at Rome, and getting such an answer as that described. However this may be, Dr. Littledale is challenged to name the priest and his Roman correspondent, and to publish the letters which passed. If no such letter came from any person in authority, it was a shameful thing to insinuate that it did, and Dr. Littledale-or his untrustworthy informant -owes reparation to the maligned memory of Father Faber. If, on the other hand, the suggestion contains ever so minute a portion of truth, it would be most interesting-and for the friends of Father Faber an imperative duty-to confront and compare the unfavourable letter which, on this hypothesis, was received from Rome, with the many public attestations of their orthodoxy and value which the works of Father Faber, both in his lifetime and since his death, have received from the rulers and defenders of the Church. For

1. Father Faber was made a Doctor by the late Pope.

2. His Essays on "Devotion to the Pope and the Church" were translated into Italian by Father Cardella, S.J. (late editor of the Civilta Cattolica, and a professor in the Collegio Romano), who was well known as enjoying to the fullest degree the confidence of the late Pope.

3. Several of his works have been translated into German and French,

in some cases with express episcopal approval. Thus the French version of "All for Jesus" (1854) appeared with the approbation of the Bishop of Le Mans, and the version of "The Soul's Progress" with that of the Archbishop of Paris and the Bishop of Nancy.

4. Archbishop Sibour described his works as "drawn from the purest sources of Catholic tradition;" and the celebrated Dom Guéranger, in a letter quoted in Faber's "Life," spoke of his "sound theology," and "scrupulously orthodox faith," Similar is the testimony of Father Cardella, in the preface to the Italian translation of Faber's ascetic works.

5. And lastly: Pius IX. gave his approval to the publication of the Italian version in the following terms: "I praise the enterprise of publishing in Italian the works of the excellent Father Faber. I bless the translator and the printer, and all engaged in the publication of works good and sound."*

In such estimation, so far as is known, was Father Faber held at Rome, and we do not believe for one moment that Dr. Littledale has either seen or can produce any document of a different tenor. If he can, we challenge him, as we have already said, to make it public.

We have reached our limits, and must leave to Father Ryder that vindication of the cultus of the Blessed Virgin which, at least in outline, we had proposed to ourselves to attempt. But let not doubting Anglicans believe that the distorted caricature of the state of things among us which they will find in "Plain Reasons" is anything like the truth. Catholics have no goddess in their religion; like their forefathers, they

*Civilta Cattolica, 31st July, 1872.

worship one Lord God who made heaven and earth. They are as ready to say now, as with Gother in the seventeenth century, "Cursed is every one who giveth God's honour to a creature." Expressions may seem large and unqualified, but they must be interpreted according to "the proportion of faith," and in the spirit of this wise caution of St. Alphonsus Liguori-" We willingly admit that God is the source of every good, and the absolute Master of all graces; and that Mary is only a pure creature, who receives whatever she obtains as a pure favour from God."*

The last sentence of "Plain Reasons" is a fitting close to such a book; it is a misleading quotation. St. Augustine is quoted as saying: "We who are Christians in name and deed, do not believe in Peter, but in Him on whom Peter himself believed." The suggestion of course is, that he was rebuking those who laid undue stress on the necessity of communion with the see of Peter. But if we turn to the passage, we see that he was thinking of something entirely different. It was a common pagan taunt, in his day, that the rapid spread of Christianity was due to witchcraft exercised by Peter, whom the pagans regarded as a potent magician. No, says St. Augustine, we do not believe in Peter, but in Him in whom Peter believed; "edified by Peter's discourses about Christ, not bewitched by his spells; nor deceived by his witchcrafts, but helped by his benefits."+

Whatever, touching faith or morals, has been advanced in this paper, is submitted to the judgment and correction of ecclesiastical authority, THOMAS ARNOLD,

A REJOINDER.

By the courtesy of the Editor of the CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, I have been permitted to see the strictures on myself by Mr. Thomas Arnold before their publication, and to make a brief simultaneous rejoinder, instead of the delay of a month being interposed.

