another which appears more probable to me, who will deny the prudence of my conduct, who prefer so great an authority to mine own?" How well, saythe Vindicators, may not the modern Theologian speak of the transcendant authority of St. Alphonsus as he did of St. Thomas, and weighing-not numbering-his adversaries, desert their less for his greater authority. But where are these authors so numerous? Is not, in these times, St. Alphonsus everywhere? and his, if any, the common opinion?

If the doctrine of St. Alphonsus be slighted as borrowed, or blindly taken from others, the Saint has again made answer :— "I call God to witness, whose honour I have sought to promote as well as the salvation of souls, that whatever I have written I resolved to write uninfluenced by any passion, unshackled by any slavery, ungiven to laxity or severity. In every question I have endeavoured to discover the truth in long-protracted study, particularly in things of practice, and, therefore, not only have I diligently considered the arguments

of ancient Doctors, but also those of moderns, so that sometimes I have spent many days in deciding one question. I have endeavoured to prefer reason to authority, and convinced by reason, have not hesitated to oppose the teaching of many." The very authority enjoyed by Alphonsus in his own life-time and ever since, sufficiently repels the censure of Plagiarism, had we not Papal, Episcopal, and Professiorial attestations of his originality and peculiar wisdom. With these documents the Acts of the Doctorate are replete, the most glorious being the Petition signed by more than six hundred Bishops. If misquotations be spoken of, the criticis told in the "Vindiciae" how there are upwards of thirty thousand quotations in the Moral Theology, taken during the laborious study of fifteen years, from eight hundred different authors, and that it was simply impossible that some mistakes of writer and printer should not occur. The numbering and correction of such mistakes belong, of course, more properly to the editor than to the professor, of which truth the misquotations of Father Ballerini himself are an unanswerable proof.

If the teaching of Alphonsus be groundless, then where shall sound teaching be sought? What ground more solid than the learning and experience of a great mind? Groundless? Then the objectors must be reminded of the grounds of morality in the exact disputations of the "Vindiciae."

If, finally, we are obliged to hear the reasoning of the Prince of Moral Theology laughed at as absurd, then, considering the refutation of such an outrage absurd, we may reflect that the teaching of Jesus Christ was censured as harshly, and more so, and that surely this word and such like fell from the pen unpondered and unconfirmed.

This is the substance of the first general reply to the Ballerinian censures. We cannot but accept it with approval, ever mindful that the sublimest intellect, best stored with learning and guarded by experience, can err, but convinced that such a mind cannot habitually err in things best known, and be withal applauded and agreed with by noblest thinkers, and reign unrivalled in his sphere: no, this is quite impossible.

The second argument of the Dissertation is the Sanctity of Alphonsus, likewise irreconcilable with the Ballerinian Thesis. So far, then, the Disputation has been conducted on the level, but here we see the defendants rise above the Objector, and strike more heavily. They remind him that Alphonsus is a canonized Saint, and as such should be safe from such attacks. And as their adversary would, no doubt, object that a teacher's sanctity does not defend his doctrine, and again, that scientific censuring does not assail the sanctity of anyone, both assertions they at once deny, maintaining

that an author's sanctity is a very great defence and guarantee of his teaching, and that consequently, as well as absolutely, the Objector's Thesis does strike at the sanctity of the great Doctor. Again we must agree with the Vindicators. The sanctity of a writer assures us of his prudence, diligence, impartiality, and veracity. If his talents be great, and his learning beyond question, his canonization raises his doctrine to the highest degree of moral certainty. True it is, that holiness does not render him intellectually infallible, but this, we may say, is all it does not do in the case of an Alphonsus. "No one will deny," says Scavini, "the sanctity of a writer to be in itself a strong proof of the truth of his teaching, especially in Christian ethics. Excited and disorderly passions, whence errors generally arise, are all but extinguished in the saints." What, then, of the Ballerinian censures? Are such blemishes at all reconcilable with sanctity? By attributing them to ignorance invincible-yes, but not otherwise; and the existence of this ignorance in Alphonsus would be a far greater wonder than the inanity of the objections themselves. The sanctity of the Saint is indeed really though unintentionally assailed, in being utterly disregarded, and replaced by degrading qualities scarcely, if at all, compatible with ordinary piety. The Commentator was free, and still is so, to differ from the Saint in matters undefined, but to insult him and outrage him, crowned as he is with glory above, and honoured by the Universal Church on earth, this was, and ever will be, rash and condemnable.

