The trustees of Princeton College have deserved commendation and given a good example to other colleges by establishing the chair filled by Dr. Shields. The learned doctor is evidently applying himself with zeal and industry to the studies which will fit him to teach with ability in his important branch of science—one which demands an almost encyclopædic knowledge of many sciences specifically different from each other. He informs us that he is preparing an extensive work on the topics presented in the essay before us, which is certainly a most laudable undertaking, and one in which we hope he may achieve a successful and useful result. In the present essay the author shows a very considerable amount of reading and thought, some skill in generalization, and a good deal of that felicity of diction which is requisite in making such abstruse themes as those which relate to natural and theological science attractive and intelligible even to the mass of cultivated persons.
The distinctive and principal thesis defended by Dr. Shields is, that philosophy is the only umpire to determine controversies in which the opposing parties advocate what are professedly revealed and professedly scientific facts or truths, respectively, in a mutually destructive or hostile sense to each other. To a certain extent, and in a correctly defined sense, we cordially agree with him, and in this sense the high office of philosophy, as the queen of all rational science, is affirmed and defended by all Catholic philosophers and theologians worthy of the name. The five primary natural sciences—physics, mathematics, metaphysics, logic, and ethics—are certainly none of them subaltern one to another, yet the other four are subordinate to metaphysics, because its object has a precedence in the order of the knowable, and its principles furnish the other sciences with their rational foundation. Nevertheless, it is evident, and must be admitted by every one who believes in a certain, clear, and surely ascertainable revelation of facts and truths by God, which is supernatural, that there is a science above metaphysics in excellence—viz., theology, which dominates over it in so far that the latter science cannot reject any of its dogmas. The sciences cannot therefore properly be said to be separate from each other, although they are really distinct. All rational sciences are subalternated to one or more of the five primaries, and thus subordinated to metaphysics, which is subordinated to theology. We consider that the author is mistaken in asserting that a “healthful separation and progress” marked the first stage of the history of the sciences since the Reformation. If by separation he means distinction only, and the free development in each science of its own proper principles by its proper methods, this distinction was recognized and acted on before the Reformation, as may be seen by consulting the great master of the schools, S. Thomas. Some of the sciences have made great progress since that event, not by means of, but partly notwithstanding, their violent and unnatural separation from metaphysics and theology. In respect to metaphysics and ethics, the Reformation has produced one only direct result, which is a miserable decadence and retrogression, which seems to have nearly reached its lowest term. The sciences can only progress with full liberty towards the perfection of human knowledge when they exist in the due harmony and subordination which their nature demands and God has established. The exposition of the order and relation of scientific facts, principles, and deductions in the universal realm of truth, as a universal or encyclopædic science, must, therefore, always place each one in its due subordination, and cannot admit of the umpirage of an inferior over a superior science, much less of a revolt on the part of the inferior. It is absurd to suppose that the inferior tribunal of human reason can judge a case in which the judgment of God, who is the supreme reason, or of an authority which God has made supreme, comes up by appeal. Dr. Shields objects that the great problems in question cannot be settled by the determination of Scripture, councils, the Holy See, or any kind of ecclesiastical decisions, because there is no agreement respecting the true sense of Scripture, or universal recognition of a competent and unerring tribunal. To this we reply that the construction of certain and complete science is one thing, and the communication of this science to the ignorant or erring is another. Questions may be really and definitively settled, though great numbers of men may remain in culpable or inculpable ignorance or error. The Syllabus has settled all that it was intended to settle, so far as the right of the matter is concerned, and for the whole body of men who submit to the infallible authority of the Vicar of Christ. Our knowledge is not in any way impaired by the ignorance of those who are deprived of the benefit of that instruction which Catholics enjoy. But, when we come to controversy, we cannot, of course, attempt to convince or confute the ignorant or erring by simply appealing to an authority which the antagonist or objector, or uninstructed inquirer, does not know or recognize to be an authority. We cannot assume the authority of God with an atheist, of the Christian revelation with an infidel, of the Catholic Church with a Protestant. One of the fathers says, Qui fidem exigit, fidem astruat, and Catholic theologians have always acted on that maxim. Dr. Shields, as a Protestant, has no rational idea of a positive, theological science. It is all mere controversy, and we apprehend that his philosophy will be found to be something equally unsettled and incapable of settling itself. It is a very dangerous thing for any kind of dogmatic Protestantism to concede the rights of reason, and especially so for Calvinism. Princeton appears to be losing the old, Presbyterian, Calvinistic spirit, and going the way of the rest of the world towards rationalism. We are not sorry for it, because we hope that the cultivation and exercise of reason will prepare the way for a great number of intelligent and educated young men to submit their minds to the rightful and ennobling dominion of divine faith. Notwithstanding the defects of Dr. Shields’ essay, we are glad to see him advocate the study of philosophy and exalt its dignity; for the search after the true philosophy may lead many to find it, and the true philosophy is the handmaid of the true theology, and leads her votaries to the feet of her mistress.
An Elementary Treatise on Physical Geography. By D. M. Warren. Revised by A. von Steinwehr. Philadelphia: Cowperthwait & Co.
This book is one which Catholic teachers should never think of using, and against which Catholic children should, as far as possible, be specially warned, should it be introduced in any school which they are obliged by circumstances to attend.
It is probable that the chapter on ethnography, which is specially objectionable, is the composition of the reviser. At least we should so infer from the stupid arrogance which crops out in its last sentence, and which is characteristic of the Prussia of to-day, intoxicated with a temporary success which was, as any careful student of history will conclude, intended for the purification of France rather than for the exaltation of her opponent. “The present historical period,” he says, “is directed by the Germanic Aryans, who are the leaders of modern Christian civilization.” Comment is unnecessary. We venture to say that few of our or anybody else’s readers have ever come across anything more impudent or absurd. It is an insult to the American people, Catholic or non-Catholic, to palm off on them such stuff as this.
He also implies in another place that the German nation “worked out its own civilization.” We have not heard of any nation that has done that, but that the Germans did not is too manifest to admit of argument.
The principal objection to the chapter, however, is the publication, without note or comment of course, of two heresies with regard to the origin of the human race, as being equally entitled to acceptance with the Mosaic account. One of these is its origin from different original pairs, the other what is commonly known as Darwinism.
It is not worth while to give a more extended notice to a book of this sort. This species of book can be turned off by any person with a smattering of science who has the leisure for authorship, and who can find a publisher. The market is flooded with such. We should not have said anything about it had not our attention been called to it by a friend on account of its dangerous character.
It is high time that we had a complete series of really Catholic text-books which would need no correction, either in their matter or in the spirit in which they are written. We could put up even with inferior ones for the sake of religion and the faith of our young people; but we should not have to try very hard to come up to the standard of such books as the one just noticed.
New Practical Meditations for Every Day in the Year, on the Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Chiefly intended for the use of Religious Communities. By the Rev. Father Bruno Vercruysse, S.J. The only complete English translation. New York and Cincinnati: Benziger Brothers. 1875.