Chapter II: Theology And University

“He is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings”; thus spoke in bygone ages the children of this world. “Let us therefore lie in wait for the just.... He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God and calleth himself the Son of God” (Wisdom ii, 12 _seq._). Centuries later the children of the world treated in the same manner God’s Son and His doctrine. And in these days, when the science of the faith is to be driven from the rooms of the school, let us recall that in olden times the children of the world planned similarly.

In the days when the private and public life of Europe’s nations was permeated with the Christian faith, and their ideas were still centred in God and eternity, then the science of the faith was held to be the highest among the sciences, not only by rank but in fact.

And when, in the budding desire for knowledge, they erected universities, the first and largest of them, Paris University, was to be the pre-eminent home of theology, and wherever theology joined with the other sciences it received first honours. Thus it was in the days of yore, and for a long time. The secular tendency of modern thought led to the gradual emancipation of science from religion; unavoidably, its aversion for a supernatural view of the world soon turned against, and demanded the removal of, the science representing that view. Reasons for the demand were soon found. Thus the removal of theology from the university has become part and parcel of the system of ideas of the unbelieving modern man; the liberal press exploits the idea whenever occasion offers. Resolutions to this effect are introduced in parliaments and diets, meetings of young students are echoing the ideas heard elsewhere. No wonder that the Portuguese revolution of 1910 had nothing more urgent to do than to close the theological faculty at Portugal’s only university.

What are the _reasons_ advanced? Many are advanced; the main reason is usually disguised; we shall treat of it when concluding. In the first place we are again met by the old tune of free science, which has been in our ears so long; the rooms of the colleges, it is said, are destined for a research which seeks truth with an undimmed eye, and not for blindfolded science confined to a prescribed path.

No need to waste words on this. Just one more reference may be permitted us, namely, to the study of law. There is hardly another science with less latitude than the science of law. Its task is not to doubt the justification of state laws, but to look upon constitutions and statutes as established, to explain them, and by doing so to train efficient officials and administrators of the law. When explaining the civil code the teacher of law has small opportunity for pursuing “free search after truth”; neither will his pupil be tested at examinations in the maxims of a free research that accepts no tradition; he will have to prove his knowledge of the matter that had been given to him. Yet no one has ever objected to the teaching of jurisprudence at the university. Therefore the objection cannot be valid that theology is restricted to the established doctrines of its religion and has to transmit them without change to its future servants. It should be borne in mind that our universities are not intended for research only, but also, and chiefly, for training candidates for the professions.

This disposes at the same time of the objection that theology has
to serve ecclesiastical purposes outside of and foreign to
science. Religious science, like any other science, serves the
desire that strives for truth. True, it serves also for the
practical training of the clergyman for his vocation. But shall we
eliminate from science the interests of practical life? Then
medicine and legal science would also have to be excluded, and for
these there would be planted only sterile theories, and the
universities transformed into a place of abstract intellectualism.

Again it is argued that religion and faith are not really
cognition and knowledge, but only the products of sentiment, and
hence theology has no claim to a place among the sciences; that
religion can only be a subject for psychology which lays bare its
roots in the human heart, and a subject for the history of
religion, to trace its historical forms and to study its laws of
evolution—sciences which belong to the philosophical faculty.

Thus we come back to the principles of an erroneous theory of
knowledge. No need to demonstrate again that the Christian belief
is built upon the clear perception of reason, and that it is not a
sentimental but a rational function.

But has not the Church her theological seminaries? Let theology seek refuge there! We answer the Church herself desires this; she does not like theological faculties, they are in her eyes a danger to the faith.

Now, _if_ the Church would be deprived of her authoritative influence upon the appointment of professors at theological faculties and upon the subject of their teachings, consequently, _if_ there would be jeopardized the purity of belief of the candidates for priesthood, and through them of the people, then, we admit, the Church would rather forego theological faculties at state-universities. This could not be done without considerable injury to the public prestige of the Church, to her contact with worldly sciences and their representatives and disciples, even to the scientific study of theology. In the latter particularly by the loss of the greater resources of the state, and by the absence of inducement to scientific aim, which is more urgent for theologians than for others at college. Neither would the state escape injury, because of the open slight and harm to religion, and of lessening its contact with the most influential body in Christian countries. But if the Church is assured of her proper influence on the faculties, she has no reason for an unfriendly attitude toward them. The object the Church seeks to achieve in her seminaries is the clerical education of her candidates, their ascetic training, the introduction into a life of recollection and prayer, into an order of life befitting priests; this cannot be sufficiently done in the free life at the university.

This is not a bar to scientific instruction by the theological faculty. Seminary and faculty supplement one another. We see very frequently, at Rome and outside of Rome, the theological school separated from the seminary with the approval of the Church. But all these objections do not give the real reason, the roots lie deeper.

When the Divine Founder of our Religion stood before the tribunal of Judea He said: “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, servants would strive for me.” This was the whole explanation of why He stood there accused. The guardian of the doctrine of her Master may use these words to explain the fact that, in the eyes of many, she stands to-day accused and defamed. The mind of modern man has forsaken the world of the Divine and Eternal; no longer is he a servant of this kingdom. His ideals are not God and Heaven, but he himself and this world; not the service of God, but human rights and human dignity. This view of the world, which cannot grasp the wisdom of Jesus Christ, and which takes offence at the Cross, also takes offence at a science that confesses as the loftiest ideal _Jesum Christum, et hunc crucifixum_.

The real kernel of the question is: Does the Christian religion in its entirety still serve the purpose of to-day—or does it not? is it to remain with us, the religion wherein our fathers found the gratification of their highest mental aims, the religion that gave Europe its civilization and culture, that created its superior mental life, and still rules it to this hour? Or shall religion be expelled by a return to a heathendom which Christianity had overthrown? “We do not want Him to rule over us”—there is the real reason for the modern antipathy to Catholic theology. Else, whence the excited demand for its removal? Because it is superfluous? Even if this were the fact, there is many a category of officials, the little need of which can be demonstrated without difficulty, yet no one grows excited about it; many expenditures by the state are rather superfluous, yet there is no indignation. No, the matter at issue is not so much the scientific character of theology, nor misgivings about its progress or its freedom; the real question is this:

Do we Desire to Remain Christians?

For _if_ we still recognize the Christian religion as the standard for our thought, _if_ we are persuaded that it must remain the foundation of our life, then there can be no doubt that its facts, its truths, and standards of life require scientific presentation; then it cannot be disputed that this science is entitled to a place alongside of the science of law, of chemistry, or Indology. Indeed, then it must assume the first place in the system of sciences.

Surely a science ranks the higher, the higher its object and its
sources, the surer its results, and the greater its significance
for the most exalted aim of mankind. The subject of theology is
God and His works, the ultimate causes of all things in God’s
eternal plan of the universe, the “wisdom of God in a mystery, a
wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto
our glory” (1 Cor. ii. 7). Therefore it is wisdom; for “the
science of things divine is science proper” (Augustinus, De
Trinit. xii, 14). A science, having as its subject Greek
architecture, geography, or physical law, may claim respect, yet
it must step back before a science of Religion, that rises to the
highest sphere of truth by a power of flight that participates in
the omniscience of the Holy Ghost; for such is the faith. For this
reason its results, in so far as they rest on faith, are more
certain than the results of all other sciences.

