The Catholic World Volume Ii Part 87

MY DEAR DWIGHT: The decision is made. I have resigned my parish, and am about to place myself under instruction preparatory to my being received into the Catholic Church. I can write no more at present.

May G.o.d help you. "Your affectionate friend, "FRANCIS A. BAKER."

Three years after this, namely, in the summer of 1856, commenced Father Baker's career as a Catholic priest and missionary, which continued until his death. During this time his active life was bound up with that of his a.s.sociates, first in the Redemptorist order, and then in the new congregation of St. Paul, formed by himself and his fellow-missionaries. His biographer, therefore, furnishes us a description of those protracted spiritual exercises called "Missions,"

with a brief history of their introduction into this country. Then follows an account of those missions in which Father Baker took part, or rather it is a portfolio of pictures in which the more serious labors of the mission are shadowed in the perspective, while gay groups of various kinds and colors are made to figure in the foreground. Father Hewit has given himself a great lat.i.tude, accommodating himself to the literary tastes of our day, and his readers will certainly thank him for it. When these missionary campaigns were actually going on, it was hard toil all the year round, and little play; but in retracing their course with us our author avoids the dry details, which would involve much repet.i.tion, and recalls in preference the suns.h.i.+ny hours of relaxation, and the pleasing incidents which befel them on their way and relieved their labors. Turning away, therefore, boldly from the regular highway of biography, we are conducted hither and {568} thither in a professional ramble around the United States. "Follow my leader" is the word, and down the lanes we go, and over the fences, and into the green fields.

Now we find ourselves in Savannah, chatting with the old negro preacher as he sits "in the sun, on a little stool, holding his cow by a rope around her horns, while she nibbles the gra.s.s that grows along the streets." Now we are gazing on the gentleman hermit of Edgefield, in rags, and bare-footed, fasting on bread and water, and reading the "Fathers of the Desert," "Brownson's Review," and other ascetical books good for hermits. Now, again, we mingle with a motley company on a coasting steamer, while the philosopher and the spiritualist are discussing the question, "Can G.o.d annihilate s.p.a.ce?" The next moment we are at St. Augustine, in the casemates of the old fort or castle of St. Marco, and take a look at the narrow loop-hole through which, after a course of rigid fasting, the Seminole chief Wild Cat was enabled to escape to his home in the everglades. Presently we follow Father Baker and his comrades to Charleston, where, then, "all was peace, Sumter solitary and silent, untenanted by a single soldier."

Soon, again, we are in New York, then in New Jersey, then among the coal mines of Pennsylvania, and then (seriously and not profanely be it said) we go to Halifax. Kalamazoo, Covington, Quebec, St. Louis, are visited in their turn, and a host of other places huddled together in that small area to which these wandering apostles restrict their labors. We like this seven-year trip with Father Baker and the Paulists, and we like the free, off-hand, and original way in which F.

Hewit curries us through it, with all his digressions. These digressions may be sins against the rules of biographical composition, but if so they are "capital" ones.

The last fifteen pages of the memoirs contain the story of Father Baker's sickness and death; a sad story, indeed, but sadly sweet to those who knew him well. Their eyes will be watered with tears as they read it, but happy tears, such drops as form the rainbow when the sun smiles on the summer shower. There was a light from heaven on the death-bed of Father Baker that is stronger than our grief.

The volume contains twenty-nine sermons of Father Baker, chiefly parochial discourses, with a few others selected from those he was accustomed to preach on the missions. It is unnecessary for us to make any comment on these. His eloquence and his style are well known. He was a model preacher, as well as a model Christian and a model priest.

The art of sacred eloquence is little understood among us, and therefore we hail this contribution to it with enthusiasm. It will show the young pulpit orator how the Word of G.o.d will admit of legitimate ornament, which is neither derived from the theatre, the lecture-room, nor the political rostrum. We never listened to a preacher of whom it can be more appropriately said: _"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, and that preacheth salvation."_

This work is well printed on super-fine paper and handsomely bound. We have no doubt that the numerous friends of Father Baker will be glad to obtain this delightful memoir of his life and labors.

