prelate is well known for his persecution of S. John Chrysostome. He is also distinguished as the prime mover of that whirlwind of opposition and opprobrium which everything connected with Origen underwent about the year 400. What made him so bitter against Origen is not quite clear, but his surname of 'Appaλλáž, or the Turn-coat, seems to point to expediency as the motive of his denunciations. He had a solemn synod assembled, and the books of Origen read before the Bishops, by whom, he tells us, they were unanimously condemned. The point of interest here is to know what is meant by these "books of Origen." To have read all the works of Origen, or a hundredth part of them, would have tried the endurance of any synod of mere mortals. We must therefore conclude that what was read was a judicious selection. Our author devotes a chapter to the elucidation of this point, and decides that there must have been a Syntagma, or summary of Origenist doctrine, ready prepared for the decision of the Synod, which Syntagma was afterwards sent to S. Jerome and S. Epiphanius, whereby the former of those Fathers was converted to that intense zeal against Origen with which his name is so intimately connected. And so, by the "execrable perfidy" of Theophilus, S. Jerome was deceived, and multitudes since his time have unquestionably followed him in his deception.

The important question, whether Pope Anastasius condemned Origen or not, is also felicitously discussed in this Part. The Pope condemned, certainly not Origen, as he expressly says, but, to all appearance, the identical Syntagma compiled by the unscrupulous Theophilus.

The fourth Volume is "The Triumph of Pope Vigilius, of Origen the Adamantine, and of the Emperor Justinian in the 5th General Council.” ‡ If there is an intricate question in Church history, such a question is certainly that of the Three Chapters, the 5th General Council, and Pope Vigilius.

Professor Vincenzi clears the Emperor Justinian from heresy, and, what is more important, Pope Vigilius from the very undignified vacillation of which he is very commonly accused.§ He first of all carefully quotes and analyzes the various documents bearing upon the Pope and the Council, especially the Judicatum and the Constitutum (names often confounded, and which, in fact, both mean a judicial decree of some kind). The Pope had a difficult part to play. He had to please the Greeks, who wanted the Three Chapters condemned, and not to offend the Latins, who were ready to see, in that condemnation, a slight upon the Council of Chalcedon, which had left the Chapters untouched. Thence his caution in the first Judicatum. All sorts of misunderstandings, however, followed it, and the Pope, now at Constantinople, consented to the assembling of a general Council. He afterwards refused to attend this Council, saying he would send in his sentiments in writing. This is the first point whereon he "vacillates." But Professor Vincenzi shows he had a perfect right to stop away, and several excellent reasons for doing so; as, for instance, that the vast majority of the assembled

*Receveur, Hist. de l'Eglise, ii. 482.

+ P. 319.

Vigilii Pontificis Romani, Origenis Adamantii, Justiniani Imperatoris

Triumphus in Synodo Ecumenica V.

§ See Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon, p. 61.

prelates happened to be Greeks. The Council met and discussed. That its canons were afterwards approved by the Pope we know, both from the sixth General Council and from other sources. His own sentiments he gives, as he promised, in a second Constitutum or Judicatum, in which he reiterates and develops the condemnation which he had pronounced in the former. Certain words in this second decree are quoted to show that, during the seven years which had elapsed between it and its predecessor, the Pope had wavered, and was now retracting. This Professor Vincenzi proves to be a false inference. Finally, he proves that a certain additional decree or Constitutum, expressing retractation in still stronger terms, is undoubtedly a forgery. This last document, brought to light by Petrus de Marca in the seventeenth century, has been suspected by others before our author; though Hefele, in his account of the fifth General Council, seems to accept its genuineness.* Several chapters are devoted by Professor Vincenzi to critical remarks on this and several other documents. The explanation of all this troublesome and chaotic history is not far to seek, and, moreover, explains the reason of the connection of Origen's name with the extant fragments of the Acts of the Council. The object of the Pope and the Emperor in calling the Council was to have the Three Chapters condemned and done with. On the other hand, there arose a party who upheld the Three Chapters. It was to the interest of this party (and to that they devoted their energies) to represent that the Council had been called, not to condemn the Chapters, but to condemn certain heretics who had been condemned long ago; and that the Council had not said anything about the Chapters, but had only anathematized these heretics, into the list of whom they slipped the name of Origen, a name which had the double advantage of being a good party-cry and of being hitherto uncondemned. With these ends, they produced quite a little literature of false epistles, forged decretals, and unhistorical Acts (p. 208). Thus Origen's name got into bad company, and has suffered in reputation ever since; as, indeed, has Vigilius himself. It is true that more than one writer has guessed or argued that Origen cannot have been mentioned in the fifth General Council. Hefele, in his valuable "History of the Councils," has ably summed up the arguments, and decided in the same sense as Professor Vincenzi; but our author has the merit of making a complete and consistent story, from independent points of view, of the whole case, and it is satisfactory to find that what clears Pope Vigilius, clears also Origen.