Finally, the aims of life which theology serves are not physical
health or advantages in the external life, but the knowledge of
God, the spread of His kingdom on earth, and the eternal goal of
all human life.

So long as the Christian religion is the valued possession of the people of a country, and the roots of their lives rest more in Christianity than in mathematics, astrophysics, or Egyptology, so long is the science of religion entitled to a seat at the hearth of the sciences; and the people, then, have the right to demand that the servants of religion get their education at the place where the other leading professions get their training. If the state considers it its duty to train teachers of history and physics for the benefit of its citizen, then it is still more its duty to help in the education of the servants of religion, who are called upon to care for more important interests of the people and state than all the rest of the professions. Let us consider the task of universities. As established in the countries of central Europe, they are destined to foster science in the widest sense, and to educate the leading professions: to be the hearth for the sum total of mental endeavour, this is their vocation; hence all things that contain truth and have educational value should join hands here. To eliminate the science of the highest sphere of knowledge would be tantamount to a mutilation of the university. Here all boughs and branches of human knowledge should be united into a large organism, of unity and community of work, of giving and taking Theology needs for auxiliaries other sciences, such as profane history and philology, Assyriology and Egyptology, psychology and medicine. In turn it offers indispensable aid to history and other branches of science, it guards the ethical and ideal principles of every science, and crowns them by tendering to them the most exalted thoughts. Here is the place of education for the judge and official, for the physician and teacher; hence it should be the place also for the education of the servant of the chief spiritual power, religion.

The university should unite all active mental powers that lift man
above the commonplace. But is there any stronger mental power than
religion?

It is the oldest and mightiest factor in mental life; it is as
natural to man as the flower is to the field; his mind gravitates
to a religious resting place, whence he may view time and
eternity, where he may rest. Therefore religion demands a science
that inquires into its substance, its justification, its effect on
thought and life. Man strives to give to himself an account of
everything, but most of all of what is foremost in his mind. A
system of sciences without theology would be like an uncompleted
tower, like a body without a head.

The history of theology dates back to the very beginning of
science and culture. If we trace the oldest philosophy we find as
its starting point theological research and knowledge. _Orpheus_
and _Hesiod_, who sang of the gods, and the sages of the oldest
mysteries, were called theologians; _Plutarch_ sees in the
theologians of past ages the oldest philosophers, in the
philosophers, however, the descendants of the theologians; _Plato_
derives philosophy from the teachers of theology. Even more
prominently was religious study and knowledge responsible for
Hindoo, Chaldean, and Egyptian philosophy.

Was it reserved for our age to discard all the better traditions
of mankind? Shall victory rest with the destructive elements in
the mental education of Europe? Against this danger to our ideal
goods, theology should stay at the universities, as a bulwark and
permanent protest.

Theological Faculty in State and Church.

For this reason the theological faculty has a birth-right at the university, whether state school or free university. Where it is joined to a state university, theology automatically becomes subordinate to the state, in a limited sense. More essential is its dependency upon the Church, because, being the science of the faith, theology is primarily subject to the authority and supervision of the Church. For the Church, and only the Church, is charged by its Divine Founder to teach His religion to all nations. Hence no one can exercise the office of a religious teacher, neither in the public school nor at college, if not authorized to do so by the Church. It is a participation in the ministry of the Church; and the latter alone can designate its organs. Whoever has not been given by the Church such license to teach, or he from whom she takes it away, does not possess it; no other power can grant it, not even the state. Nor can the state restore the license of teaching to a theologian from whom the Church has withdrawn it; this would be an act beyond state jurisdiction, hence invalid.

In granting the license to teach, the Church does so in the self-evident presumption that the one so licensed will teach his students the correct doctrine of the Church, as far as it has been established; and he binds himself to do so by voluntarily taking the office, and more explicitly by the profession of the creed. If he should deviate from the creed later on, it is the obvious right of the Church to cancel his license. In this the Church only draws the logical conclusion from the office of the teacher and from his voluntary obligation. He holds his office as an organ of the Church, destined to lecture on pure doctrine before future priests. Whether or not he has honestly searched for the truth when deviating therefrom, this he may settle with his conscience; but he is incapacitated to act still further as an organ of the Church, and it is only common honesty to resign his office if he cannot fulfil any longer the obligations he assumed. The professor of theology is therefore in the first place a deputy of his Church. Also he is teacher at a state institution and as such a state official; he is appointed by the state to be the teacher of students belonging to a certain denomination, he is paid by the state, and may be removed by the state from his position as official teacher. But withal the right must not be denied to the Church to watch over the correctness of the Christian doctrine, and to make appointment and continuance in the teaching office dependent upon it.

Indeed, this demand was urged by Prof. _Paulsen_, notwithstanding
his entirely different position: he says: “The
Catholic-theological faculties are in a certain sense a concession
by the Church to the state; of course they are also a service of
the state for the Church, and a valuable one, too; but they rest
in the first place upon a concession made by the Church to the
state, with a view to the historically established fact, and to
peace. Naturally, this concession cannot be unconditional. The
condition is: the professors appointed by the state must stand
upon ecclesiastical ground, they must acknowledge the doctrine of
the Church as the standard of their teaching, and they must
receive from the Church the _missio canonica_. The Church cannot
accept hostile scientists for teachers. Hence for the appointment
an agreement must be reached with ecclesiastical authority. The
universities are not merely workshops for research, they are at
the same time educational institutions for important public
professions; in fact, they were founded for this latter purpose:
they are the outcome of the want for scientifically educated
clergymen, teachers, physicians, judges, and other professionals.
And this purpose necessitates restrictions: the professor of
Evangelical theology cannot teach arbitrary opinions any more than
his Catholic fellow-professor can; the lawyer is also restricted
by presumptions, for instance, that the civil code is not an
accumulation of nonsense, but, on the whole, a pretty good order
of life. Just as little as we should dispute the lawyer’s standing
as a scientist on this account, so little shall we be able to deny
this standing to the Catholic theologian who stands with honest
conviction on the platform of his Church.” “We want the Catholic
theological faculties to be preserved; of course, under the
presumption of freedom of scientific research within the limits
drawn by the creed of the Church.”

In a similar sense the Bavarian minister of education, Dr. _V.
Wehner_, said, on Feb. 11, 1908, in the course of a speech in the
Bavarian Diet: “Thus the Catholic professor of theology is bound
to the standards of creed and morals as established by the Church.
The decision as to whether a Catholic professor of theology
teaches the right doctrine of the Church is not for the state to
give, but for the Church alone.” “The business of the professors
at theological faculties is to transmit the teachings of the
Church to future candidates for the priesthood, and this is what
they are employed for by the state. That the Church does not
tolerate a doctrine to differ from her own is to me quite
self-evident.” Hence we may conclude, “The attacks directed here
and there in recent times against the continuance of Catholic
theological faculties need not worry us in any way. Nor are they
likely to meet with response at the places where the decision
rests. Times have changed. Even non-Catholic governments are no
longer blind to the conviction that an educated clergy must be
reckoned among the most eminent factors for conserving the state”
(_Freiherr von Hertling_). Even during the heated debates on the
anti-modernist oath in the Prussian Diet and upper house, the
importance of the theological faculties was acknowledged by the
speakers, none of whom demanded the removal of these faculties,
though outspoken in their criticism of the oath. Prime minister
_Bethmann-Hollweg_ declared on March 7: “Catholic students will
get their training at the Catholic faculties the same as hitherto,
even after the anti-modernist oath is introduced. The state never
will claim for itself the authority to determine in any way which,
and in what, forms doctrines of faith shall be taught to Catholic
students. This is no affair of the state. If, and this is my wish,
the Catholic faculties will retain that value to teachers,
students, and the total organism of the universities, which is the
natural condition of their existence, then they will continue to
exist for the profit of both, the Catholic population and the
state. Should they lose this value, however, an event I do not
wish to see, then they will die by themselves. But I do not see
that it is demanded by the interest of the state to abolish
without awaiting further development these faculties with one
stroke, thereby harming our Catholic population, whose wants and
needs deserve as much consideration as those of any other part of
the population.”