THE TEMPORAL MISSION OF THE HOLY GHOST.

By Henry Edward Manning, D.D., Archbishop of Westminster. New York: D.

Appleton & Co.

The Messrs. Appleton have again rendered a great service to the reading public, especially the Catholic portion of it, by republis.h.i.+ng a standard work in English Catholic literature. The author of this work, Archbishop Manning, was formerly a dignified clergyman of the Established Church of England, and one of the leaders of the Oxford movement. He was the Archdeacon of Chichester, a position in the English Church next in rank to the episcopate, and conferring a quasi-episcopal dignity and jurisdiction. He is said to have possessed in the highest degree the confidence of the English government, and to have been the person most frequently consulted concerning political measures relating to the interests of the ecclesiastical establishment. The _London Weekly Register_ states, on what it claims to be authentic information, that he was marked for promotion to the episcopal bench. But, far beyond the distinction conferred on him by hierarchical position, was the influence which he wielded by the simple force of his intellectual and moral superiority. His writings, especially a treatise {569} on "The Unity of the Church," raised him to the first rank as an advocate of the principles of the High-Church party. In the first stage of the Oxford movement, he was considered a more safe and judicious advocate of its principles than Dr. Pusey and Mr. Newman, and his name and opinions had more weight with the bishops and the superior clergy on account of the calm, moderate, and thoroughly ecclesiastical spirit and tone of his character and writings. After Mr. Newman's conversion, Archdeacon Manning succeeded in a great measure to his vacant throne, and held it for about six years. He led the second great movement from Oxford to Rome, and his conversion, which occurred in 1851, made nearly as great a sensation, on both sides of the Atlantic, as that of Mr. Newman had done in 1845.

Six months after his reception into the Catholic Church he was ordained priest. Some time after he joined the "Oblates of St.

Charles," a religious congregation founded by St. Charles Borromeo, and established a house in London, of which he was appointed the superior. He received also the appointment of provost of the Cathedral of Westminster and was decorated by the Holy Father with the t.i.tle of a Roman prelate. During the thirteen years of his priesthood he has been most actively and zealously employed in laboring for the advancement of the Catholic faith, chiefly by preaching, writing books, and privately instructing converts from the educated cla.s.ses, in which latter work he has been remarkably successful. It is probably for this reason that, in spite of his remarkable amenity of mind and character, and the extreme courtesy and gentleness which characterize his controversial writings, he has been regarded and spoken of by the English in so hostile a manner, and that his appointment to the see of Westminster seemed to awaken a feeling of resentment. The mind and character of Archbishop Manning are sure, however, to command, in the long run, the respect of all cla.s.ses of men, however widely they may differ from him in their theological opinions; and although certain English susceptibilities may have been unpleasantly irritated by his elevation, yet the general verdict will agree that the Holy Father has placed a most worthy successor in the vacant chair of the ill.u.s.trious Cardinal Wiseman.

In the book before us the author treats of the office of the Holy Ghost, as sent by the Father and the Son in the temporal order; that is, in the order established in time, through which the princ.i.p.al operation _ab extra_ of the Blessed Trinity is accomplished, viz., the redemption of the human race. In a very interesting introduction he takes occasion to explain in part the motives of his conversion, by pointing out the connection between the Catholic doctrines which he held as an Anglican and their complements in the full system of Catholicism. In the body of the work he discusses the office of the Holy Ghost in relation to the Church, to Reason, to Holy Scripture, and to the Divine Tradition of the Faith. This includes a very wide scope of doctrine, embracing revelation, the medium through which revealed truths are proposed, explicated, and defined; the formation of Christian theology and philosophy; the relation of faith to science, and the whole subject of the inspiration and interpretation of Scripture.

