¹ “Depuis trois siècles environ, le travail purement scholastique n'a produit aucun chef-d'oeuvre saillant,” Bellamy, J., La Théologie Catholique au XIXe siècle, 2d ed., Paris, 1904, p. 188Google Scholar. This book is far from being a complete and satisfactory history of Catholic theology in the last century. It is rather a series of detached chapters covering special phases of the development. This is partly due to the death of the author before the book was finished, partly to the lack of more complete information, and partly also to the state of uncertainty and hesitation in theological circles during the first years of the twentieth century.

² For the influence of Descartes on the theologians of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries see: Werner, K., Geschichte der katholischen Theologie. Seit dem Trienter Concil bis zum Gegenwart, München, 1866Google Scholar, and Saitta, G., Le origini del Neo-Tomismo, Bari, 1912, cap. II, pp. 17 ffGoogle Scholar.

³ On Malebranche see: Ollé-Laprune, , La philosophie de Malebranche, Paris, 1870Google Scholar, and Joly, , Malebranche, in the series entitled Les Grands Philosophes, Paris, 1901Google Scholar.

⁴ In France the greater part of the clergy were Gallicans, and the textbooks on theology were that of Bailly (openly Jansenist) and the so-called Théologie de Toulouse (no less Jansenist and Gallican). In Germany, Austria, and Northern Italy the theological seminaries instituted by Joseph II at Vienna, Fribourg, Pesth, Pavia, and Louvain were centres of incredulity: “L'enseignement dogmatique et exégéetique y était imprégné de rationalisme. … Les professeurs d'histoire enseignaient d'après les manuels de leurs collègues protestants et le droit canonique n'était qu'une machine de guerre destinée à battre en brèche l'autorité de la Papauté,” Kannengieser, , Les origines du vieux catholicisme, Paris, 1900, p. 63Google Scholar; see Bellamy, op. cit., chap. I.

⁵ Réflexions sur l'état de l'Église en France pendant le dix-huitième siècle et sa situation actuelle, Paris, 1808Google Scholar.

⁶ Expositions and refutations of Traditionalism are to be found in almost all modern treatises on Catholic dogmatic theology, for instance in Pohle-Preuss, God, his Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, 2d ed., St. Louis, Mo., 1914, pp. 44 ff. A more complete exposition of the Catholic point of view in Bainvel, J. V., De Magisterio vivo et Traditione, Paris, 1906Google Scholar. An exhaustive historical treatment of Traditionalism in the nineteenth century is still lacking.

⁷ On Ubaghs see Bellamy, op. cit., chap II, pp. 29 ff., and Revue des sciences ecclésiastiques, 1876, XXXIV, pp. 541–552.

⁸ On German Catholic theology (Hermes, Günther, and the school of Tübingen) see the very important study of Vermeil, Edmond, Jean-Adam Möhler et l'école Catholique de Tubingue (1815–1840). Étude sur la théologie romantique en Wurtemberg et les origines germaniques du modernisme, Paris, 1913Google Scholar. Also Saitta, op. cit., cap. IV, V, and Goyau, G., L'Allemagne religieuse: Le Catholicisme (1800–1848), II, Paris, 1905Google Scholar. By the same author also: Möhler, in the collection La Pensée Chrétienne, Paris, 1905Google Scholar.

⁹ Drey, , Kurze Einleitung in das Studium der Theologie, mit Rücksicht auf den wissenschaftlichen Standpunkt und das katholische System, Tübingen, 1819, p. 5Google Scholar. Vermeil, op. cit., p. 41.

¹⁰ The controversy between Gioberti and Rosmini has been presented in detail by Saitta, G. in his book, Il pensiero di Vincenzo Gioberti, Messina, 1917, part II, chap. III, pp. 153–205Google Scholar. For the theological implications of Gioberti's system see in the same book, part I, chaps. III, IV, and passim. On Rosmini there is a large literature; see Sheldon, , ‘The Teaching of Rosmini’ in Papers of the American Society of Church History, 1897, VIIIGoogle Scholar; Orestano, Rosmini, in Biblioteca pedagogica, Rome, 1908Google Scholar; Palhories, Rosmini, in Les Grands Philosophes, Paris, 1908Google Scholar. The influence of Rosmini was very strong among a number of French and Belgian theologians and especially among the Sulpicians, as appears from the diary of the famous Père Hyacinthe Loyson in Houtin, Le Père Hyacinthe dans l'Église Romaine (1827–1869), Paris, 1920Google Scholar. In 1851 Father Hyacinth writes as follows: “Je trouvai dans l'Ontologisme la satisfaction de mon intelligence en même temps que l'aliment de mon coeur. L'Ontologisme unit le rationalisme le plus hardi au mystidsme le plus tendre, et il est pour moi une religion en même temps qu'une philosophie” p. 64. The theological errors of Rosmini are exposed in Rosminianarum Propositionum trutina theologica, Rome, 1892Google Scholar, attributed to Cardinal Mazzella, against whom Morando, G. wrote his Esame critico delle XL Proposizioni Rosminiane condannate dalla S. R. U. Inquisizione, Milan, 1905Google Scholar.