There is no warrant for the view that theology is subject to a
foreign power, and therefore it cannot claim a place in a state
institution. In its external relations the theological faculty is
subject also to the state, serving the public interests so much
the better the more continually the priest by his activity
influences the life of the people. By the way, why this urgent
demand for state control in the pursuit of a science by a party
that otherwise is striving zealously to put the university beyond
the influence of the state? To be a state institution or not can
only be an extrinsic matter to the university itself. Or has the
science of medicine not enough intellectual substance and
consistency to thrive at a free university? Is science as such a
matter of state? Therefore, why find fault with theology because
it will not be entirely subordinated to the state? Nor is it
proper to call the Church a “foreign” power. It is certainly not a
foreign power to theology; neither to the Christian state, that
has developed in closest relation to the Church, which owes its
civilization and culture to the Church, shares with her its
subjects, and is based even to-day upon the doctrines and customs
of the Church.

Against Christ there arose the Jewish scribes and denounced His wisdom as error; the scribes have passed away, we know them no longer. To the Neoplatonics Christianity was ignorance, even barbarity; Manicheans and Gnostics praised as the higher wisdom Oriental and Greek philosophy adorned with Christian ideas. They belong to history. When the people of Israel came in touch with the brilliant civilization of Egypt, Assyria, and Greece, they often became ashamed of the religion of their forefathers, and embraced false gods; to-day we look upon their fancy of inferiority as foolishness, and we rank their religion high above the religious notions of the pagan Orient.

Thus has truth pursued its way through the centuries of human history, often unrecognized by the children of men, scolded for being obsolete, nay, more, driven from its home and forced to make room for delusion and error. Delusion fled, and error sank into its grave—but truth remained. Thus the Church has endured, and thus the Church will live on, with her doctrines and science misunderstood and repulsed by the children of a world unable to grasp them; they will pass away and so will their thoughts, yet the Church will remain, and so will her science. “She was great and respected”—this is the familiar quotation from a Protestant historian—“before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still nourished in Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigor when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s” (_Lord Macaulay_).

Then, perhaps, another observer, leaning against the pillars of history, and looking back upon the culture of this age, will realize that only one power of truth may rightly say: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”—Christ and His Church.

Law and Freedom. An Epilogue.

The great Renovator of mankind, in whom the pious Christian sees his God, and in whom the greater part of the modern world, though turned from faith, still sees the ideal of a perfect human being, hence also of true freedom, once spoke the significant words: “_Et veritas liberabit vos_, and the truth shall make you free” (John viii. 32). As all the words that fell from His lips are the truth for all centuries to come, so are these words pre-eminently true.

There is in our times a strong tension felt between freedom on the one hand, and law and authority on the other; true freedom and true worth it sees too exclusively in the independent assertion of the self-will, and in the unrestrained manifestation of one’s strength and energy, while law and authority are looked upon as onerous fetters. Our times do not understand that freedom and human dignity are not opposed to law and obedience, that no other freedom can be intended for man than the voluntary compliance with the law and the standards of order.

All creatures, from the smallest to the largest, are bound by law; none is destined for the eminent isolation of independence. The same law of gravitation that causes the stone to fall, also governs the giants of the skies, and they obey its rule; the same laws that rule the candle-flame, that are at work in the drop of water, also rule the fires of the sun and guide the fates of the ocean. The heart, like all other organs of the human body, is ruled by laws, and medical science, with its institutes and methods, is kept busy to cure the consequences of the disturbance of these laws. Every being has its laws: it must follow them to attain perfection; deviation leads to degeneration.

Thus the decision of the worth and dignity of man does not rest with an unrestrained display of strength, but with order; not with unchecked activity, but with control of his acts and with truth. The floods that break through the dam have force and energy, but being without order they create destruction; the avalanche crashing down the mountain side has force and power, but, free from the law of order, it carries devastation; glowing metal when led into the mould becomes a magnificent bell, while flowing lava brings ruin. Only _one_ dignity and freedom can be destined for man, it consists in voluntarily adhering to warranted laws and authorities.

For him who with conviction and free decision has made the law of thought, faith, and action his own principle, the law has ceased to be a yoke and a burden; it has become his own standard of life, which he loves; it has become the fruit of his conviction, _truth_ has made him free. Ask the virtuoso who obeys the rules of his art whether he considers them fetters; indeed he does not, he has made them his principles. Let us ask of the civilized citizen whether he feels the laws of civilization to be a yoke; he does not, he obeys them of his own free will, they are his own order of life. Unfree, slaves and serfs, will be those only who carry with resentment the burden of the laws they must obey. Unfree feels the savage people fighting against the laws of civilization; unfree the wicked boy to whom discipline is repugnant. It is not the law that makes man unfree, it is his own lawlessness and rebellion.

Nor does submission to the God-given law of the Christian belief make man low or unfree; to those to whom their belief is conviction and life, the suggestion that they are oppressed will sound strange. On the contrary, they feel that this belief fits in harmoniously with the nobler impulses of their thought and will, like the pearl in the shell, like the gem in its setting. Man experiences this when his belief lifts him above the lowlands of his sensual life to mental independence, and frees him from the bondage of his own unruly impulses, that so often seek to control him.

Freiheit sei der Zweck des Zwanges
Wie man eine Rebe bindet,
Dass sie, statt im Staub zu kriechen,
Frei sich in die Lüfte windet.

(Freedom be the aim of restraint, just as the vine is tied to the trellis that it may freely rise in the air, instead of crawling in the dust.) This is the freedom of mind, knowing but one yoke, the truth; the freedom that does not bow to error, nor to high sounding phrases, nor to public opinion, nor to the bondage of political life; neither is true freedom shackled by the fetters of one’s own lawless impulses. _Et veritas liberabit vos._

INDEX.

