right to hold; but this indignation has never extended to bonâ-fide Anglicans. Moreover, we have been so careful to give reasons for every objection which we made, that a correspondent of the Union Review (Jan., p. 72) actually complained of our "logic" being "at fever heat:" whereas the Union Review treated us (so to speak) as controversial outlaws; and has constantly implied that that Catholicism, which the Pope teaches, is so self-evidently imbecile and contemptible as to need no refutation.

We regret to find that these two numbers have not put aside, in company with their bitterness, their occasional affinities to latitudinarianism. A contributor on Dr. Döllinger's newly-translated volumes, who appears wellintentioned but who writes with unusual feebleness, uses such deplorable language as the following:

"The Arians did not, for instance, question the Trinity, but only the relation of the Persons. The Nestorians never denied the duality of natures in our Blessed Lord's Person, but only questioned the time when the union took place. The Docetæ, indeed, denied the reality of our Lord's death, but still they admitted that something as like a death as could be was needful to fulfil all the conditions which must be complied with" (p. 532).

We observe with pleasure that Anglicans have at length faced the question of Jurisdiction: which they have hitherto so cautiously avoided. Some papers have appeared on this subject in the Union Review, and have now been published separately. They are, of course, utterly unsatisfactory; for how can any Anglican treatment of the question be otherwise? But they are written candidly and in an excellent spirit; and we will consider them in January in our proposed article on Ecclesiastical Unity. Nor should we here omit to commemorate a capital article in the September number, on "Tourists at Rome."

By far the most interesting feature, however, of the two numbers is their language concerning Marian devotion. The second article, indeed, for September, goes far beyond anything we have hitherto seen from an Anglican ; and we will mention three instances of this in particular :-Firstly, the writer frankly uses the word "worship" as expressing the devotion due to our Blessed Lady; nor can we regard this as a mere matter of words, but rather as closely connected with the next particular which we are to mention. We observe secondly, then, that extreme Anglicans have often before now been willing to admit the propriety of a certain (if we may so speak) sentimental affection to the Most Holy Virgin; but never once have we found them alive to the direct and vital importance of Marian worship, in its bearing an interior piety and the love of God. This writer, however (p. 504), says that those "who systematically neglect " her, "cannot but suffer loss," both in this life and the next; and he presently thus proceeds :

"Jesus chose Mary. What more can be said? When it is said, not concealed in learned language, but conveyed in warm and loving words throughout the length and breadth of England, we shall be satisfied. The people are being taught to believe in Jesus: they must learn to link her name with His in their memories, as it is in the sacred Scriptures, and as it was in the Divine Decrees. In every heart in which the Cross is set up, she, the Mother of the Crucified, must find a place, and her own place. Then and not till then

will a reproach be rolled away from England, then and not till then may we hope for reunion with the rest of Christendom" (p. 507).

66

And this brings us to the third particular. We could not, of course, expect that an Anglican would sympathize with the more "extreme" passages quoted in the Eirenicon; and we are not disappointed, therefore, that the author deprecates and deplores" them (p. 507). But let this fact be carefully observed. Anglicans in general mention these "excesses" in a proud and selfcomplacent spirit; and attribute their absence at home to the excellence of England's national character and of England's national Church. But the writer before us takes a far more humble and generous view. These very excesses, he says in effect (p. 507), are so many indications of a higher devotion existing abroad than prevails in England. Of one who judges in so loving and Catholic a spirit, we venture to predict that the time is not very far distant, when he will find that these supposed “excesses” do not really exist at all, as regards the Church's approved writers, except in his own imagination.

The article on our Lady in the July number is not tuned to quite so high a pitch as this; yet it is distinguished by candour, thoughtfulness, and charity. And we are the more bound to notice it, because its writer, while treating a different subject in September, makes incidental reference to ourselves. Firstly, then, we will mention its confession, most honourable to the writer's clear-sightedness and also to his straightforwardness, on the doctrinal corruption prevalent within his communion.