If we may be allowed to express a modest opinion on the subject, we should say, that the princ.i.p.al merit of Dr. Manning, as a theological writer, lies in his ability to unfold the a.n.a.logy of faith, and expose the _inter-communion_, so to speak, of the great truths of natural and revealed religion with one another. He shows pre-eminently in his writings that gift which is denominated in theology "the gift of intelligence;" that is, the gift by which the mind penetrates the interior essence of the doctrines of faith, and their interior relations. His exposition is in the highest degree luminous, and his style corresponds in this regard to his thought, so that his treatment of the great doctrines declared by the Church appears like a statement of self-evident propositions, or a geometrical demonstration in which the problem is proved by simply describing the figure. We have never read anything which has given us more satisfaction than his statement of the four grand fundamental propositions on which the entire fabric of the Catholic doctrine rests. It appears to our mind that in his statement of the nature of the evidence by which reason apprehends the {570} being of G.o.d, and the credibility of revelation, and afterward the real meaning and contents of the revelation, he has marked out the outlines of a sound and correct philosophy of religion, which is so much needed, and without which the antagonists of revelation cannot be adequately refuted on rational principles. We desire to quote one sentence, short but pregnant, in ill.u.s.tration of our meaning. After stating that he always uses the word "rationalism" in an ill sense, he proceeds to say:

"By rationalism, I do not mean the use of the reason in testing the evidence of a revelation alleged to be divine.

"Again, by rationalism I do not mean the perception of the harmony of the divine revelation with the human reason. It is no part of reason to believe that which is contrary to reason, and it is not rationalism to reject it. As reason is a divine gift equally with revelation--the one in nature, the other in grace--discord between them is impossible, and harmony an intrinsic necessity. To recognize this harmony is a normal and vital operation of the reason under the guidance of faith; and the grace of faith elicits an eminent act of the reason, its highest and n.o.blest exercise in the fullest expansion of its powers." (Introd., p. 4.)

The eliciting of this eminent act of the reason to the utmost possible extent is at present the great desideratum in theology. It involves the exhibition of the intrinsic harmony between faith and science; that is, of the conformity of revelation, not only as to its extrinsic motives of credibility, but also as to the intrinsic credibility of its doctrines to reason. It appears to us that Dr. Manning appreciates the first half of the desideratum more perfectly than the second; and that, in regard to the second, he appreciates more completely what is necessary to convince Anglicans and Orthodox Protestants than what is requisite for rationalists, with whom the chief contest has to be carried on. The main drift of his reasonings goes to establish, in an admirable manner, that Christianity is credible, and that Catholicism is identical with Christianity. Orthodox Protestants already believe the first, and whatever difficulties they may have on the subject are easily answered by a lucid statement of the grand external proofs of that which they have been educated to accept as a first principle. Of the second, they can be convinced by the exposition of the a.n.a.logy and harmony of the special Catholic dogmas which they have not been taught with those they already believe. Difficulties raised on the side of human science against the intrinsic credibility of revelation, they can easily dismiss by reverting to their first principle of the well-established verity of divine revelation, as resting on extrinsic evidence. Establish in their minds the infallible authority of the Church, and they are content to receive a doctrinal exposition of all that she teaches which is made by way of deduction from revealed principles, without seeking for a reconciliation of this exposition with the deductions of purely rational principles. This is no doubt a very sound and Christian method, and it were to be wished that all would be willing to follow it. Experience has shown, however, that those who have been brought up in the more advanced and rationalistic Protestantism, are with difficulty induced to adopt it. They exact an answer to the difficulties and objections lying in their minds against the intrinsic reasonableness of revealed doctrines, before they will attend to their extrinsic evidence. The exposition of this intrinsic conformity between revealed and rational principles forms for them a part of the requisite moral demonstration of the credibility of the Christian revelation. Nor is it altogether without reason that they require this. They are obliged to learn a great deal which a High-Church Anglican has already received from his early education.