Accusations of the Church, 142 _et seq._

Achievements of liberal research, 291

_Adickes, E._, 92, 264, 269

Agnosticism, 43, 46, 48

_Amira, K. von_, 11, 17, 309, 326

_Ampère, A._, 212 _et seq._, 223, 224

Anthropocentric view of the world, 19

_Apponyi, A., Count_, 323

_Arago_, 119

_Aristotle_, 4, 5, 7, 52, 345, 349

_Arnest, Archbishop_, 150

Atheism, 19, 79, 287

_Augustine, St._, 4, 27, 76, 80, 82 _et seq._, 110, 135, 159, 179, 246,
260, 273

Authority of Faith, 81, 112, 125 _et seq._ —— private, 82 —— Protestant, 397 —— rejection of, 33, 40

Autonomism, 25, 29, 33

Autonomy of the College, 360 —— of Reason, 36 —— of the Teacher, 361

Autotheism, 23

_Bacon, F._, 205, 216

_Baer, M. von_, 221

_Balmes, J._, 320

_Barrande_, 219

_Baumgarten, O._, 246, 254

_Baur, F. Ch._, 258

_Beaumont, L. de_, 218

_Bebel_, 350

_Becker, K._, 146

_Bellarmin, Cardinal_, 185, 192

_Benedict XIV._, 96

_Berkeley_, 35

_Bernouilli_, 205

_Bertholon_, 119

_Bertrin, G._, 247

_Berzelius, J._, 217

_Bessel, F. W._, 209

_Bethmann-Hollweg_, 394, 405

Bible, 281, 283

Bible-Criticism, modern, 254 _et seq._

_Billroth, Th._, 363

_Biot, J._, 116

_Bischof, K. G._, 219

_Boissarie, Dr._, 247 _et seq._

_Boniface VIII._, 149, 181

_Bornhak, C._, 349, 363

_Boscovich_, 197

_Bourdaloue_, 211

_Bousset, W._, 254, 285

_Boyle, Robert_, 205

_Brahe, Tycho de_, 191, 202

_Branco, W._, 116

_Brass, A._, 333

_Braun, K._, 82, 117, 119, 281

_Brewster, D._, 118

_Broda, R._, 50

_Büchner_, 115, 364

_Buckland, W._, 219

_Buffon, G. de_, 206

_Cabet, Etienne_, 111

_Cantor, M._, 210

_Caprivi_, 19

Cardinals, 98

_Carneri, B._, 251

_Cassirer_, 50

Catholic, not free in research, 108

Catholic Universities, 370

_Cauchy_, 210

Causation, Natural, 34, 235 _et seq._

Certainty, scientific, 137

Censorship of Books, civil, 172

—— ecclesiastical, 171

_Chamberlain, H. St._, 26, 36, 251, 361

_Charles Borromeo, St._, 175

_Cherbury, Herbert of_, 28

_Chevreul, M. E._, 217

Christ, 31, 143, 246, 401, 407 —— Divinity denied, 251

Christian Religion, State Protection for, 352 _et seq._ —— Truths, 21 —— View of the World, 14 _et seq._, 27, 30, 55

Christianity, 21, 24, 51 —— compared with Paganism, 267 —— free, 285 —— Origin of, 259 —— _vs._ Paganism, 253 —— without Christ, 252, 282

Church, the, 14, 30, 39, 50, 63 _et seq._, 70, 90 _et seq._, 106, 125, 179, 235, 275 _et seq._ —— Accusations of the, 142 _et seq._ —— and Medical Science, 181 —— Catholic, alone enduring, 298 —— Episcopal, 298 —— founder of Schools and Universities, 145 _et seq._ —— not a foreign Power, 406 —— the Mother of Civilization, 145 _et seq._

_Cicero_, 3, 8, 138, 269, 349

_Claar_, M., 170

_Clement IV._, 155

_Clement V._, 149, 152

_Clement VIII._, 195

Cognition, human, 34 _et seq._, 43

College Professors, 393

_Columbus, Christopher_, 182

Communistic Experiments, 111

Congregations, Roman, 98, 189

Copernican System, 183

Copernicus, 4, 113, 174, 184, 186, 189, 194 _et seq._, 200

_Coppée, F._, 324

_Corneille_, 211

_Cornu_, 211

Cosmogonies, of Nations, 242

Council, Fourth Lateran, 182

Council, Vatican, 68 _et seq._, 90, 103, 106, 109, 130

Craniotomy, 102

Creation, disputed, 241

Criticism of the Gospels, modern, 254 _et seq._

_Cuvier, G._, 218, 223

_Cyril, St., of Alexandria_, 87

_Dalberg, J. von_, 150

_Dana, J. Dwight_, 219

_Darwin_, 107, 115, 157, 239, 243 —— an Agnostic, 222

_Davy, Sir H._, 119

_Dawson, W._, 219

Dechristianizing of the modern State, 362 _et seq._

_Delitzsch, Fr._, 51, 281

_Deluc, A._, 119

_Denifle, H._, 151, 153 _et seq._, 182

_Denthofen_, 182

_Descartes, R._, 35, 118, 190

_Dilthey, W._, 292

Divinity of Christ, 281 —— denied, 251 _et seq._

Dogmas, 51, 67, 97, 158

_Döllinger_, 103

_Draper, J._, 86 _et seq._, 144, 159, 182

_Drews, A._, 236, 282

Dualism, 31, 63

_Du Bois-Reymond_, 115, 224, 237, 240

_Dumas, J. B._, 217

_Dumont, A._, 219

Economics, liberal, 30

_Egger, F._, 99

_Ehrenberg, Ch._, 220

_Ehrenfels, Chr. von_, 347

_Eichhorn, Minister_, 344, 364

Emancipation from the Truth, 41

_Eméry_, 196

_Epinois, de l’_, 183

Episcopal Church, 298

_Erdmann, J. E._, 50, 158

Error, Danger of Infection by, 319 —— to be taught with same right as truth? 328

Ethics, modern, 50, 250, 325, 330, 347

_Eucken, R._, 26, 50, 51, 244, 294 _et seq._

_Euler_, 210

Evolution, Theory of, 49, 157, 241 _et seq._ —— Theory, held by Catholic Scientists, 223

Faith, 14, 43, 51 —— and Reason, 73 —— Authority of, 61, 81 —— Definition of, 61, 63, 66 —— Doubts forbidden, 139 —— its scientific Demonstration, 130 _et seq._ —— Motive of, 71 —— not blind, 61, 71 —— Obedience of, and Freedom of Action, 105

_Falkenberg, R._, 45, 158

_Faraday, M._, 214, 224, 249

_Favaro, A._, 183

_Fénélon_, 110

_Feuerbach, L._, 21, 22

_Fichte, J. G._, 4, 52, 129, 178, 394

_Fischer, Kuno_, 37

_Fizeau, A._, 211

_Foerster, F. W._, 128, 246, 268, 338, 345, 390

_Fonck, L._, 86

_Fonsegrive, G._, 39

_Forel, A._, 325, 347

_Foucault, L._, 211

_Fouillie, A._, 290

_Francé, R. H._, 240

_Francis of Sales, St._, 175, 320

_Franklin, B._, 119

_Frauenhofer_, 211

_Frederick II., King_, 178, 179, 363

Freedom, Definition of, 8, 16 —— for the Truth, 74 —— modern Idea of, 16 _et seq._, 18, 26 —— of Art, 336 —— of Research, different from Freedom of Teaching, 9 —— of Research, liberal, 229 _et seq._ —— of Science, Necessity, 12 —— —— Subject to human Nature, 361 —— of Teaching, as understood in the Past, 344, 363 _et seq._, 370 —— —— Danger of, admitted by modern Scientists, 323 —— —— Definition of, 303 —— —— unrestricted, inadmissible, 314