We should be glad if this brief notice of an important and independent work induced students of Church history in England to read it for themselves. The Civiltà Cattolica called attention to it last October, and, in a criticism on Part I. confessed that the author had completely exculpated Origen from the charge of denying the eternity of punishment. In the number also that appeared on May 5th of the present year, the work was again noticed in terms of high praise. We may add that Professor Vincenzi's book bears the imprimatur of the Master of the Apostolic Palace and of the Roman Vicegerent.

*Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii. 881.

Ecce Homo. A Survey of the Life and Work of Jesus Christ. London:

TE

Macmillan.

HIS work has created a most unusual interest in the Protestant religious world; so much so, that Catholics are somewhat eager to know what they should think of it. For our own part we substantially agree with the powerful and thoughtful article which appeared in the June number of The Month ; and we are not without hope that in a future number we may express at greater length the reasons of our opinion. Many statements contained in the volume will be doubtless most shocking to all our readers; nor can we wonder if many Catholics-particularly those less acquainted with the present direction of Protestant religious thought-regard the "Ecce Homo" with almost unmitigated aversion. But for our own part, considering the truly deplorable and most calamitous tendencies of English Protestantism at this moment, we cannot doubt that the book will exercise a powerful influence in the less anti-Catholic direction. The writer's tone throughout is most loyal, and (one may even say) reverential, to Him whose life he treats; and the whole spirit of his work is profoundly earnest and serious. We observe, moreover, that Fraser's Magazine assails it with great bitterness; and we have great belief in the unerring instinct with which that magazine detects and abhors every argument or line of thought tending to what is good and holy.

The Church and the World: Essays on Questions of the Day by various Writers. London: Longmans.

HIS volume has been sent us for notice; and we have had much pleasure in

is far from faithfully representing the universal tone and temper of Unionists. The Church Review, of which we have lately seen many numbers, is another instance in point; and we see plainly that there are many extreme Anglicans, who are deluded indeed by the dream of corporate union, but who write and (no doubt) think in a truly Christian and temperate spirit.

As to the volume before us, we do not profess to have looked at it very carefully, as this happens to have been an unusually heavy quarter. The subjects treated are of very varying importance; the most momentous of all being that which the Rev. M. M'Coll has chosen: "Science and Prayer." We are of course in most hearty agreement with the author in his conclusions; and he writes most unaffectedly and straightforwardly but he seems to us more successful in stating candidly the infidel objection, than in elaborating a solid and satisfactory reply. Yet he will have done a really inappreciable service, if he lead the way to a more profound examination than his own of the theological and philosophical difficulties which his theme suggests.

We have read carefully through the ninth paper, which is autobiographical, without being able to guess ever so distantly, on what possible theory of ecclesiastical authority the candid and excellently intentioned authoress bases her refusal of submission to Rome.

The Holy Communion: its Philosophy, Theology, and Practice. By Rev. F. DALGAIRNS. Second Edition. Dublin and London: Duffy.

HIS work was reviewed by the DUBLIN at its first appearance; but we

THIS

are unwilling that its second edition should be published without a commemoration of the fact.

It impresses our imagination with F. Dalgairns's unusual variety of study. We are really not aware of any author who equals him in this respect: so profound in Metaphysics; so profound in Ecclesiastical History; so profound in Ascetic Theology. It is among the most unfortunate facts of our time— considering his truly orthodox principles and most unreserved submission to the Holy See-that his prolonged illness has for so considerable a period prevented the Church in England from benefiting by his literary services.

Perhaps the most important feature of this volume is the author's argument (Part iii., c. 2) against those very exaggerated notions which have prevailed concerning the rigorism of the early Church; and his unrivalled picture of Jansenism in the same chapter and in the note at p. 430. His metaphysical power is strikingly exhibited in the second chapter of the first part, which has been greatly improved in this edition: and of his ascetical acumen, perhaps the chapter on worldliness (Part iii. c. 5) will give as good a specimen as any. It ends with these most serious words :

"There are cases where . . . . the soul is perfectly engrossed with and absorbed in the world, and where God is practically forgotten. In such cases I freely admit I do not see on what principle Holy Communion can be [ever] allowed, except as it is sometimes given to sinners of most doubtful repentance, out of sheer compassion, for fear of their being driven altogether from God" (p. 378).