And first, I must observe that the eighteen pages devoted by Mr. Arnold to the denigration of the Anglo-Irish Church-apart from any criticisms upon their accuracy, as to which, consultation of Cotton's "Fasti Ecclesiæ Hibernica" might teach something-are entirely beside the question he has raised between us. He confesses that his aim has been to show that a person like myself, trained in and by such an institution as the Church of Ireland, must needs be too contemptible to deserve attention, much more reply, when venturing on any expression of theological opinion; and then he refutes himself by straightway entering into a highly animated controversy with that person.

I fail, I confess, to see the force of the argument, which is equally valid against the able refutation of Cardinal Newman's "Essay on Development" by the late Professor Archer Butler, who, by-the-by,

"Glories of Mary" (tr. by F. Coffin), p. 13 . + S. Aug. "De Civ. Dei," xviii. 54.

was himself a convert from the Church of Rome. The true issue is not what influences of education and society may have produced a bias in my mind, but whether certain errors and defects which I have alleged to exist in the Church of Rome are there or not. However, as Mr. Arnold has chosen to raise a personal issue in the matter, I may just say that I became convinced fifteen years earlier than Mr. Gladstone of the need of disestablishing and disendowing the Irish Church, since I regarded it as a political, far more than as a religious, institution; and, being a Liberal, I was unable to justify it in that character, or to accept its theory of Protestant Ascendancy; just as even now I am opposed to the Falk laws of Prussia and the Ferry laws of France, though I admit that my Irish experience (unforgotten after nearly a quarter of a century of English domicile) makes me familiar with unlovely aspects of popular Romanism unknown or disbelieved in England; such as the all but universal sympathy of the peasants with crime and criminals, the bitter hatred inculcated against those of another communion, especially if prosperous, and such denunciations, temporal and spiritual, of political opponents from the altar, as may be read, by those who choose, in the Blue Book on the Galway Election petition. I have thus ample reason for distrust of Romanism as a guide of conduct.

Mr. Arnold himself urges that there is little trace of current Irish divinity in such theological writings as I have previously published, and I prefer to end this disclaimer by saying that I entertain none of that hatred for the Roman Church with which he credits me. I have been for more than twenty years a member of the Association for Promoting the Unity of Christendom, whose primary object is the reconciliation of Latin, Oriental, and Anglican Christianity, and I am not conscious of any reason which should make me withdraw from its sodality. I am unable even to enter into the state of mind which can see only the evil in the mighty Latin obedience, which forgets all its glories of the past, and denies its promise for the future. But to me it seems now like a beautiful woman whose face is hidden by a deforming mask of confluent small-pox. I hold that the small-pox can be cured-nay, will one day be cured, and the pristine loveliness recovered, but I am not able, with some writers I could name, to deny the presence of any disorder, nor, with others, to allege that though the pustules are unquestionably there, yet they are beautifying developments, and not disfiguring tokens of disease. And my dissuasive is against hasty association with Rome at the almost certain risk of dangerous contagion, without any corresponding or counterbalancing advantages. That is not hate, but ordinary consideration for the laws of health.

I can imagine no more interesting, useful, or glorious work than that of an internal reformation of the great Roman Church, which should make it even what the "mild wisdom of the Fathers of Trent" would have made it, had not the plans of the Council been rendered abortive by Curialist intrigue. It can be no source of pleasure to any logical Christian thinker to be forced to dwell on the seamy side of Latin Catholicism, far less to note the continuously downward tendencies of the Ultra

montane system. For inasmuch as the body of credenda on which Rome and England-to narrow the consideration for the moment to these two types of Christian thought and practice-are agreed, largely exceeds in mere bulk their points of divergence, those who are either unattached to Christianity or actively hostile to it, do not care to draw any marked distinction between them. They are content to accept Roman Catholicism, by reason of its area and mass, as being the best historical exponent of Christianity-a view much insisted on by M. Ernest Renan in his recent Hibbert Lectures-and as they see very much in its system which is plainly repugnant to their sense of truth, justice, humanity, and reason, it is against collective Christianity, not against the Roman presentment of it, that they deliver their verdict; precisely as in most of the less educated popular English infidel writings which I have met with, it is Calvinism which has aroused the revolt against any form of the Gospel. Roman error, consequently, like Calvinist error, is no gain to a purer system. The innocent suffers for and with the guilty, and it is thus the plainest interest of the Church of England that Rome should be free from all errors and scandals, whether of doctrine or practice. But as Rome is, she promotes the march of unbelief: not only opposing no barrier to it in her own chief seats of monopoly, but indirectly furnishing it with weapons elsewhere too.