Freedom of Thought, 30, 298 —— two Kinds of, 13, 15, 55

Freemasons, 22, 28, 331

Free-religionists, 23

Free-thinkers, 17, 22, 30, 272, 291, 331, 332, 345, 363

_Fresnel, A._, 211

_Friedwald_, 140

_Frins, V._, 165

_Fuchs, Th._, 162

_Galileo_, 55, 97, 99, 101, 102, 180 _et seq._

_Galle, J. G._, 208

_Galvani, L._, 118, 212

_Gassendi, P._, 190

_Gauss, K._, 209, 210

_Gebler, K. von_, 183

Generatio aequivoca, 241

Genesis, 281 —— Doctrine of, 212 —— History or Legend? 259 —— primordial, 241

_Gerdil_, 211

_Gibbons, Cardinal_, 103

_Giese, T._, 194, 201

_Giesebrecht, F. W._, 129

God, 6, 11, 14, 23, 26, 32, 44, 53, 65, 176, 235, 236, 286, 387

God’s Order of Life, 14

_Goethe_, 178, 269

_Goetz, L._, 165

Gospels, 285 —— modern Criticism of, 254 _et seq._

Government, founded on Christianity, 356

_Goyau, G._, 299

Grace, divine, Definition of, 73

_Gray, Th._, 119

_Gregory VII._, 145

_Gregory IX._, 181

_Gregory XI._, 151

_Grienberger_, 185

_Grimaldi, F._, 195

_Grisar, H._, 99, 190, 197

_Grosse, E._, 116

_Grotthuss, von_, 24

_Guldin_, 211

_Gunkel, H._, 259, 281

_Günther, A._, 99, 172

_Häckel, E._, 87, 114, 198, 217, 221, 222, 239, 241, 268, 303, 325 ——— denounced for Forgery, 333 ——— on Lourdes, 247

_Haeser_, 154

_Haller, A. von_, 7, 205

_Halley_, E., 206

_Hansen, A._, 325

_Harnack, A._, 17, 64, 71, 117, 129, 134, 246, 256 _et seq._, 265, 282,
283, 284, 382

_Hartmann, E. von_, 250, 282, 285, 290, 317

Harvard University, 74

_Harvey, W._, 205

_Hauy, R._, 218

_Heer, O._, 219, 223

_Hefele, K. von_, 181 _et seq._

_Hegel_, 4, 47, 50, 272, 294

_Heis, E._, 209

_Helmholtz, H. von_, 4, 215

_Henslow, G._, 216

_Herbart_, 4

_Hermes, G._, 172

_Herrmann, W._, 76, 78

_Herschel_, 207

_Hertwig, R._, 241

_Hertz_, 4

_Hettner, H._, 28, 36, 47

_Hilgers, J._, 111, 169, 176, 177

_His, W._, 333

Historian, the Catholic, 95 _et seq._

History, and the Faith, 93

_Hitchcock_, 219

_Hoensbroech, P._, 165, 169

_Hoff, van’t_, 71, 181

_Holl, K._, 103

_Holtzmann, O._, 283

_Honorius III._, 152, 155

_Hörnes, M._, 242

_Huber, V. A._, 148, 324

Humanists, 18 _et seq._

Humanitarian Religion, 51 —— View of Life, 55

Humanity, emancipated, 22

Human race, Origin of, 115 _et seq._

_Humboldt, A. von_, 198, 224

_Humboldt, W. von_, 38, 74, 314

_Hume, D._, 35

_Huxley, Th._, 222

_Huygens, Chr._, 118, 204 _et seq._

_Hyrtl, J._, 221

Illuminati, 25

Immorality, among College Men, 335

Inclinations, human, 264 _et seq._

Incompatibility of Science and Faith, 198 _et seq._

Index of forbidden Books, 55, 169 _et seq._, 189, 196

Individualism, 25, 28

Infallibility, 76, 97 _et seq._, 109

_Innocent IV._, 149

_Innocent VI._, 151

_James, W._, 48, 250, 268

_Janssen, J._, 146, 149, 150, 156, 218

Jesuit Order, 183, 359

Jesus Christ, 252, 357 —— Existence of, 282 —— who was? 281 _et seq._

Jews, 128

_Joachim, G._ (see _Rheticus_)

_Jodl, F._, 19, 21, 22, 66, 123, 130, 162, 245, 250, 288, 292, 322, 357

_John XXII._, 151 _et seq._

_Jones, Dr. Spencer_, 298

_Jörgensen_, 229

_Jülicher_, 255, 283

_Justin, Phil._, 277

_Kahl, W._, 10, 162

_Kant, I._, 4, 29, 35, 36, 37 _et seq._, 43 _et seq._, 46 _et seq._, 54,
63, 64, 77, 132, 167, 179, 250, 263, 269, 272, 287, 293, 313,
363

_Kaufmann, G._, 17, 150, 153, 155, 162, 309

_Kelvin, Lord_ (see _Thomson_)

_Kepler, J._, 4, 125, 184, 185, 187, 191, 195 _et seq._, 201 _et seq._

Kepler-Bund, 333

_Kirchhoff, G. R._, 4

_Kleinpeter, H._, 35

_Kneller_, 7, 208

Knowledge and Faith, separation of, 42

_Kochansky_, 196

_Kohlbrugge, J. H._, 116

_Köller_, 121

_Kollmann, J._, 116

_Kone, J._, 147

_Kromer, Bishop_, 195

_Kues, N. von_, 194

_Lacharpe_, 47

_Lalande_, 196

_Lamarck, J. B. de_, 157, 223

_Lammenais, F._, 172

_Lamont, J. von._, 209

_Lange, F._, 237, 239

_Lapparent, A. de_, 219

Lateran Council, Fourth, 182

_Lavoisier, A._, 217

Law, necessity of, 408

Laws of nature, 11

_Lehmann, E._, 243

_Lehmann, M._, 178

_Leibnitz, G. W._, 114, 118, 190, 196, 211

_Leo, the Great_, 383

_Leo XIII._, 95, 170 _et seq._

_Lessing, G. F._, 326

_Leverrier, M._, 48, 207 _et seq._, 238

Liberalism, 29 _et seq._, 162, 364, 370

License to teach, ecclesiastical, 404

_Liebig, J. von_, 4, 218

_Liebmann, O._, 35

Life, first, whence did it come, 240

_Linné, Karl_, 205

_Lipps, Th._, 78, 135, 311

_Locke, J._, 28, 35

_Loisy, A._, 172

_Loosten, de_, 283

_Lossen_, 223

Lourdes, 247

_Lüdeman_, 45

_Luther_, 27, 29, 38, 195

Lutheran Church, expelled Kepler, 202

_Lyell, Ch._, 223

_Macaulay_, 407

_Mach, E._, 35

_Macolano_, 187

_Mädler, J._, 206

_Mai, Cardinal_, 320

Man, Descent of, 288 —— free, 15, 25 —— his Destiny, 11, 19 —— Member of Society, 11

Man, the autonomous, 24 _et seq._, 29, 33, 287 —— the transcendental, 23 _et seq._, 37