¹¹ The revival of Scholasticism is usually connected with the name of Sanseverino of Naples and later with those of Liberatore, also from Naples, Kleutgen from Germany, Grandclaude from France, and others. In several articles in the Rivista Neo-scolastica Dr. Masnovo has directed attention to an earlier group of scholastics from which Italian neo-scholasticism takes its beginning. It seems that a Spanish Jesuit exiled from Spain in 1767 found a refuge in Piacenza and taught there Thomistic philosophy. His disciple and successor Bozzetti left in manuscript a course of scholasticism which in the judgment of Dr. Masnovo is very remarkable. His disciples Serafino and Domenico Sordi, two brothers who later entered the Society of Jesus, were fervent Thomists, and it was due to them that a movement started within the Society in favor of a scholastic restoration. See, in the Rivista, 1910, vol. II, ‘Nuovi contributi alla storia del Neo-tomismo,’ pp. 69 ff., and 1920, vol. XII, pp. 42–55.

¹² Historical studies on Aquinas have become very prominent in the last thirty years. The works of Mandonnet, Des écrits authentiques de Saint Thomas d'Aquin, 2d ed., Fribourg, 1910Google Scholar, of Michelitsch, Thomasschriften: Untersuchungen und die Schriften Thomas’ v. Aquino, Graz, 1911, vol. IGoogle Scholar, are of capital importance. A complete bibliography is to be found in Mandonnet et Destrez, Bibliographie Thomiste, first volume of a Bibliothèque Thomiste, Le Saulchoir (Belgium), 1921, published by the Dominicans of the Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques. It contains an introduction summarizing the results of critical studies on the life and writings of Aquinas. The bibliography is exhaustive, but no attempt is made at a critical discrimination among the works listed.

¹³ In periodical literature the integralist Thomistic school is represented by the three Jesuit reviews, La Civiltà Cattolica of Rome, Les Études of Paris, and Stimmen aus Maria-Laach. These periodicals, although they do not have the character of theological reviews, frequently publish articles on philosophical theological questions, mostly with polemical purpose. By the Jesuits of the University of Innsbrück is published the Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, and by those of the Gregorian University of Rome the Gregorianum (since 1920). The Jahrbuch für Philosophie und spekulative Theologie founded in 1886 by E. Commer, who acquired some notoriety in connection with the affaire Schell, has several times changed its theological compass, but as a whole it may be fairly ranged among the most conservative theological reviews. The Dominicans publish the Thomistic reviews, La Ciencia Tomista of Madrid, La Revue Thomiste of Paris, and the Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques of Belgium. On the condition of theological studies and publications in the various countries may be consulted A. Vacant et E. Mangenot, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Paris, of which there have already appeared six volumes, as far as the letter H.

¹⁴ The most important reviews of scholastic philosophy are the Revue Néo-scholastique of Louvain, the Rivista di Filosofia Neo-scolastica of Milan, and the Philosophisches Jahrbuch of Fulda.

¹⁵ Rivista di Filosofia Neo-scolastica, 1909, p. 297.

¹⁶ A complete bibliography of modern Catholic theology is to be found in Hurter, H., Nomenclator Literarius Theologiae Catholicae; Aetas recens, Pars II theologos complectens novissimos. Ab anno 1870–1910, ed. 3, Innsbrück, 1913Google Scholar. For the years since 1910 see the Bulletin de Théologie spéculative, which is to be found in each volume of the Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques and in other theological reviews. Most of the textbooks on dogmatic theology have appeared in Germany, and a number of them are written in German. For a list and criticism of many of them see Kihn, H., Encyclopädie und Methodologie der Theologie, Freiburg, 1892, pp. 412–416Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Tanquerey, Adam, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis hodiernis moribus accommodata, 11th ed., 1907.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Joseph Pohle, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik. English translation by Arthur Preuss in a series of twelve volumes under the general title, The Pohle-Preuss Series of Dogmatic Text-books, St. Louis, Mo., 1914.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Tanquerey, De Vera Religione, de Ecclesia, de Fontibus Theologicis, p. 111.

