at least a theory considerably divergent from modern practice. Our larger towns must, we believe, remain in their present state of neglect, or rather grow day by day more unmanagable, and more removed from the influences of the Church, until they can be made the centres of missionary work, conducted mainly by, and at all times under the eye of a bishop. With overgrown dioceses this, we shall be told, is an impossibility-we feel it to be so. But we know of no valid reason which should hinder our larger towns from becoming each the seat of a bishop, and we trust that the time may come when every parliamentary borough into which London is separated, will be separated also into a distinct bishopric. But over this tempting theme we will not linger.

We owe Mr. Meyrick no apology for having wandered so greatly from his book into a consideration of some of those topics which his interesting volume suggests. The perfection of the preacher's art is to lead us to forget the man in the subject of his mission. If we have not quoted from his pages, it is because the volume, like the subject on which it treats, is, again let us repeat, rather to be considered as a whole than capable of appreciation by an examination of parts, and because those largely increasing classes which interest themselves in practical works of Christian charity will, we trust, resort to its pages for a calm statement of the evils of English town life, and for a moderate and charitable survey of the means resorted to for their amelioration. Our own imperfect notice will, we feel, give but little idea of the breadth of the field surveyed, or the careful analysis which the book contains of the varied phases of metropolitan outcast life. But, however varied the contents, and however comprehensive the scope of the volume, it is to our minds of the greatest value, from the practical remedies which it suggests. The reader will find in its pages a summary of what is doing, in various ways, and with various degrees of success or failure, by all those multitudinous societies, which, to the delight of chairman, patron, and, above all, of secretary and manager, have mapped out for themselves, and entered in and taken possession of the land fertile with so many evils, and pregnant with the elements of moral and social death. Those who listened to these earnest sermons on a very practical subject, will, we are sure, not soon forget the solemnity of the topic, or the zeal of the preacher. Those who read, and are able calmly to think over some of the festering sins which arise too commonly from man's neglect, will be stimulated, we trust, to efforts which require indeed days of self-denial and self-sacrifice, but days which, at the same time, are brightened with the satisfaction which duty, faithfully fulfilled, assuredly yields. Only let us remember, that to rescue' the outcast and the poor' is our

task in this world, and the cause of our reward in the world to come. It is religion here, and the crown hereafter. True religion is no form of words or shibboleth of party; it is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction;' and the crown hereafter will be the reward of those who have given bread to the hungry and drink to the thirsty; who have clothed the naked with a garment, or who, in visiting the poor and outcast, have even, though unknowingly, really visited and ministered to their Lord. Here is something nobler and more satisfying than the excitement of partisan warfare, and the wearing clangour of theological controversy. A task for those who are content to watch for opportunities for good, rather than to indulge in idle lamentations over hindrances. Here is something which concerns the Church more, and is the surest preservative to the nation. For, to conclude in Mr. Meyrick's own parting words: 'Let us take "good heed betimes, lest, as individuals, as a Church, as a nation, after all our efforts to abstain from openly and directly trans'gressing God's written law by acts of commission, we incur con'demnation at the last because we have not recognised Christ in 'His little ones, because we have not delivered our outcasts and poor from the ungodliness which would swallow them (P. 324.)

' up.'

423

ART. VI.-Examen Bulla Ineffabilis institutum et concinnatum juxta regulas sanioris Theologiæ, a FRATRE BRAULIO MORGAEZ, Professore Sacræ Theologiæ in Ordine Prædicatorum et in Universitate Complutensi. Paris: Huet. 1858.

THIS is the latest-and perhaps it will be the last-protest against the Decree of December 8, 1854, issuing from a Roman Catholic country, and from a declared Roman Catholic source. France has spoken by the mouth of Laborde, Prompsault, Guettée, and the party represented by the Observateur Catholique; Holland, by the protest made by the three (so called) Jansenist Bishops in the name of their Church. In Germany and Italy, individuals have writhed and groaned, and been deprived wherever they dared to express their convictions. From Spain there now reaches us Fray Morgaez' voice, not only uttering the cry of anguish which he has before raised, but bearing abroad to the world a grave and well-argued protest, cast into the form of an Examination of the Bull Ineffabilis. That Fray Morgaez has no intention of derogating from the honour of S. Mary, and that he holds strong Roman or Mediæval doctrine as to the degree of honour due to her, is made sufficiently clear by his dedication, which runs as follows:

'To thee alone, most Serene Virgin Mary, I have resolved to dedicate and consecrate this little work of mine, in which I intend to examine the Bull Ineffabilis on the principles of sound theology. With thy most devoted son and servant S. Ildephonsus, Archbishop of Toledo, I beg thee, I pray thee, I ask of thee, that I may have the Spirit of thy Lord, the Spirit of thy Son, the Spirit of my Redeemer: that I may think what is true and worthy of thee; that I may speak what is true and worthy of thee; that I may say what is true and worthy of thee to be said; for whatever deviates from the truth is not worthy of thee. That I may not stray from the truth, may I walk in the footsteps which the holy Fathers and our forefathers, who have been accounted faithful masters in the Church, have left for us to follow. With these faithful guides I do not fear falling away from the path of the right faith, and with thy assistance, as a most loving mother, I doubt not that I shall reach the goal that I have proposed to myself. Ah! my most sweet mother, hear my prayers, poor as they are, for I offer them to thee with the whole affection of my heart: and I rejoice to declare myself thy son and most humble servant, as I dedicate and consecrate these my labours to thee.'-P. 2.