They have the same incapacity of apprehending correctly the most fundamental Catholic verities which the Anglican has of apprehending certain specific dogmas. Both must have these misapprehensions removed in the same way, only it is a shorter and more restricted process for the one than for the other. The account given by our ill.u.s.trious author of his own interior history shows that the extrinsic proof of the claims of the Roman Church to supremacy over all portions of the Christian fold did not convince him before they were illuminated by the discovery of the intrinsic relation between this supremacy and the essential spiritual unity of the Church in {571} Christ. His mind demanded an apprehension of the _rationale_ of strict, external, organized unity of administration under one ecclesiastical head. It was enough for him that this _rationale_ was made evident from revealed principles, because he already possessed these principles as a part of his intellectual life. Those who have lost in great measure the Christian tradition, or who have never had, must find the _rationale_ further back in their reason.

A Jew, for instance, apprehends the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation as follows: "G.o.d is divided into three portions, one of which became inclosed in human flesh." A Unitarian will apprehend these doctrines, and others, such as original sin, atonement, etc., in some form almost equally repugnant to reason. Many Protestants apprehend the doctrine of the real presence to be that G.o.d is made a piece of bread, or that a piece of bread is made G.o.d. It is evident, according to the rule laid down by Dr. Manning in the pa.s.sage above cited, that it is impossible for the human mind to a.s.sent to such irrational propositions on any extrinsic authority. Even supposing that a person admits the proofs of divine revelation and the authority of the Church to be irrefragable, he cannot submit to either while he believes that they require him to a.s.sent to such absurdities. Hence the necessity of exhibiting the Catholic dogmas in their a.n.a.logy to the truths of reason, as a part of the evidence of their credibility.

A large portion of nominal Christians are so completely imbued with rationalistic and sceptical notions, and so full of misconceptions of Catholic ideas, that they are persuaded of the validity of a thousand objections derived from reason, science, history, etc., against the Catholic religion. They cannot be reached by a line of argument which lays the princ.i.p.al stress on the extrinsic proof of the Christian revelation proposed by the Catholic Church, and rules out their objections and difficulties by the principle of the obedience due to legitimate authority. It seems to us, for this reason, requisite to make every effort to exhibit the interior conformity between faith and reason, theology and science, and to prove that faith is really "an eminent act of reason." All Catholics must agree in this general statement, for all the advocates of the Catholic religion have from the beginning of Christian literature aimed at this result. In regard to the method of doing it, however, there is some diversity of opinion. Dr. Newman, for instance, regards the progress of theological science as a movement from below upward, and from the circ.u.mference to the centre. That is, science is elaborated by the reflection of individual minds, especially the gifted and learned, on the dogmas of faith, under the supervision and subject to the judgment of authority.

Dr. Manning, if we understand him correctly, regards the movement as one which proceeds in a reverse order; he represents the Church as proceeding in a more direct, positive, and magisterial manner; not by collecting the acc.u.mulated, elaborated, and clarified products of study, thought, reasoning, and meditation, and giving them her implied or express approbation, but by continually giving forth utterances of inspired wisdom received from a divine source. He apprehends that in adopting the other view, there is danger or subordinating the Ecclesia Docens to the Ecclesia Discens, and making reason a critic on divine revelation. Those who adopt the latter view have a tendency to elevate theological opinions and arguments which have gamed a wide acceptance to a species of authority binding on the mind and conscience, and limiting the freedom of investigation. They desire that all arguments on doctrine should follow the traditional track and merely emulate and elucidate what has been already taught by the great doctors of theology. They extend the sphere of authority and infallibility to the utmost possible limits, and many of them seek to extend the protecting aegis of the Church over philosophical systems. Those who adopt the other may often err in an opposite extreme. Yet, we think, they have a principle which is justified by sound reasons, and by the actual history of the formation of doctrine and theology in the Church. That principle is stated by Mohler in these words: "For a time _even a conception of a dogma_, or an opinion, may be tolerably general, without, however, becoming an integral portion of a dogma, or a dogma itself. There are here eternally changing individual forms of an universal principle which may serve ... for mastering that universal principle by way of reflection {572} and speculation." (Symb. Introd., p. 11, London Edit.)