²⁰ The theological treatises of Cardinal Billot are the following: De Verbo Incarnato, ed. 4, 1905; De Ecclesia Christi, ed. 3, 1909; De Deo Uno et Trino, ed. 4, 1909; De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, ed. 4, 1907; De Virtutibus infusis, ed. 2, 1905; Disquisitio de natura et ratione peccati personalis, ed. 3, 1908; De inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae, ed. 2, Quaestiones de Novissimis, ed. 3, De immutabilitate Traditionis contra novam haeresim evolutionismi, ed. 2, 1907; De Gratia Christi et libero hominis arbitrio, Pars I, 1908.

²¹ On these charges against Billot's Thomism, see Bellamy, op. cit., pp. 152–156.

²² A history of the variations of Catholic scholars in biblical criticism is to be found in the two volumes of Houtin, Albert, La Question biblique au XIXe siècle, Paris, 1902Google Scholar, and La Question biblique au XXe siècle, Paris, 1906Google Scholar. A survey of the points of Catholic doctrine especially affected by biblical and historical criticism in Programme of Modernism (English transl.), 1908; and in Tyrrell's Mediaevalism, 1909.

²³ “Au milieu du XIXe siècle le P. Perrone enseignait au Collège romain [Gregorian University] que les exégètes catholiques devaient se soucier de la critique juste ce qu'il fallait pour défendre le dogme. Au commencement du XXe siècle un professeur de la même institution disait fièrement à l'un de ses collègues: Il y a vingt ans que j'enseigne: mes élèves ignorent qu'il y ait une question biblique,” Houtin, op. cit., p. 198. This professor was Billot, as appears from Mgr. Touchet, Lettre sur l'enseignement aux seminaristes, 1903, quoted by Houtin.

²⁴ The insufficiency of modern scholasticism to offer a sound basis for apologetics was one of the favorite topics of the Catholic anti-scholastics. See, for instance, E. Buonaiuti, ‘Il Neo-Tomismo,’ in Rivista di Studi religiosi, 1904, pp. 489–512; Tyrrell, , Lex Orandi, London, 1904Google Scholar, Introduction; and Maurice Blondel, ‘Histoire et dogme: les lacunes philosophiques de l'exégèse moderne,’ in Quinzaine, 1904.

²⁵ In France the pontifical wishes about the restoration of scholasticism were disregarded by a small group of Catholic philosophers, especially Oratorians, among whom the traditions of Malebranche and the more recent ones of Newman and Gratry were always alive, together with a strong dislike of scholasticism in all its forms. Laberthonnière continued this tradition and contributed frequently to the Annales de philosophie chrétienne, of which he was the editor for many years. In the same direction worked a group of laymen of the school of Ollé-Laprune, whose disciple was Maurice Blondel, the most original thinker of the whole group. Of the many writings of Blondel the most important is L'Action. Essai d'une critique de la vie et d'une science de la pratique, Paris, 1893Google Scholar. On the apologetic motive of his philosophy see his articles: ‘Les exigences de la pensée contemporaine en matière d'apologétique et la méthode de la philosophie dans l'étude du problèms religieux,' in Annales, 1895–1896. On this Catholic neo-kantian school, see Albert Leclèrc, ‘Le mouvement catholique kantien en France à l'heure présente,’ in Kantstudien, Bd. VII, 1902; Hébert, M., L'évolution de la foi catholique, Paris, 1905Google Scholar; and E. Ménégoz, ‘Le fidéisme et la notion de la foi,’ in Revue de Théologie et de Questions religieuses, January 1905.

²⁶ Annales, 1896, p. 600.

²⁷ L'Action, p. 353.

²⁸ Lettre à l'Univers, March 1, 1907.

²⁹ Catholic apologetics still clings, and probably will for ever do so, to the old scheme, which may be presented as follows: Reason proves the existence of God; this God may reveal himself; history proves the fact of revelation, it proves also the authenticity of the Scripture and the authority of the Church; Catholicism is therefore founded on a rational basis which is truly scientific. See Buonaiuti, ‘La Filosofia dell’ Azione,' in Rivista di Studi religiosi, 1905, p. 228.