We need not say that it is not our purpose at this evening hour of the unhappy controversy on the Immaculate Conception of S. Mary, to enter at all into its merits. We have already done so more than once, and probably every theological reader has long since made up his mind on the subject. We propose, at present, simply to show what judgment the Spanish priest,

NO. CII.-N.S.

F F

monk, and doctor, Fray Morgaez, has passed upon it. That a Spanish ecclesiastic should have held such sentiments is little; but that he should have expressed them, and expressed them in the common theological language of Europe, is much.

A short prologue precedes the main work, and in this Fray Morgaez complains, that now

'The doctrine of the Fathers goes for nothing, and those who embrace, defend, and cling to it are called heretical; and thus the doctrine of the Fathers is condemned, and is branded with heresy, though the holy Fathers themselves may be absolved, because, forsooth, they taught it in ignorance, with their eyes shut, and without obstinacy, and would recal their opinions if the truth had been known by them as it is now known. I have heard such words as these! I have read them even in letters put forth by Bishops: -Oh, sorrow! What ignorance! What audacity! What pride! '—P. 3. Two significant quotations from Melchior Cano are added to the prologue :

'A council and the Pontiff proceed in a natural way, following reason, and distinguishing truth from falsehood by argument. Whence it is clear that the Holy Spirit is not present to the Fathers if they sleep and yawn, but only if they diligently seek out the truth of the matter in question in the ordinary way, and by reasoning.' Those are counted to be judgments of the Apostolic See, not such as are put forth secretly, with ill intent, inconsiderately, by the Roman Bishop alone, or even with a few on his side, but such as issue after previous examination in accordance with the judgment of a number of wise men.-De loc. Theol. v. 5.'—P. 5.

Fray Morgaez proceeds to pull the Bull to pieces, paragraph by paragraph, carefully speaking all along of the confector Bulla, and supposing him to be entirely answerable for all its blunders, misrepresentations, and heretical_statements,—with which of course the Pope had nothing to do, except unfortunately being deceived by them. He begins by pointing out the paralogism employed by the Bull in its first sentence in using the word decebat, and arguing that it was befitting that God should have caused S. Mary to be preserved from original sin. ""Decebat," inquit confector Bulla. Unde colligit hanc decentiam?' The à priori propriety of God's acting in one way or another way on such a subject as that under discussion, is a thing which he shows cannot be appealed to in argument, for man can only learn what is becoming' to God in such a matter from the fact that God has done it, and revealed to us that He has done it.

'Who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to define what is "becoming" to Him and what is not? Or who is His counsellor, so as to pronounce that a thing is "becoming" to Him which He has not revealed? It is setting traps to catch simple souls, to use such arguments as these.' -P. 8.

By and by the composer of the Bull' tries to drag S. Thomas Aquinas to his side of the question, on which Fray Morgaez bursts out in wrath not unnatural in a Dominican:

'Oh! the intolerable shamelessness, the impiety, the wicked deceit of this man who lays snares to catch souls! The testimony of S. Thomas has great weight, reverence, and authority in the Church of God. So what does the composer of the Bull do? He tries to pull him to his side and bring him forward as witness of his doctrine. But the doctrine of S. Thomas is clear, transparent, certain. S. Thomas plainly denies that the most Holy Virgin was sanctified in her conception. The compounder of the Bull says that S. Thomas taught the opposite opinion to this, namely, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in her conception. Which shall we believe-S. Thomas, who speaks as plainly as he can speak, or the composer of the Bull, who drags S. Thomas against his will to his own side? S. Thomas says, "It is not known at what time she was sanctified." The Bull-maker, spite of all that S. Thomas can say, declares that he has asserted the Holy Virgin to have been free from spot of original sin from the first instant of her conception.'-P. 12.

After having disposed of another argument of the Bull, he exclaims :

'The Bull-maker labours but in vain, so far as concerns learned men in whose hearts pure religion exists. Every one that is of upright heart, and has eyes to see, will reject him and his argument, which is composed, as it seems, simply to take in men of little wit, whoever they may be, lay or clerical, even those of the first order of the clergy, who are striving to extort belief by violence, not with spiritual, but with carnal weapons. Away then with this Bull-fabricator—let him keep his argument for men who having eyes see not, and having ears hear not, and having noses smell not what it is that is thrust upon them under the guise of piety, for them to swallow.'-P. 15.

Here is a cry of grief and indignation:

'I do not want to blame any one with regard to this matter about which Catholics are now disputing. The most grievous thing is that on one side the controversy is carried on with the arms of learning, on the other with carnal arms, like brute beasts. If, when this question first appeared in the world, those who held the reins of ecclesiastical government had examined and defined it by the light of the doctrines of the faith, assuredly many complaints, many differences, many a hatred would have been extinguished, and love would not have grown cold among brethren who ought to be living with one mind in the house of God!'-P. 23.

The following passage breathes more independence than is often found now-a-days in the subjects of Rome:

• We know that the Roman Church is the mistress of all churches, but we know too in what sense that saying is to be understood. We acknowledge and confess the Roman Church to be the centre of Catholic unity. But why do you not say what you mean by the Roman Church? Is the particular Church existing at Rome the Catholic Church? Is the head the whole body? Is not the faith of all the Churches spread throughout the world one and the same? Is it the Church existing at Rome which has alone received the power of teaching the faithful? Is it the Roman Church alone which has delivered the faith to all Churches? Did none of the other Apostles teach except S. Peter, or did they only teach by commission, received from the chief of the Apostles? No: the other Apostles too founded Churches and governed them. S. Jerome writes of the Apostle and Evangelist S. John, "He founded the whole of the Churches in Asia, and