Man’s Emancipation, 27 —— Intellect, 14

_Martius, von_, 220

_Masaryk, T. G._, 62, 72, 136, 160

_Maxwell, J._, 214 _et seq._, 224

_Mayer, R._, 215, 239

_Melanchthon_, 195

_Mendel, G. J._, 220

_Menger, K._, 62, 86

_Messer, A._, 140, 235

Method of modern Science, 262

_Michael, E._, 146, 181, 182

_Migné_, 384

_Mill, Stuart_, 245

Miracles denied, 246 _et seq._

Modernism, 44, 45, 165 _et seq._, 389 _et seq._ —— Oath against, 393

_Moigno_, 209

_Moleschott, J._, 115, 224, 364

_Mommsen, Th._, 121, 128, 234, 267

Monism, 31, 331 —— Definition of, 244

Monists, 331

_Montanari, G._, 194

Morality, 325 —— independent of Religion, 250, 336 —— no absolute Standard of, 50

_Muckermann, H._, 220

_Müller, A._, 186

_Müller, Fr._, 243

_Müller, J._, 219

_Münch, W._, 147, 356

_Muratori, L. A._, 320

_Mysticism_, 43, 46

Nature, human, ignored, 264

_Newton_, 4, 7, 118, 125, 191, 201, 203 _et seq._

_Nicolai, F._, 394

_Niebergall, F._, 45

_Nietzsche_, 23 _et seq._, 31, 37, 53, 54, 79, 270, 273

Oath against Modernism, 405 —— binding? 46

Oath of Allegiance in civil Professions, 396 —— of the Professio Fidei Tridentina, 394

Objectivism, 33

_Oken_, 178

_Olbers, W._, 209

_Omalius, J. de_, 219, 223

Oppression, of mental Liberty, by Party Rule, 366

_Oresme, Bishop_, 194

_Osiander_, 184, 195

_Ostwald, W._, 240

_Owen, R._, 111

_Ozanam, A._, 212

Paganism, 267, 286 —— extolled by modern Science, 212 —— preferred to Christianity, 267

_Palacky_, 146

Pantheism, 23, 41, 284

Papacy, Importance of, 373

Papal Charters of Universities, 148 _et seq._

_Pascal_, 211

_Pasteur_, 217, 222, 224, 381

_Pastor, L. von_, 96, 195

Patients, made Subjects for medical Experiments, 319

_Paul III._, 184, 195, 201

_Paul IV._, 170

_Paulsen, F._, 17, 38, 39, 40, 41, 44, 49, 51 _et seq._, 64, 78, 134, 150,
236, 239, 252, 253, 262, 274, 276, 287, 292 _et seq._, 309,
312, 321, 335, 338, 382, 404

_Paulus, H. E._, 258

Pedagogy, 345

Perception, the Nature of human, 33

_Pesch, Chr._, 99

_Peschel, O._, 115

_Pessimism_, 295 _et seq._

_Pfaff, F._, 219

_Pfleiderer, O._, 256, 259, 285

_Philip, the Fair_, 152

Philosophical Errors, 327 —— Training, great Want of, 321

Philosophy, 7, 16, 21, 28, 36, 44, 78, 242, 275, 292 _et seq._

Philosophy and the Faith, 92 —— Scholastic, 49, 53

_Piazzi, G._, 209

_Pindar_, 74

_Pius IX._, 99, 162, 165, 166

_Pius X._, 99

_Plate, L._, 206, 237, 240, 241, 243 _et seq._, 249, 287

_Plato_, 52, 74, 249, 269, 275, 337

_Plutarch_, 349

_Poggendorff_, 209

_Pohle, J._, 209

_Poincaré, H._, 114

Pope, his Person, 98

Popes, and the Universities, 150 _et seq._

_Prantl, K. von_, 324

Prayer, 46

_Pressensé, F. de_, 299

Primordial Genesis, 241

Progress, 159

Promoting the Christian Faith, the Aim of Founders of Universities, 367

Protestantism, 19, 27 _et seq._, 44, 45, 51, 54, 66, 77, 97, 117, 128,
129, 140, 168, 193, 195, 202, 255, 293, 298, 359, 363, 390,
396

_Ptolemy_, 5

_Pythagoras_, 4, 140

_Quenstedt, F._, 7, 219, 223

_Rade, M._, 282

Radicalism, 332

_Ramsay, W._, 7

_Ranke, L. von._, 116, 179

_Ratzel, F._, 115

Reason, its Limitations, 7, 14

Reformation, the, 27, 28, 363

_Reimarus, H. S._, 258

_Reinhold, G._, 391

_Reinke, J._, 7, 115, 223

Relative Truth, 157

Religion, 16, 20, 25, 28, 51 —— abandoned, 289 _et seq._ —— distinguished from Science, 266 —— of natural Reason, 28, 51

Religious Instruction of Children, 45

_Remus, John_, 196

_Renan, E._, 54, 248, 258

Research, and Faith, 59 —— Definition of, 9

Restraint, proper, of Science, 90

Revelation, 29, 51, 72, 77 _et seq._, 90, 125, 297 —— Proof of, 138

Revolution, French, 29, 36 —— of 1848, 363

_Rheticus_ (_G. Joachim_), 195, 201

_Rhodius_, 140

_Riccioli, J._, 190

Right of Christians, to be represented, 367 —— to teach, natural, 369

Rights of Teacher, not unrestricted, 346

_Ritter, K._, 218

_Romanes, G._, 221

_Roscellin_, 158

_Rosenberger_, 118

_Rosmini-Serbati_, 110

_Rothenbücher_, 30

_Rousseau, J. J._, 28

_Rudder, P. de_, 249

_Ruville, A. von_, 77

_Sabatier, A._, 26, 39, 78, 262

_Saint-Hilaire_, 223

_Saitschick_, 392

_Sarcey_, 173

_Savigny, F. von_, 355

Scepticism, 35, 47, 55, 293

_Schafhäutl, K. von_, 219

_Scheiner, Ch._, 125, 191

_Schell, H._, 136, 172

_Schelling_, 4

_Scherr, J._, 38

_Schiaparelli, G._, 191

_Schiller_, 274

_Schleiermacher_, 45, 54, 290

_Schmiedel, P._, 282

_Schneider, W._, 116

_Schönbein_, 7, 218

_Schönberg, Cardinal_, 194, 201

Schools, free, 22

_Schopenhauer_, 35, 272, 274

_Schwann, Th._, 220

_Schwegler, A._, 28

_Schweitzer, A._, 282

Science, an Activity of the human Mind, 6 —— anti-Christian, its Danger, 329 _et seq._ —— Definition, 3 _et seq._ —— Errors of, 115 _et seq._ —— grave Charges against Modern, 329 —— Limitations, 7 —— Power of, 322 —— restricted by accidental Conditions, 361 —— subject to God, 6 —— subject to Imperfections of human Mind, 6, 31 —— subject to Truth, 6 —— Vocation of, 279

Sciences, profane and the Faith, 88

Scientific Research, Methods, 158 —— Teaching, Definition, 316

Scientists, Catholic, 384 _et seq._

Scripture, does not teach profane Sciences, 84 —— Interpretation, 27 —— Narratives not to be taken in literal Sense, 82 _et seq._