On this principle, they seek continually to scrutinize more deeply the inner essence of dogmatic truths, and to investigate its relation and conformity to the principles and deductions of philosophy and science.

We think history shows that this is the way in which theology has actually advanced, and the Catholic Church herself attained more and more to that reflective consciousness of her own dogmas by which she is enabled to enunciate from time to time her solemn definitions. St.

Thomas made an immense advance, beyond St. Augustine and the other fathers. The great Jesuit theologians, Bellarmine, Suarez, and Molina, struck out a new and bold path in theology. Take, for instance, the great doctrines of original sin, predestination, and efficacious grace. The conception of these dogmas, and the scientific explication of their contents, has been greatly modified in the process of time, and chiefly through the influence of a few original thinkers. These have generally met with a strong opposition from the established schools of theology, and the most strenuous efforts have been made to decry them as unorthodox and to procure their condemnation by authority. The names of Catharini, Sfondrati, and Molina will serve as a sufficient ill.u.s.tration. Yet, their method of stating Christian doctrine on important points has gained a great predominance in the Church, and the supreme authority has frequently intervened, not to enforce these opinions, but to protect those who hold and advocate them from censure. Not only theologians, but even teachers of natural science, have brought about great changes in current theological opinions. For instance, Galileo, and those who followed him, have, by the force of scientific demonstration, compelled theologians to modify their interpretation of Scripture where it speaks of natural phenomena. Geology has caused a similar general change of the method of interpreting the Scriptural accounts, of the creation and the deluge. The old Swiss proverb is verified in the perpetual effort to discover the harmony between faith and science: "G.o.d gives us plenty of nuts to crack, but does not crack them for us." One of these hard nuts, not yet cracked, is the question concerning the extent of the influence of inspiration in preserving the sacred writers from error in matters of purely human knowledge. The well-known opinion of Holden on this subject, it appears to us, is a little too summarily condemned by our learned author. The opinions of Bellarmine and Lessius were severely censured in their time, but nevertheless are now acknowledged to be tenable and probable. We think the opinion of Holden deserves at least a very thorough examination and discussion before it is put under the ban. Dr. Manning admits that "it is evident that Holy Scripture does not contain a revelation of what are called physical sciences," and that "no system of chronology is laid down in the sacred books" (p. 165, Eng. Ed.) Nevertheless the sacred writers speak of physical phenomena and of chronological dates. The Holy Spirit allowed them to speak of the former in accordance with their own and the common opinion even, when that was erroneous. He has allowed their statements respecting the latter to fall into such inextricable confusion, through accidental or intentional alterations either in the Hebrew or Greek text, that we cannot tell with certainty what they intended to record on the subject. Does not this show that revelation was not intended to teach chronology? And if it was not, how does it militate against the Catholic doctrine of inspiration to maintain that the sacred writers were originally left to follow the best human authority they could find in chronology as well as in science? If the end of revelation did not require that an infallible system of dates should be _preserved_ in the sacred text, why should it have been given at first? Why are minor historical facts, relating to the numbers who fell in particular battles, etc., within the cope of infallibility any more than matters of science and chronology? It appears to us, that until some authoritative decision is made, this question is open to discussion, and the opinion of Holden tenable without prejudice to orthodoxy. Very probably the distinguished author meant to express simply his judgment as to what is the sounder view of inspiration, without denying that the other is within the limits of orthodoxy. However this may be, this is the only instance in which there is any appearance of {573} severity toward those whose theological opinions on matters _extra fidem_ differ from his own. It were to be wished that some other writers, who are disposed to censure their brethren severely and throw suspicion upon their loyalty to the Church, on account of theological differences, would imitate the admirable model placed before them by the ill.u.s.trious chief of the English hierarchy. We commend to their attention the following extract from the _London Weekly Register_, which is a portion of an excellent and well written review of' Dr. Pusey's _Eirenicon_. When severely pressed by an able antagonist, one frequently finds himself driven to defend the Catholic cause upon the common, certain ground where all Catholics stand together, and to sink domestic controversies. This is very well; but the same language ought to be used _toward_ opponents in these domestic controversies, when they are discussed _inter nos_, which is used _respecting_ them when we are fighting the exterior enemy. If one takes certain ground because it is available against non-Catholics, he ought to allow other Catholics to stand upon that ground at all times in peace without having his fidelity to the Church called in question. We give the quotations now, without further comment, and leave the intelligent reader to make his own reflections on them:

"The greater part of the remainder of the volume is taken up with proving what most Catholics would be ready to admit, that many exaggerated things have been said by Catholic writers of name concerning the Pope's personal infallibility, on the prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin, and on many other subjects. No doubt, viewed from without, there is much matter for perplexity in this whole subject. We know that many persons, now Catholics, have been kept back from seeing the Church's claims on their absolute allegiance, because of the hold these exaggerated statements had obtained on their imagination, and the repugnance they felt to the aspect of doctrine thus presented. This, we think, has arisen partly from their having attributed to such statements an authority which they did not possess, and from their not distinguis.h.i.+ng between matters of faith and matters of pious opinion... . . Catholics, on the other hand, . . know that the Church, while requiring _unitas in necesaariis_, is most free in conceding _libertas in dubiis_; ...

does not aim at creating a dead and soulless level of uniformity, but tolerates great liberty of opinion in matters of opinion," etc.

"Even though we might ourselves hold that what are commonly called the Ultramontane opinions are the more logical, the legitimate deduction from Scripture, the true development of patristic teaching; and however much we might wish for a union of all Christians on this basis, we should nevertheless hold most strongly, until otherwise taught, that a reunion on the principles of Bossuet would be better than perpetuated schism."

Archbishop Manning's work will, of course, take its place in our standard Catholic literature, and we earnestly recommend it to all our readers.

THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER. Vol lxxix.

We observe by a notice appended to its last number, for November, 1865, that this long-established periodical has been transferred from Boston to New York, and will hereafter be conducted under the editors.h.i.+p of the Rev. Henry W. Bellows, D.D. This is a significant fact, but precisely what it signifies time only can reveal to the uninitiated. So far as we can conjecture its significance, the change of location and editors.h.i.+p bodes a change in its prevailing tone and spirit. It is, however, announced that the former editors will co-operate with the new one in the conduct of the Review, which leads us to suppose that the different schools of Unitarians will be allowed fair scope for expressing their views in its pages. Those who are acquainted with the writings of Dr. Bellows may fairly expect that if he devotes his time and energies to the task of contributing articles on the great topics which are just now occupying the attention of Unitarians, there will be a great improvement in the general spirit and tendency of the Review. It will become less extreme in its rationalism, and more positively Christian. Dr. Bellows has come the nearest to Catholic doctrine in some of the fundamental points of religion of any rationalist with whose writings we have happened to meet. We shall look with {574} interest for the result of the movement which has placed this powerful medium for influencing minds and shaping the course of events in the sphere to which he belongs under his control. Meanwhile, we have some criticisms to make on certain portions of the number which closes the Boston series of "The Examiner."

The first article contains a critique upon Mill's "Examination of the Philosophy of Hamilton." We are delighted to have that overrated and inconsistent disseminator of sceptical principles, Sir William Hamilton, demolished, no matter who does it. One of his pupils, Mr.