"A great deal of the shrinking felt by Anglicans from giving our Lady due honour, arises from the lingering effects of heretical teaching, or unconsciously heretical belief, on the mystery of the Incarnation. Nestorianism prevails to a very great extent among English Churchmen, and its withering effects are very difficult to shake off, even by those who have long become orthodox in their theoretical creed. . . It is also true, and deserves consideration, that there has been hitherto no marked tendency to heresy on the subject of the Incarnation among Roman Catholics, while, where the dignity of the Blessed Virgin has been under-rated, heresies have speedily crept in. . . It is sadly true that many persons in the English Church place our Blessed Lord exactly where the Catholic Church places a saint. They see nothing wrong in asking Him to pray for them, and do (in words which Mr. Oakeley hesitates in applying to English Churchmen, but which he might have truly used), seem to imagine that we suppose our Lord to mediate or intercede with the Eternal Father in the same sense in which we believe the Blessed Virgin to mediate or intercede with Him.' They speak to our Blessed Lord as if He was a human being, with a human personality, and in consequence, their attitude of mind towards Him and towards His Blessed Mother would be so precisely the same, that no wonder they shrink from the comparison" (pp. 400, 401).

We will next proceed to the writer's incidental comment in September (pp. 513-15), on our own Marian article of July. He begins by stating with surprise, that we actually defend every proposition quoted by Dr. Pusey, except those from Oswald a condemned writer. This is not quite the case; for (p. 191) we surrendered M. Olier's sentences, as heretical if intended dogmatically. But considering that, with the above exceptions, all Dr. Pusey's strongest extracts are from S. Alphonsus and Montfort--and considering that

the Church has solemnly pronounced these holy writers free from theological unsoundness-what imaginable course could our opponent have expected a Catholic controversialist to take, except that of defending them? At the same time never certainly had controversialist a more gratifying and acceptable task, than that of vindicating those truly beautiful and touching statements which Dr. Pusey blindly denounces.

Our opponent considers (p. 514) "that the supposed analogy, on which our argument mainly hinges, completely breaks down in its most essential point." He thinks so, because he has not grasped the analogy which we intended and we will endeavour, therefore, to express ourselves more clearly. Dr. Pusey's argument may be thus expressed. "Love of God and of Jesus is the highest of spiritual perfections. But the constant thought of Mary is greatly prejudicial to this love, by drawing men's minds from the Creator to the creature; and a proof of this is, that when a pious Roman Catholic is in trouble, he far more spontaneously turns to Mary than to her Son." Now we urged that a Unitarian might use an argument most strikingly analogous, against belief in the Incarnation. Thus. "Love of God, for the sake of His Divine Excellences, is the highest of spiritual perfections. But the constant thought of Christ is greatly prejudicial to this perfection, as leading men to love God, not for the sake of His Necessary Divine Excellences, but for the sake of those human excellences which (according to Trinitarian doctrine) He has freely assumed. And a proof of this is, that a pious Trinitarian when in trouble very far more spontaneously turns to the Second Person than to the First. The Divine Excellences appertain to Both; if therefore it were for them that he loved God, the Father would be quite as frequently in his thoughts as the Son." Undoubtedly, every devout Trinitarian sees that this argument is monstrously fallacious; and in like manner, every devout Roman Catholic sees that Dr. Pusey's argument is monstrously fallacious but we must really maintain that the one is quite as plausible as the other.

:

Our opponent further thinks us mistaken, in supposing that the worship of Mary requires far less of a painful effort than the worship of Jesus. We expressly excepted from this statement interior and saintly men; and confined our remarks to those who, without being such, are, nevertheless, firmly resolved by God's grace not to commit mortal sin (pp. 160, 172). We are simply amazed how any one can doubt, on the ordinary principles of human nature, that such men find it far easier to address a creature than to speak (as it were) face to face with the Creator. We are still more amazed that an Anglican can doubt this; for it is the stock objection, brought by Anglicans against Catholics, that Marian devotion, if encouraged, will be sure to preponderate over the higher worship, because of its far greater facility. And, most of all, we are amazed that our opponent in particular can speak as he does, because in July he said precisely the opposite.

"Until the child is capable of making an intellectual distinction, its real and best affections will be given to the most comprehensible and attractive idea [i.e., that of our Lady]. In this respect, the poor are children all their lives. Practically it is a very difficult thing for us all to realize the Personality of God, without investing Him with human attributes, and confining our idea of Him to that of a superior kind of human being" (pp. 391, 392).

He says, you see, firstly of children; then of the poor; lastly of "us all;" that the idea of Mary is "the most comprehensible and attractive:" and that, to realize God's Personality (without which we certainly cannot pray to Him) is a very difficult thing. We cannot better express our general argument, than by saying that the worship of Mary, while in itself comparatively easy, gives invaluable help towards "realizing God's Personality."

We most cordially agree with our opponent's principle, that Marian devotion would be absolutely indefensible, if it encouraged Catholics to suppose that our Blessed Lady and the Saints "have power" in themselves "to bestow spiritual gifts" (p. 397); or, for that matter, temporal gifts either. But we deny emphatically that there is even the most superficial appearance of such a result ensuing. On the contrary, as we argued in July (p. 173), "the very cause of that spiritual attraction which devotion to Mary possesses for the great body of Catholics, is their regarding her as a fellow-creature."