³⁰ On these attacks, see Schell, H., Selbstersetzung des Christenthums und die Religion der Zukunft, 2d ed., Berlin, 1874Google Scholar. Still more violent were the attacks of Paulsen, , System der Ethik mit einem Umriss der Staats- und Gesell-schaftslehre, 4th ed., Berlin, 1894Google Scholar, against Catholic religious absolutism, and Philosophia militans: gegen Klericalismus und Naturalismus, Berlin, 1901Google Scholar, against superstition and casuistry as the logical products of a religion based on external authority.

³¹ Schell inaugurated his literary career as a follower of the Aristotelian-Thomistic school with his book, Die Einheit des Seelenlebens aus den Prinzipien der aristotelischen Philosophie, 1873. His study on the trinity, Das Wirken des dreieinigen Gottes, 1885, shows him still clinging to the Thomistic tradition. But the first two volumes of his Katholische Dogmatik, Paderborn, 1892–1893Google Scholar, reveal that he had already outgrown scholasticism, as appeared more clearly in the last two volumes of the same work, and much more in his great apologetic book, Die göttliche Wahrheit des Christenthums, 1895, and the two small books, Der Katholicismus als Princip des Fortschritts, 1897, Die neue Zeit und der alte Glaube, 1898, in which his denunciation of scholasticism as the cause of the decay of Catholic theology, and of ecclesiastical bureaucracy as the cause of all the evils of the Church, is very outspoken.

³² Schell submitted to the decree and kept silent till his death, May 31, 1906. But his disciples and friends fought for him, trying to defend his orthodoxy. A series of harsh polemic discussions followed his death, and l'affaire Schell became one of the thorns of German Catholicism for many years. For its various phases, down to 1907, see S. Minocchi, ‘La Crisi odierna del Cattolicismo in Germania,’ in Studi religiosi, 1907, pp. 491–538.

³³ English translation under the title Scholasticism Old and New, 1910, p. 191. Professor De Wulf goes even farther than that by affirming: “The new Scholasticism is not a theology; the former might be entirely renewed while the latter remained quite stationary and uninfluenced, or vice versa. Indeed we are just now witnesses to a revolution in theology; but the very remarkable controversies of modern times upon biblical criticism and the inspiration of the Scriptures have little to do with philosophy” (p. 190). Fortunately for himself Professor De Wulf is not a theologian and not being such is not obliged to share the convictions of Pius X.

³⁴ De Wulf has made noteworthy efforts to popularize his synthesis among students of philosophy by insisting on it in books and reviews, in lectures and debates in philosophical congresses; see for instance his article ‘Western Philosophy and Theology in the Thirteenth Century,’ published in this Review, October 1918, pp. 409–432. But he does not seem to have gained many followers outside of some scholastic circles. A radical criticism of his synthesis was published by Professor G. Gentile in Critica, 1905 (reprinted in his volume Il Modernismo e i rapporti tra religione e filosofia, 1909), to which De Wulf replied with an article ‘Scolastica vecchia e nuova' in the same Critica in 1911, provoking new remarks by Gentile, ‘La Scolastica ed il Prof. De Wulf,’ July 1911. The question was taken up again by a former disciple of De Wulf, Bruno Nardi, ‘Fatti e Commenti: Scolastica vecchia e nuova,’ in Rivista di Filosofia neo-scolastica, 1911, vol. III, 2, pp. 555–562, who concluded against De Wulf. See also De Ruggero, , La Filosofia contemporanea, 2d ed., 1920, vol. I, pp. 202–204 (English translation).Google Scholar

³⁵ L'action intellectuelle et politique de Léon XIII, Paris, 1902, p. 49Google Scholar.

³⁶ Scholasticism Old and New, p. 168.

³⁷ Revue Thomiste, 1909, p. 5; see also 1905, pp. 8–16.

³⁸ On the question of Integralism vs. Syndicalism which embittered the last years of Pius X's pontificate see ‘From Leo XIII to Benedict XV,’ in American Journal of Theology, April 1917.

³⁹ Wladimirus Ledochowski, praepositus generalis S. J., , De doctrina S. Thomae magis magisque fovenda, Curiae Rhaetorum, 1917Google Scholar. “The Jesuits,” says this letter, “are not free to follow any doctrine received in the Church, but according to their constitution they must regard Aquinas as their master.” As a consequence they are not allowed to differ even slightly from Aquinas “in praecipuis eius doctrinae capitibus et quae tanquam fundamentum sunt aliorum plurimorum.” These primary points are those concerning the theory of knowledge, the criterion of truth, and so on. As a rule, even in secondary questions, they must follow Aquinas: “Filii Societatis ne in secundariis quaestionibus quidem a clara et certa sententia S. Thomae nonnisi gravate admodum et rarissime discedere licet.”