Calderwood, has attacked him on the side of positive philosophy, showing his sceptical tendencies. Mr. Mill has countermined him by a more subtle scepticism than his own, and has shown the baselessness of the positive and dogmatic portion of his philosophy. Very good! The most dangerous of all errors is semi-scepticism. It defends all that it retains of philosophical and theological truth in such an illogical manner that it brings it into doubt and discredit with logical thinkers. It covers up its scepticism so adroitly that the unwary are deceived and poisoned by it unawares. Let the contradiction between its two elements be shown, let both be pushed to their legitimate consequences, and a great advantage is gained. Those who push through the sceptical principle, like Mr. Mill, bring it to such a patent absurdity, that every right-thinking mind will reject it at once.

Those who take the other side, are forced upon a better and more solid basis for both science and faith. The reviewer of Mr. Mill seems to have given himself up completely to his sway, and to be unable to do more than echo his thoughts. He gives up transcendentalism, the grand philosophy of Boston and Cambridge which was to supersede old-fas.h.i.+oned Christianity and inaugurate a new epoch, as an exploded and obsolete system. This formidable iron-clad has blown up and gone under, like the famous _Merrimac_; and it appears that Dr. Brownson need not have levelled his artillery against her, but might have waited patiently for her own magazine to be set fire to by her crew.

We are no longer even sure that two and two do not make five, or that two parallel lines cannot inclose a s.p.a.ce! The writer anxiously endeavors to show that in spite of this Mr. Mill will still allow him to believe in a G.o.d, and in the difference between right and wrong.

Let him, however, if he will persist in believing something, do it _with trembling_. For, if two and two might, for anything we know, make five, one might possibly become equal to nothing, and then some day we may all find ourselves annihilated. Mr. Mill's mine can be countermined as easily as Sir William Hamilton's; for, when once the perception of absolute and necessary truth is questioned, there is no stopping short of nihilism.

The article on Dr. Newman's "_Apologia_" is well written, and shows a candid and respectful appreciation of the intellectual and moral greatness of the ill.u.s.trious convert. The author, however, makes a sweeping, wholesale charge of having adopted a system of equivocation, chicanery, and sophistry upon the Jesuits, and the whole Catholic Church, which has nothing to sustain it but an _on dit_. The charge is false. But apart from that, in saying it the writer struck a foul blow, unworthy of an honorable critic. Here is a great question, on which men's minds are divided, and on which there are most weighty and important testimonies to be examined. The writer does not profess to enter the lists for the discussion of it, but merely to criticise the particular statements of Dr. Newman. If he had anything to say about it, he should have taken up Dr. Newman's statements and arguments, and made some rejoinder. It is always a sign that a man is either weak or disingenuous, when he throws a wholesale a.s.sertion of the general badness of your cause in your face, because you have successfully defended it in respect to one particular item. It is also very _schoolboyish_ to repeat continually the stale generalities that one has read in his books or in the newspapers about the Jesuits. Cannot our antagonists "_invint some other little bit of truth?_" We are tired of hearing this one so often.

The writer fairly admits that if any other guide to truth is necessary, beside the individual reason, that guide must be the Catholic Church. There is no alternative except to follow your own light, or be a Roman Catholic. Every man, he thinks, has for himself a light, which is infallible for himself {575} alone, and only for the time being. We would like to ask him whether this is a certain, necessary, and universal truth, true for all times, and every individual? Is it so? Then by the same process which proves it to be so, you can establish a complete system of universal truths, and among them the universal or Catholic principles of the Catholic Church. We admit the infallible light of reason, excluding his limitations, which are _ipso facto_ destroyed if he answers our question in the affirmative. If in the negative, the a.s.sertion he has made is true only for himself, as a kind of provisional arrangement--a sort of dark lantern borrowed for the evening. It is quite probable that by-and-bye the sun may rise, and the dim rays of his lantern blend with its brighter beams. The infallible light within may tell him that he needs the revelation of G.o.d, and the instruction of the Catholic Church.