_Secchi, A._, 191, 208

_Sedgwick, A._, 219

Seminaries, 400

Sensuality, Emancipation of, Danger to Civilization, 356

Sexual Perversities, 347 —— Practice, natural, 346 —— Questions, 325 —— Reform, 347

Sham-Science, 313

Silence not Denial, 11

_Smet, de_, 86

_Smith, Adam_, 28

_Smolko, S. von_, 359

Socialism, 111, 349, 350

Socialists, 331

Social question, 30

Sociology, 30

_Socrates_, 7

Soul, the, 46 _et seq._ —— the, an illusion, 288 _et seq._

_Spencer, H._, 243, 313

_Spicker, G._, 22, 26, 292, 324

_Spinoza, B._, 41, 179

_Stägemann_, 36

State, the, and Freedom of Teaching, 340 _et seq._

_Steudel_, 236

_Strauss, D. F._, 54, 65, 240, 258, 267, 273, 280, 283, 286, 287, 315, 364

_Stütz_, 119

_Subjectivism_, 33 _et seq._

Supernatural, Factors to be excluded, 235 _et seq._ —— the, inadmissible, 31

Supervision of Teaching, Ecclesiastical, 389

_Sybel, L. von_, 246, 292

Syllabus, the, 55, 94, 115, 162 _et seq._

Tanner, A., 192

_Targioni-Tozzetti_, 194

Teachers, anti-Christian, 358 —— Catholic, small Number of, 365 —— Jewish, 365

Teaching, Definition of, 10 —— of the Church, as distinguished from Opinions of Theologians, 82 _et seq._

_Tews, J._, 358

_Thénard, L._, 217

Theocentric View of the World, 19

Theologians, Catholic, of Repute, 384 _et seq._

Theological Literature, Catholic, 384 _et seq._

Theology and Progress, 381 _et seq._ —— a Science, 378 _et seq._ —— History of, 403

Theophobia of Science, 234, 241

Theory of Rights, individualistic, 313

_Thomas, St._, 82, 84, 155, 262, 353, 388

_Thomasius, Chr._, 344, 363

_Thomson_ (_Lord Kelvin_), 74, 238, 249, 251 _et seq._, 381

_Toland, J._, 28

_Treitschke, H. von_, 129, 179

_Tröltsch, E._, 28, 134, 167, 298, 356, 389

Truth, relative, 49 _et seq._

_Tyndall, J._, 217, 224

_Überweg, F._, 267

_Uhlich, L._, 291

United States, 111, 368

Universities, 150, 341 _et seq._ —— and the Church, 371 —— Catholic, 370 —— free, 368

University, and Theology, 398 —— Teachers, 17 —— vanishing Respect for, 334

Unprepossession in Research, 121 _et seq._, 357

_Urban IV._, 155

_Urban V._, 151

_Urban VIII._, 96, 186, 189

_Vaillant_, _Anarchist_, 350

_Valerius, Maximus_, 319

_Varnhagen_, 36

Vatican Archives, 95

Vatican Council, 68 _et seq._, 90, 103, 106, 109, 130

_Vaudin_, 119

_Vierort, K. von_, 220

View of life, Christian, 252 —— of the World, anthropocentric, 19 —— —— Christian, 14, 27 —— —— humanitarian, 18, 21 _et seq._, 31 —— —— theocentric, 19

Views of the World, various, 13, 22, 159, 294

_Vigilius, St._, 180 _et seq._

_Vincent, St. of Lerin_, 383

_Virchow, R. von_, 116, 224, 241, 323

_Vogt, K._, 30, 115, 224

_Volkmann, A._, 220, 223

_Volta, A._, 212 _et seq._, 224

_Voltaire_, 28, 326

_Vries, H. de_, 220

_Waagen, W._, 223

_Wahrmund, L._, 86

_Wallace, A._, 119

_Walsh, J. J._, 208

_Walther, W._, 284

_Washington, George_, 349

_Wasmann, E._, 116, 223, 243, 249

_Wehner, von_, 405

_Weismann_, 242

_Weizsäcker_, 257

_Westermark_, 50

_Westhoff_, 177, 74, 145, 276, 282

_Wimpheling_, 156

_Wobbermin, G._, 245

_Wolf, R._, 207

_Wöllner, Minister_, 363

_Wundt, W._, 24, 52, 62, 71, 137, 235, 243, 254, 288, 290

_Young, Th._, 119

_Zacharias, Pope_, 180

_Zedlitz, von_, 363

_Zeller, E._, 246, 255

_Ziegler, Th._, 59

_Zittel_, 116

_Zöckler_, 7, 181, 201

_Zoen, Bishop_, 151

_Zola_, 248 _et seq._

FOOTNOTES

1 Whenever we use here the word “modern,” we do not take it in the
sense of “present,”—the Christian view of the world is also a
present one, and is still of the utmost importance,—but in the sense
of “new” in contrast to the time-honoured and inherited.

2 The difference between the Protestant and the Catholic manner of
reasoning is stated by the convert, Prof. _A. von Ruville_, as
follows:

“My mind had harboured up to now the characteristically Protestant
thought that I, from my superior mental standpoint, was going to
probe the Catholic Church, that I was going to pass an infallible
judgment on her truth or untruth, and this in spite of my being
ready to acknowledge the truth in her. But now I became more and
more conscious of the fact that it was the Church who had a right to
pass judgment on me, that I had to bow to her opinion, that she
immeasurably surpassed me in wisdom. Many details, which I was
inclined to criticize, demonstrated this to me, for in every
instance I recognized that it was my understanding that was at
fault, and that what appeared to me as an imperfection was rooted in
the deepest truth. In this way I was gradually brought to the real
Catholic standpoint, to accept the doctrines immediately as Truth,
because they proceeded from the Church, and then to endeavour to
understand them thoroughly, and to reap from them the fullest
possible harvest of Truth. Formerly, with regard to Protestant
doctrines, I always retained my independence and the sovereignty of
my judgment. Why should I not have had my own opinion, when every
denomination and every theologian had an individual opinion? How
different with the Catholic Church. Before her sublime, never
varying wisdom, as it is proclaimed by every simple priest, I bowed
my knees in humility. Compared to her experience of two thousand
years my ephemeral knowledge was a mere nothing” (Back to Holy
Church, by Dr. _Albert von Ruville_, pp. 30, 31).

3 Infallible teachings are often also called dogmas. But they are not
always dogmas in the strict sense. In the strict sense dogmas are
such truths as are contained in divine revelation, and are
proclaimed by the infallible teaching authority of the Church to be
believed as such by the faithful. In a broader sense those tenets
are often called dogmas which are presented by revelation or by the
Church as infallible truths. In this sense all teachings of faith
clearly found in Holy Scripture are dogmas, even if not declared by
the Church. In this sense Protestants, too, believe in revealed
dogmas.

4 “They that have received the faith through the ministry of the
Church can never have just cause for changing their faith or calling
it into doubt” (Sess. III, ch. 3). The Vatican Council did not
thereby mean to say that an exceptional case could not happen where
some one, without fault of his own, might fall away from his faith,
either on account of insufficient religious instruction, or of
natural dullness or exceptional misfortunes in the circumstances of
life in which he may be placed. The theologians who worded the
decision also say that the Council did not intend to condemn the
opinion expressed by many older theologians, that under certain
conditions an uneducated Catholic might be led in such way into
error as to join another faith without committing a sin. (cf.
_Granderath_, Const. Dog. ss. oec. Concl. Vat. 69).