The third argument of the Dissertation is the Papal approbation of the doctrine of St. Alphonsus. This-the principal of the three great arguments-is fully developed in the first part of the Dissertation on account, no doubt, of its preponderance. We, for the same reason, would place it last, and with it crown and finish the temple raised by learning and sanctity to the fame of Alphonsus. From the multitude of documents that enrich the Dissertation, we gather that three solemn Papal approbations have been given to the moral teaching of the Saint. The Vindicators, as already said, set up no claim for infallibility; but rather proclaim the greatest tolerance for scientific opposition, and admit that the infallible Church may yet declare untenable some opinions of the Saint. Yet such are the approbations of which the Objector is reminded, that we fancy him already thinking of apologies and retractations.

These approbations are the Negative or Permissive, and the Positive or Laudatory. The Negative or Permissive approbation of all the works of St. Alphonsus was thus decreed, in 1803, by Pius VII: "Facta plena relatione praefatorum operum tam impressorum quam aliorum MSS. omnium, nihil in iis censura dignum repertum." Here we are

VOL. IX.

25

told that a particular and full examination having been made of all the works of St. Alphonsus, they were found to contain nothing censurable. What more sweeping answer to the Ballerinian censures! Nihil censura dignum. Has the Professor discovered blemishes invisible to the eye of Peter? Yes, he may reply, what was not found may yet be found; but no, for well he knows how Gregory XVI. explains those words to mean: “Ejus opera inoffenso pede percurri a fidelibus posse;" viz., that the faithful may read with perfect safety his works from end to end. Therefore, we may conclude, according to the doctrine of Benedict XIV., that in the Saint's works there is nothing false, nothing erroneous, nothing rash, nothing dangerous. What, then, the Vindicators may demand, will the Objector reply? If his censures are just, what does he think of the decrees of Pius and Gregory? May we not here once more suppose the Objections harder in print than ever in the mind or on the lips of the Objector?

The Positive or Laudatory approbations is contained in the celebrated reply of the Holy Penitentiary given in 1831. The copy of this document inserted in the "Vindiciae" is declared to be authentic, and for its theoretical and practical importance we give it here in full to our readers :

Responsum S. Poenitentiariae de die 5 Jul., 1831. Consultatio. Eminentissime. Ludovicus Franciscus Augustus Cardinalis de Rohan-Chabot Archiepiscopus Vesontionensis, doctrinae sapientiam et unitatem fovere nititur apud omnes dioecesis suae qui curam gerunt animarum ; quorum nonnullis impugnantibus Theologiam Moralem Beati Alphonsi Mariae a Ligorio tamquam laxam nimis, periculosam saluti et sanae morali contrariam, Sacrae Poenitentiariae oraculum requirit, ac ipsi unius Theologiae professoris sequentia dubia proponit solvenda:

1o Utrum Sacrae Thcologiae Professor opiniones quas in sua Theologia morali profitetur Beatus Alphonsus a Ligorio sequi tuto possit ac profiteri ?

2o An sit inquietandus Confessarius, qui omnes Beati Alphonsi a Ligorio sequitur opiniones in praxi sacri Poenitentiae tribunalis hac sola ratione quod a Sancta Sede Apostolica nihil in operibus censura dignum repertum fuerit? Confessarius, de quo in dubio agitur non legit Opera Beati Doctoris, nisi ad cognoscendum accurate ejus doctrinam, non perpendens momenta rationesve quibus variae nituntur opiniones; sed existimat se tuto agere eo ipso quod doctrinam quae nihil censura dignum continet prudenter judicare queat sanam, tutam, nec ullatenus sanctitati evangelicae contrariam.

Decisio. Sacra Poenitentiaria perpensis expositis Reverendissimo in Christo Patri S. R. E. Cardinali, Archiepiscopo Vesontionensi respondendum censuit :