Decidedly the most valuable article in the number is the one on "English Schools and Colleges." It is evidently written by one who is perfectly familiar with the English system of education, and contains many valuable hints and suggestions for the improvement of our own colleges. We recommend all those who are engaged in the higher branches of instruction to procure and read it; and, indeed, the author would do them a great service by publis.h.i.+ng it separately as a pamphlet, with such additions as he might think suitable to enhance its value.

OUR FAITH, THE VICTORY; OR, A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF THE PRINc.i.p.aL DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

By Rt. Rev. John McGill, D.D., Bishop of Richmond. Baltimore: Kelly & Piet. 1865.

This new edition of a work already noticed in our pages is well printed, and, if the paper were of somewhat finer quality and the binding a little better, would be a very handsome volume. The extravagant price of paper at present is a very fair excuse for the first defect, although we cannot help regretting that a work of such high merit and permanent value should not be brought out in a style completely worthy of it. If our copy is a fair specimen, however, there is no excuse for the binding, which, though handsome enough, is so loosely and carelessly executed as to endanger already some of the leaves falling out. We recommend our Catholic publishers to show a little more of the enterprise and thoroughness requisite in first-cla.s.s houses. Mr. O'Shea has given them a good example in Dr.

Brownson's "American Republic," which we trust will not be without a good effect. We again recommend this admirable work to our readers as one of the best in the English language on the great topics of which it treats.

THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC: Its Const.i.tution, Tendencies, and Destiny.

By O. A. Brownson, LL.D. 8vo. New York: P. O'Shea. pp. 435. 1866.

This is a work brought out in a very superior style of typography which does great credit to the enterprise of the young publisher, Mr.

O'Shea, and is worthy of its great subject and its equally great author. We have only had time to read the preface, which breathes the exalted philosophical wisdom, the n.o.ble, magnanimous spirit, and the pure Christian faith of the ill.u.s.trious Catholic publicist and American patriot who wrote it. A more extended notice of the work itself will appear in our next number.

HISTORY OF ENGLAND FROM THE FALL OF WOLSEY TO THE DEATH OP ELIZABETH.

By James Anthony Froude, M.A., late Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford.

Vols. III. and IV., 8vo. New York: Charles Scribner & Company.

The fourth volume of Mr. Froude's work ends with the death of his hero, Henry VIII. The portion of the history embraced in the instalment now before us includes, therefore, many picturesque incidents, which the author narrates with his most charming and brilliant pen, and with that quick eye for dramatic effect which lends such a fascination to his style. In a notice of the first and second volumes we expressed with sufficient clearness our judgment of Mr.

Froude's faults and merits, and we see no reason to modify our previous statements. He professes to have originally approached his subject without prejudice or any purpose of running counter {576} to the commonly received opinions of the world; but he does not deny that he has come to take a very different view of Henry and his times from that accepted by the rest of mankind. He has this advantage over his critics--that, as he makes use of state papers and other ma.n.u.script records which are not accessible to the world at large, it is not always possible to test the correctness of his quotations or the justness of his inferences from official doc.u.ments. We can only say that in the few instances in which it has been in our power to follow him in his researches, we have learned to distrust not only his accuracy but his honesty. We must wait until some other and dispa.s.sionate historian shall have explored the same fields before we can detect all his misrepresentations and rectify all his errors.

HUMOROUS POEMS.

By Oliver Wendell Holmes, with ill.u.s.trations by Sol. Eytinge, Jr.

Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1865.

A cheap but neat edition, bound in pamphlet form, forming one of a series of "Companion Poets for the People, ill.u.s.trated." Dr. Holmes is our Thomas Hood, in some respects more to our taste than his English compeer. His humorous poems, though steeped in the double distilled oil of wit, have no poison in them, and are wholesome and delicious, when taken laughing in small doses.