⁴⁰ In France neo-scholasticism has almost no representatives, in Germany very few. “It seems improbable that a Thomistic revival will acquire considerable vigor of expansion in a real German environment. Under present conditions it seems that the resistance is too great to be overcome, and that the general situation is too unfavorable. The strongest obstacle that the revival of the great metaphysical tradition encounters in France is a complex of ignorance and of prejudices inherited from the spirit of Cartesianism; that is a negative obstacle relatively easy to remove. But in Germany it has against it a whole intellectual formation opposed directly to Thomistic realism, and which is derived from Kantian idealism and from the presumption of revolving things only around the human mind.” J. Maritain, ‘Lo Stato attuale della Filosofia tedesca,’ in Rivista di Filosofia neo-scolastica, 1921, p. 318.

⁴¹ On theological studies in Louvain, see Bellamy: “Au total aucun nom saillant n'émerge qui résume et incarne en lui un mouvement d'idées remarquable,” op. cit., p. 173.

⁴² Hogan, J. B., Clerical Studies, 2d ed., Boston, 1905Google Scholar.

⁴³ Études, vol. 161, p. 138.

⁴⁴ The article of Perrin is written in a rather sarcastic mood which somewhat diminishes its importance. But if we may not take the writer seriously when he says that Billot's article “pourrait être intitulé Le Massacre des théologiens,” there is no room for doubting that his historical survey of the problem is exact and exhaustive.

⁴⁵ Perrin directs attention to the importance played from Alexander of Hales to Aquinas and his followers by the received axiom: “Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam,” which was adopted by the theologians who ignored its Abelardian origin, op. cit., pp. 355–365.

⁴⁶ The bull Auctorem Fidei against the Synod of Pistoia.

⁴⁷ “Parmi les dogmes de l'Êglise il n'en est peut-être pas un … qui a été â ce point défiguré et travesti par certain théologiens appurtenant pour la plus part à l'époque de décadence que fut le dixhuitième siècle.” By considering original sin as belonging to the same class of personal sin these theologians made of this dogma “un amas de contradictions flagrantes, qu'en vérité aucune explication n'a pu, ne peut, et ne pourra à jamais faire disparaître” (Études, vol. 162, p. 132).

⁴⁸ An historical survey of the general question was made by Caperan, Le Problème du salut des infidèles, Paris, 1912Google Scholar. Billot mentions this book with great praise, while in the Theological Bulletin of the Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, vol. VII, 1913. p. 795Google Scholar, it is judged a worthless piece of work. Probably the Dominicans of the Revue are nearer the truth than Cardinal Billot. But from the point of view of speculative theology little or nothing has been said on this particular point: “Nous arrivons à une question qui n'a été ni débattue, ni examinée, ni même envisagée, autant du moins qu'on le peut conjecturer de la lecture de leurs écrits, par les maîtres de la théologie,” Études, vol. 165, p. 515.

⁴⁹ In Boetium de Trinitate, Q. 1, a. 3 ad 6um.

⁵⁰ De natura deorum I, 17.

⁵¹ In primam partem Summae II, 1, p. 34, Venice, 1594.

⁵² “Ad legem naturalem pertinent primo quidem quaedam praecepta communissima quae sunt omnibus nota…. Quantum, ergo ad illa principia communia lex naturalis nullo modo potest a cordibus hominum deleri in universali” Summa Theol. I, II, 94, 6.

⁵³ Arnaud, Dénonciation du péché philosophique, in Oeuvres, tom. XXXI.

⁵⁴ Billot, De Sacramentis, I, p. 426.

⁵⁵ Very significant on this point is a letter of Emilio Chiocchetti, published in the Rivista di Filosofia neo-scolastica, 1917, in which the contrast between the aridity of scholastic culture and the great mystical tradition of the fathers is pointed out in a striking poetical mood rather unusual in modern scholastic circles (pp. 429–431).

⁵⁶ The bibliography of ascetic and mystical theology is to be found scattered in various publications. Most of the important works are classified in the Nomenclator of Hurter under the various sections Theologia practica, ascetica, mystica, in the catalogues of writers belonging to the various religious orders, and in the bulletins of theological and philosophical periodicals, especially those of the Revue d'ascétique et de mystique. A general repertory is still desired.