I may cite here a paragraph from a letter which a lay stranger addressed to me a very short time ago, drawing my attention to some reports of a new Roman miracle:

"I believe I am justified in saying that cultivated Roman Catholics (unfortunately too small a class in this country) look upon this imposture with feelings of the utmost disgust and indignation. Educated Roman Catholic men are quietly becoming infidel; a fact which has not escaped the notice of the priesthood. They are fond of attributing this to secular education: much more truly, I believe, ought it to be set down to the outrageous claims made upon men's minds of late in the name of religion."

Well, I hold myself to have ample justification for believing not merely in the undeniable facts as to the rapid spread of infidelity amongst hereditary Roman Catholics, but also in the by no means infrequent loss of faith among many converts, unable to bear the demands made upon them. And I wrote my little book, "Plain Reasons against Joining the Church of Rome," chiefly, no doubt, in compliance with longresisted pressure put upon me, not from Ireland, but by many Englishmen and Americans, in purely defensive reply to a multitude of Roman attacks upon the Church of England, but partly also to let persons hovering round the Roman bait know something more of the actual facts of the Latin system than they were at all likely to learn from their tempters, or to find in the commoner books of reference. I set nothing down which is not a real difficulty to my own mind, and I have had no proselyting motive whatever in the matter, not only because I have no great opinion of converts in general, but also because I think there is some truth, albeit of a somewhat one-sided kind, in this speech of Dr. Johnson's: "A man who is converted from Protestantism to Popery may be sincere he parts with nothing, he is only superadding to what he

already had. But a convert from Popery to Protestantism gives up as much of what he has held as sacred as anything he retains-there is so much laceration of mind in such a conversion, that it can hardly be sincere and lasting." (Boswell's "Life of Johnson," ad ann. 1769.) J go further, and think that in any change of communion there is great risk to the principle of faith from the sudden uprooting of old ties and associations, and I am therefore not zealous for proselyting from any one Christian body to any other, though I have, of course, very clear convictions as to the advantages and disadvantages of the various societies. But the anger with which my tractate has been assailed by Roman Catholics, despite a prefatory note in which I disclaim any intention of meddling with them, curiously illustrates a peculiarity I have had frequent occasion to remark in them—namely, that while they regard themselves as perfectly justified in using all and any weapons against the Church of England, in order to discredit it with its own members, they look on any reply (especially if it carry the war over the borders, instead of acting merely on the defensive) as being not only theological heresy, but social insolence also. I have been rated before now by a Jesuit Father for, as he said, "casting firebrands about," because I published some reasons several years ago for doubt in Roman Sacraments, while a large part of his own time was devoted to assuring Anglicans of the nullity of all religious ordinances in their communion. But I confess myself unable to understand a "reciprocity all on one side." So much will be certainly enough, perhaps far more than enough, to have said on the personal issue, but I am unwillingly obliged to add a few words more as to the method of my inculpated little book. The case, as put to me by those who asked me to undertake the task, was that despite the long duration of the controversy between England and Rome, no compendious volume, at once covering a good deal of ground, and yet very brief; plain and untechnical enough in diction to be easily understood, and yet with sufficient reading in it to prevent it from being thrust aside as too slight for attention; was accessible to Anglicans, whereas small Roman handbooks on the controversy are abundant. It is this gap I have tried to fill, and the necessary limitations of space have obliged me to compress the matter so much that I have been unable to find room for digressions, explanations, and guardings of statements. Knowing how hard it is to drive ideas into untrained minds, I have been compelled to aim primarily at incisiveness, and to omit nearly all those qualifications of leading propositions which I could and would use in fuller writing for a more learned class of readers, or in detailed conversation with anyone. For ordinary persons, to set down everything which conditions a statement, is not to make their view of it more accurate, but to attenuate it till it eludes their grasp altogether. There is thus a certain baldness in the way I have had to put things, though less in the second edition than in the first (which alone Mr. Arnold appears to have seen), and less in the third than in the second. It is this baldness and terseness which has furnished Mr. Arnold with the