5 At a certain Austrian university, where the custom obtains that a
member of a faculty of the university, in the regular order of the
faculties, publishes during the year a book on some study in its
particular branch, the turn came to the theological faculty. One of
its members then issued a work on moral theology, of course with the
ecclesiastical Imprimatur. Upon this being discovered the senate
resolved not to acknowledge the book as a university publication,
nor to issue it as such, as is usually the custom. They believed
they saw in the Imprimatur a degradation of science and a violation
of its freedom—a procedure entirely in accord with the traditional
narrow-mindedness and intolerance of liberalism.

6 A clear understanding of the case of _Galileo_ has been made
possible only since the year 1877, when the papers of the trial were
published by two men of opposite religious views,—the
Catholic-minded historian, _de l’Epinois_, and the liberal author,
_K. Gebler_, who in 1876 had already published a work on “Galileo
Galilei and the Roman Curia,” in the spirit of the anti-clerical
tendency of the times. Yet, in spite of his attitude, he was given
free permission to copy the papers—a magnanimity by which the Holy
See has earned the gratitude and admiration of every fair-minded
lover of history. In more recent times, _A. Favaro_ published, in
1890-1907, a work of twenty volumes containing all the papers
relating to the trial of _Galileo_, “Opere di Galileo Galilei,
Edizione Nazionale.” He, too, had access to the ecclesiastical
archives, which he acknowledges with thanks. It may be said now that
the _Galileo_ case has been settled by documentary evidence.

7 After visiting _Thomson_ at Kreuznach, _Helmholtz_ wrote: “He
surpasses all great scientists I have personally met, in acumen,
clearness and activity of spirit, so that I felt somewhat dull
beside him.” _Helmholtz_ himself (died 1894) has never expressed
himself about religion. Absorbed by his scientific work, he seemed
to have been indifferent to religion, but according to his
biographer his father was a decided theist, and his philosophical
views were held in great esteem, and partly subscribed to, by the
son. According to _Dennert_, _Helmholtz_ attended church now and
then, and even partook of holy communion. Of decided religious bent
of mind was _Helmholtz’s_ fellow-countryman, and co-discoverer of
the law of energy, _Robert Mayer_. At the Congress of scientists at
Innsbruck, in 1869, _Mayer_ ended his address with the significant
words: “Let me in conclusion declare from the bottom of my heart
that true philosophy cannot and must not be anything else but
propædeutics of the Christian religion.” His letters breathe piety.
For a time he had the intention of joining the Catholic Church.

8 Others take refuge in the fantastic theory of an “All-Animation.”
According to it all organisms, including trees, shrubs, grasses, are
possessed of a soulful sensation and feeling for the purposes they
serve, and for the elaborate actions they undertake: this is the
reason for their efficacy, not because a wise Creator had arranged
them thus. _R. H. Francé_ exclaims triumphantly: “When the powers
that be should ask in their dissatisfaction: ‘Where has God a place
in your system?’ we can answer calmly: ‘We do not need the
hypothesis of a personal God.’ ” God is superfluous—this is the
precious gain which this unscientific explanation is to yield.

9 Compare Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum XI (1883, vii.).

_ 10 L. M. Hartmann_, Theodor Mommsen (1908), 81. The author of the
biography is a Jew. There is a much-circulated story, alleged to
come from _F. X. Kraus_. _Mommsen_ is said to have told _Kraus_,
inasmuch as neither the origin, nor nature, nor the spread of
Christianity can be explained by natural causes, and since he, in
his capacity of historian, could never acknowledge anything
supernatural, therefore the fourth volume will remain unwritten.

_ 11 Nietzsche_, “Thus spoke Zarathustra.”

12 “_Veritati ut possetis acquiescere, humilitate opus erat, quae
civitati, vestrae difficillime persuaderi potest_” (De civit. Dei,
X, 29).

_ 13 Plato_, Phil. 6 c. Similarly _Pythagoras_, _Aristotle_, and
_Cicero_.

14 Dial. c. Tryph. 2.

15 “But for the retention of names and terms _Harnack_ leaves nothing
of the specific nature of Christianity,” admits the Protestant
Professor of Theology, _W. Walther_, in his book, “Harnack’s Wesen
des Christentums” (1901).

_ 16 Uhlich_, founder of a community of free-thinkers, who died in 1873,
thus describes his evolution from rationalism to atheism: “At the
beginning I could say: We hold fast to Jesus, to Him who stood too
high to be called a mere man. Ten years later I could say: God,
virtue, immortality—these three are the eternal foundation of
religion. And after ten more years I could issue a declaration
wherein God was mentioned no more.” Similar progress in spiritual
disintegration has been shown by Liberalism in recent years: first
it partially abandoned Christian dogma, without however quite
breaking loose from it; in the eighteenth century rationalistic
enlightenment tore loose from all revelation, adhering only to
natural religion: to-day even this is lost.

17 Dr. _Spencer Jones_, an Episcopal clergyman, says in his book,
“England and the Holy See”: “For the Episcopal Church the junction
with Rome, with its sharply defined dogmas, its supreme ministry,
and its firm leadership, is a question of life. More and more the
supernatural belief is replaced by individual opinions, a condition
which in itself causes faith to disappear. A condition like the
present, making it possible that in one and the same congregation
the most pronounced contrariety of opinions in respect to most
essential tenets, as well as a general confusion of minds, is not
only tolerated, but directly welcomed, such a condition cannot
endure in the long run.”

18 A French author, _G. Goyau_, states with truth: “What makes the
(Catholic) Church lovable in the eyes of thinking minds outside of
the Church, is just her uncompromising attitude. They see a Church
steadfast, permanent, imperturbable. The stumbling block of yore has
become for them an isle of safety. They are thankful to Rome for
holding before their eyes _the_ Christianity, instead of giving them
the choice of several kinds of Christianity, including kinds still
unknown, which they undoubtedly themselves may discover, if so
inclined. They welcome the Roman Church as the ‘Teacher of Faith’
and ‘Conqueror of Errors,’ and, to quote more of the forcible
language of the Protestant _de Pressensé_: ‘they are disgusted with
a Christianity for the lowest bidder, but are impressed by the rigid
inflexibility of Catholicism....’ ” (Autour du Catholicisme social.
I. 1896).

19 “The Independent” (New York) of Feb. 2, 1914, reports under the head
_freedom of teaching_ the dismissal of a professor from the
Presbyterian University at Easton, Pa. After quoting from the
charter article VIII, which provides “that persons of every
religious denomination shall be capable of being elected Trustees,
nor shall any person, either as principal, professor, tutor or pupil
be refused admittance into said college, or denied any of the
privileges, immunities or advantages thereof, for or on account of
his sentiments in matters of religion,” the report goes on to say:
“it appears however, from the investigations of the committee, that
President _Warfield_ insists that the instruction in philosophy and
psychology has to be such, as, in his opinion, accords with the most
conservative form of Presbyterian theology.”

20 Prof. _Chr. von Ehrenfels_, Sexualethik. Similar passages might be
quoted from numerous other books by college-professors.