66

We can hardly believe our eyes, when we see so intelligent a writer attaching credit to such miserable rubbish, as that more than one priest in Italy has said from the pulpit that Christ has redeemed the men but Mary the women" (p. 398). But it is, if possible, still more wonderful that, in corroboration of this ridiculous myth, he appends a charming passage from a book of Catholic devotion, published by an Irish Jesuit Father, against which he entertains some unintelligible objection. How does it even tend to follow that Catholics do not regard Jesus as their Redeemer, because they regard Mary as their Co-Redemptress?

Still this writer argues so courteously, and displays throughout so candid and truth-loving a temper, that it will give us a real pleasure to continue the controversy, if he will explain himself more definitely and fully. We are so very confident, as Catholics, of possessing the truth, that all we desire is fair and full discussion, conducted (as our present opponent is sure to conduct it) in a Christian and loving spirit.

The "Church Times" of September 8, 1866.

N our last number (p. 240), we protested against a monstrous misrepresen

been betrayed. The above-named number of the Church Times produces it in the most exaggerated shape which it has yet assumed.

"Is it possible," asks the writer, "for an Anglican to use stronger language even of Dr. Colenso or the Essayists, than to say that their sentiments seem 'like a bad dream'; that they scare and confuse' him; and that they are calculated to unsettle consciences, to provoke blasphemy, and to work the loss of souls'? Yet these are the terms in which Dr. Newman ... speaks of a school which is represented by Manning, Ward, and Faber."

Now what is it which F. Newman really said in the passage referred to? He was commenting on certain passages quoted by Dr. Pusey from S. Alphonsus, from Montfort, from Salazar, and from others. He said (1) that these passages as they lie in Dr. Pusey's pages," will be

understood by

Englishmen of the nineteenth century" as containing certain propositions which he drew out. He said (2) that these propositions deserved those very severe epithets which the Church Times quotes. He added, however, (3) that he "knew nothing of the originals;" and (4) that he was not speaking unfavourably of all of these passages 66 as they are found in their authors," because he was confident that they did not mean what Dr. Pusey thought. So far then was he from speaking in this paragraph of "a school," that he actually expressed his disbelief in the existence of any such school as Dr. Pusey supposes. Does the writer in the Church Times believe F. Newman's own testimony as to F. Newman's own meaning, or does he not? If he does, how can he be excused from wilful misrepresentation? If he does not, he is surely bound to give reason for such disbelief. F. Newman expressly said that he had not examined Dr. Pusey's quotations, and "knew nothing of the originals." Is it probable that he would have expressed severe censure in passages taken from Catholic works, which he had not even seen in their original shape and in their context?

The Mosaic Covenant and Christian Dispensation; or, the Jewish Sabbath and Christian Sunday. By J. S. M'CORRY, D.D. Edinburgh Miller & Killen.

1866.

HE author is a priest in Scotland, in whose ears the whole land is ringing

66

he very truly says, is "the melancholy dirge anticipatory of the Kirk's dissolution." For the Scottish doctrine of the Sabbath is really the only remainder of any national religion in Scotland; and this itself rests upon no foundation either good or bad. It is authorised neither by Scripture nor tradition, by the primitive Church nor even by the Protestant reformers, nor, strange to say, by any one Protestant body even in our own day in any part of the world. It is merely a local superstition. It had its origin in Scotland, and has never been accepted or even known in any other country, either Christian, Mahomedan, Jewish, or heathen, except in Scotland alone. In England, indeed, it has been caught among some sections of Protestants, by a sort of infection, from the Scotch; but even with them it exists in a very modified form. The Catechism of the Established Church is a standing testimony that it was utterly unknown to the founders of the Anglican heresy ; for it gives an explanation of all the ten commandments one by one, and the words which answer to what Protestants call the fourth, are, "to serve Him truly all the days of my life." Well may we say to the modern Scotch Presbyterians, in the words of St. Paul, "Did the word of God come out from you, or came it only to you?" For if the Scottish figment of the Sabbath were Christianity, then certainly Christianity neither exists nor ever has existed anywhere except in Scotland. It has been unknown to Catholics, Greeks, and Protestants, and all other heretics in all ages, including Luther, Calvin, Zwingle, Bucer, Cranmer, and Knox himself, as much as to the Apostles and their followers.