Like every other science, also, Moral Theology has its disputed topics. There are many propositions contained in these Elements which, if properly discussed and defended against all attacks, might fill many volumes. It should be, indeed, and it has been, the aim of the writer to assert dogmatically nothing which is not accepted by the masters of our science; but further than this no scientific manual can go. It would be absurd to expect that a primer of astronnomy should give a demonstration of every assertion. It may be justly required that principles laid down shall be consistent with one another, make a harmonious system, and be capable of demonstration or verification. No more, I think, can be demanded.

But our science is indispensable for the priest who is ex officio the teacher of God's law. "The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts" (Mal. ii. 7). Although the Holy Scriptures are the supreme source of that law, yet in them truth and righteousness are only gradually revealed, and with special application to the special cases which elicited the Divine enunciations. Moral Theology stands or falls with Dogmatic Theology, both being equally needed for intelligent understanding and application of revealed truth and law.

And not only does the pastoral office imply a capacity to speak with knowledge as well as with authority, in public teaching or private counsel; the injunction, also, to "heal the sick" requires a knowledge of inward diseases. Above all, no priest should, except in case of extreme necessity, receive confessions, who is not duly instructed in Moral Theology and casuistry.

These elements, as their title indicates, are chiefly based on the Summa Theologiæ of S. Thomas Aquinas. For the contributions to our science in the Anglican Church since the Reformation have been very, very few. See the list provided for students of theology by the bishops of the

American Church; and the chief among those few-sc., Bishop Taylor and Dr. Sanderson, afterwards bishopbased their work chiefly on the common sources of older Moral Theology. (See Whewell's Hist. Moral Phil., Lect. 12.)

Of the numerous contributions to our science in the modern Latin Church I have made moderate use and with great reserve. A very large part of their minute casuistical distinctions are based on a very different practical discipline of the Christian life from our own.

The first three parts are not a translation of the Summa Theologiæ of S. Thomas Aquinas; much less are they original work.

They are not a translation; on the contrary, I have avoided, as far as was possible for me, the peripatetic modes of expression which mark the Angelic Doctor's work. I am perfectly aware that, in doing so, precision of thought and expression is, more or less, sacrificed, and I am the farthest possible from being satisfied with the result. But, remembering that few are trained in scholastic philosophy, while every priest, at least, has absolute need of the first principles of Moral Theology, I have dared to hope for some benefit to the student, even from so poor an effort.

Peripatetic expressions are avoided "as far as possible," but Aristotelian thought and terminology are too deeply engrafted on the language of common life to render such an avoidance completely possible.

A considerable part of the Prima Secundæ, valuable in itself, did not seem essential to these rudiments of Moral Theology. Such portions have been greatly abridged, or wholly omitted.

What I have thought needful to add, however, is generally relegated to Part IV., the Supplement. But even for that all claim to originality is explicitly discarded. What place for originality is there when we are to treat of that Holy Law which has been, once for all, Divinely given? Moral phil

osophers may ingeniously demolish all preceding theories, and try their hand at original reconstruction. But Moral Theology can only enunciate, systematize, and apply the Law of God. The first two have been so well done by S. Thomas Aquinas that he would be a bold teacher who should try to do so over again. But the application of that holy law to each changing cycle of the world's history opens new and gravest questions. As the world moves, so must Moral Theology move in order to direct aright.

I have not ventured to ignore all new problems in casuistry, the application of Moral Theology to the practical guidance of life. I trust that the road previously marked out has been carefully followed. But problems which seemed to call for further discussion have been indicated as "Queries," even when I have been tempted to give a brief and dogmatic answer.

In the Supplement, citations from the common and civil law are introduced because these are among the highest applications of the natural virtue of justice, and because duty under such law is part of the revealed will of God. Moral Theology, therefore, cannot omit all reference to this part of its subject-matter. The writer has not aimed at completeness in this respect. He has selected what seemed illustrative of his subject, or of special practical value.

And he takes this opportunity to make cordial acknowledgment of the valuable aid in careful revision of the text afforded by H. H. Martin, Esq., Counsellor-at-law, Chicago, Ill.

The priest will, of course, notice that all such general statements of civil law, however correct in form, are practically limited by exceptions and qualifications, so that the advice of an expert is the only prudent course to be followed. Statements made in the Supplement must be so construed.

It only remains that the writer lay this poor attempt at enunciating the will of our one Lord at His blessed feet,

publicly entreating pardon for its errors, and asking the prayer of every Christian reader to the same end.

66

Unusquisque offert ad tabernaculum Domini quod potest, alius aurum, argentum, gemmas; alius pelles aut pilos Omnibus enim his opus habet Dominus, et placet voluntas æqualiter eorum qui inæqualiter offerunt." S. Jerome.

caprarum.

WESTERN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 1892.

J. J. E.