If

any unfavourable criticism is to be made on the book, such criticism must be founded on the very circumstance which illustrates its author's variety of study. The volume is, perhaps, somewhat too heterogeneous. Translations of it have appeared in Italian, French, and German; so that its good effects have been widely extended over the Catholic world.

W

A Catholic Eirenicon. London: Hayes.

E did not notice this pamphlet in April; because it was impossible to do so satisfactorily, without pursuing various inquiries, for which we had no leisure, into the history of English Catholicism since the Reformation. We hope before long to publish an article on this subject as a whole; and into that article we shall incorporate whatever is to be said on the particular document which forms the chief contents of this pamphlet. But our readers will thank us for at once republishing a letter on the subject from the Rev. Mr. Anderdon, which appeared in the Weekly Register for March 31st. The italics are

our own.

(To the Editor of the Weekly Register.)

"SIR,--The Saturday Review of the 24th inst., in an article headed 'The Oaths Bill and the Ultramontanes,' speaks thus :

"It is perhaps well for Roman Catholics that Ultramontanism had no existence in England when the last of the Roman Catholic disabilit VOL. VII. NO. XIII. [New Series.]

removed by the Relief Act. Archbishop Manning and his allies would have made this settlement impossible. It will be worth while to contrast the language held by the old-fashioned and hereditary Romanists in this country with the pretensions now put forward by the Ultramontanes, and by those Romanis Romaniores, the recent converts. There existed a profession of faith on doctrinal and political principles which, from about the year 1680 to the present century, all Anglo-Romanists appealed to, and on the faith of which emancipation was slowly won from the fears and prejudices of England. This is the famous declaration of "Roman Catholic principles in reference to God and the King." It has lately been reprinted, not, we suppose, without melancholy reference to the change which has come over the Ultramontane section of the English Catholics. We find that from 1680 to 1815 as many as twentyfour editions of this document have been traced. It was adopted by such famous champions of orthodoxy as Hornyhold, Berington, Walmesley, Poynter, and Waterworth; and it has been said not unjustly of it, and, as it seems by a Roman Catholic, that "by a loyal profession of these principles our fathers effected a reconciliation between themselves and their and our country in State."'

"Further, the John Bull of the 24th inst., in its 'Literary Review' (supplement) calls the same work, as now reprinted from the edition of 1815, an exposition of Roman Catholic doctrine in a compendious and popular form, the authorship of which is attributed to Rev. James Croker, a Benedictine, in 1680, and has since been a text-book with Roman Catholics in this and other countries. It contains also a defence of the social and political principles of Roman Catholics.'

"Public attention having thus been called to a book which might not otherwise fall in the way of your readers, it seems time to lay before them its true character, and the degree of authority it can claim. I trust you may be able kindly to afford space for the following extracts, as showing the position assumed towards this publication by Bishop Milner, and the Vicars Apostolic of England in his day. Your readers will judge how far the descriptions above given of this book are accurate; how far it speaks the language of hereditary Catholics, or was appealed to by all'Anglo-Romanists, or has since been a text-book with Roman Catholics in this and other countries. "Provost Husenbeth's 'Life of Bishop Milner,' p. 226.

"The chief objection to it [Kirk and Berington's "Faith of Catholics"] was, that it adopted as its text an exposition of doctrine known by the name "Roman Catholic Principles in references to God and the King," first published in the reign of Charles II. . . . He (Dr. Milner) examined some of its propositions. One declares that "the merits of Christ are not applied to us otherwise than by a right faith." This, as it stands, sanctions the condemned errors, that man is justified by faith alone, and that infant baptism is of no avail. . . . Dr. Milner censured another proposition which declared it "no article of faith that the Church cannot err in matters of fact or discipline;" and the suppression of the Pope's title of Vicar of Jesus Christ,' &c., &c.

"Ibid., p. 262. Dr. Milner writes (against the objection that this treatise had never been censured), that if its first appearance was, as alleged, at the end of the reign of Charles II., it was no wonder if it was not censured, since there was then no Bishop, Archbishop, or ecclesiastical Superior in the kingdom.' As regards its republication by the agents of the Protestant Dissenting Committee, in 1791, 'Dr. Milner, having been the agent of the Vicars Apostolic at that time, affirms that it was condemned by them, and even stigmatised by their supporters as the Staffordshire Creed.'

66

Ibid., P. 347. The Bishop first censures Mr. C. Butler for patronising and publishing, as one of the creeds of the Catholic Church, that treatise best known as "Roman Catholic Principles in reference to God and the King."