⁵⁷ The contents of the article is as follows: 1. Le mouvement des études mystiques. Le groupe Térésien. 2. Groupe ascético-mystique. 3. Groupe Dominicain. 4. Synthèse philosophico-mystique du Père Maréchal. 5. Synthèse théologico-mystique du Père de la Taille. 6. Problèmes actuels et questions de méthode par le Père de Guibert. See also the important article of Garrigou-Lagrange, ‘Le problème mystique actuel et les questions de méthode,’ in Vie Spirituelle, vol. V, pp. 459–480.

⁵⁸ “Il faut unir les deux méthodes: inductive et déductive, analytique et synthétique … telle est, croyons nous, la vrai méthode de la théologie ascétique et mystique.” Vie Spirituelle, 1919, p. 18.

⁵⁹ “Saint Thomas fait ce travail documentaire en se servant des procédés de recherche historique tels qu'ils étaient en usage de son temps, tandis qu'aujourd'hui ces procédés se sont immensément développés et perfectionnés, Revue, p. 16.

⁶⁰ The terminology itself is still in a period of tentative definitions. To the urgent need of an understanding among theologians about the value of the terms of mystical theology attention has recently been directed by Garrigou-Lagrange (Vie Spirituelle, November 1921) who points out that not even such general and fundamental terms as ‘contemplatio acquisita,’ ‘contemplatio infusa,’ are taken in the same meaning by the various modern writers on asceticism. This necessity for methodical purposes of a series of definitions is recognized by J. Guibert (Revue d'ascétique et de mystique, April 1922), who endeavors to begin the work by submitting certain definitions for debate: “Trois définitions de théologie mystique: 1, Contemplation acquise et infuse; 2, L'ordinaire et l'extraordinaire dans la voie de la sainteté; 3, Appel éloigné ou prochain, suffisant ou efficace.”

⁶¹ See the long review of this work by J. Guibert in Revue d’ ascétique et de mystique, 1920, pp. 177–182.

⁶² A. Tanquerey, ‘Un plan de théologie ascétique et mystique,’ Revue d'ascétique et de mystique; January 1921, pp. 22–36. This tentative plan aims only at providing a definite basis for discussion among theologians of a plan of ascetic theology, “qui soit assez compréhensif pour embrasser toutes les questions de spiritualité, assez logique pour aller du plus connu au moins connu, assez psychologique pour suivre pas à pas les différentes étapes qui conduisent à la perfection” (p. 22).

⁶³ The only general history of Christian asceticism is that of the Protestant Zöckler, Askese und Mönchtum, 1897, supplemented by the same author in his Tugendlehre des Christentums geschichtlich dargestellt, 1904. But both deal primarily with the external and institutional side of the history of asceticism.

⁶⁴ The Benedictine Dom Festugière in his book, La Liturgie Chrétienne, 1913, made a strong indictment of the Jesuit cherished tradition. According to him, (a) Loyola in formulating his spiritual method took his inspiration from Protestant individualism and also from certain elements of Mohammedan Sufism, adapting both to the orthodox spirit of his teaching. The spiritual formation of Loyola's followers has been carried on in this individualistic spirit. (b) The method of meditation and ascetic practice introduced by Loyola broke the traditional method of private and public prayers in the Church: his is a military method alien to the old liturgical method. (c) This new method developed a strong sense of devotion to the Church and a high ideal of Christian life in the individual, but at the same time diminished the traditional value and importance of the liturgical life in the Church. (d) This depreciation of the liturgical life produced, and is still producing, a diminution in the idea of the value of the hierarchy and of the entire organization of the Church. Against all these assumptions the Jesuit Civilità Cattolica of Rome protested vigorously in a series of sharp articles appearing in volumes III and IV of the year 1914.

⁶⁵ No less important than the text of St. Gall is that of Angoulême, which has now been published by Dom P. Gagin, Le Sacramentaire gélasien d'Angoulême, publié par la Societé hist. et archéol. de la Charente, 1918. A complete edition of the Gelasian Sacramentaries of the eighth century has been announced by the Benedictines of Farnborough in their collection, Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica, but has not appeared as yet.

⁶⁶ On the interrelations between the Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries in Carolingian times, see the recent article of Andriew, M., ‘À propos de quelques sacramentaires récemment édités,’ in Revue des Sciences religieuses (University of Strasbourg), April 1922, pp. 190–210Google Scholar.