We will give one instance of what we mean, out of the many which readers will have observed. The Prodigal goes into " a far country."

66

Why into a far country? Was it his intention from the outset, as he stood for the last time on the threshold, whilst he turned his face towards the open plain before him? Did he say to himself, 'I will not be content with going a short distance; I will go, if need be, over high mountains; I will cross swollen rivers; I will brave the fiery heats of the desert; I will go as far as I can, where no messenger from my father can find me, and no inquiries can reach me from friends'? Most probably he had no such idea. He wanted to enjoy himself, and to have plenty of liberty, but had no fixed plan besides. But somehow or other he went a long way, and found himself in another land altogether. I dare say he kept his youthful spirits up well with anticipations of what was in store for him; and as he passed along and saw new things, new persons, and new customs, he wandered on without at all measuring his distance. The present, the bright, sunny, merry present, was everything to him; and he altogether forgot that a time would come when to go back would be a long and wearisome journey.

"Behold a picture of the man who is bent on pleasing himself. Like the Prodigal, he cannot do this without leaving God" (pp. 30, 31).

"At first there seems no particular change in that man; his spirits are much as usual, perhaps higher than before, because of the excitement of the pleasure which he is following; nor has he any idea of going deep into the tangled forest which he has been beguiled into entering. He has no deliberate intention to stop; but he has also no deliberate intention not to stop. But one pleasure suggests another; one desertion of God's will paves the way for a fresh desertion. Onward he goes-onward and onward. To get out of one sin he commits another; the flesh pulls harder and harder, and the Spirit of God seems to draw with a force that grows weaker. At length his conscience grows dim and mystified, so that he loses his sense of distance from God. Landmarks that ought to startle him with their signs pass unmeaningly before his dreamy eye. He knows he is outside his Father's house, but he thinks he is only a little astray; when, behold, he is abroad in a far country'!

"We may liken the Prodigal going away from his home, but not having yet passed the boundaries of his father's territory, to those who are giving way to a continued course of venial sin. They are becoming more and more distant from God, but they are as yet within the enclosure of His friendship; the link of grace and charity which binds them and Him is being stretched hard, until at last the deed of darkness is done; mortal sin is committed" (pp. 32, 33).

We hope in our next number to notice Mr. Garside's treatment of the two remaining parables.

A Letter to the Editor of the Dublin Review upon the Temporal Power of the Pope, and his Personal Infallibility. By WILLIAM MASKELL, M.A. London: Longmans.

UR July notice of Mr. Maskell did not in any way turn on Pontifical

merely to express the Gallican doctrine, "there is no cause of complaint." But we understood his words to imply in their more natural sense, though

we could not be at all sure that we rightly apprehended his meaning " (p. 231), that the Immaculate Conception has not yet been infallibly taught as of faith, nor will be so taught until it has been defined by a council. In other words, we thought Mr. Maskell's expressions might well be understood to imply, that the Ecclesia Docens is not infallible except when assembled in council. We are very glad to find, from p. 16 of the pamphlet now before us, that he intended nothing of the kind; nay, that "we have done him a great injustice unwittingly, in suspecting that he could possibly intend" it. Although therefore Mr. Maskell considers a council "the normal seat of infallibility," he by no means considers it the exclusive seat of that privilege; for he holds that the Immaculate Conception is infallibly taught as of faith, though no council has ever defined it. In one word, he holds that God has promised infallibility to the dispersed, and not exclusively to the assembled, Ecclesia Docens.

Yet in p. 18 his words have quite an opposite sound: they run as though "the Pope in council" were the "exclusive seat of infallibility." This rather perplexes us.

So much at all events is very plain; viz. that Mr. Maskell considers the definition of 1854 to have been quite an exceptional fact. There is "a very distinct difference between this article of the Christian Faith—that is, with regard to the foundation on which it rests-and every other article of the Creed" (p. 15). We cannot quite understand this language. Whenever the Church condemns any given proposition as heretical, she defines its contradictory as a dogma of the Faith. In the case of Jansenius then, the dispersed Ecclesia Docens put forth five definitions of faith; in accepting the "Auctorem Fidei," she put forth more than five. All these rest "on the same foundation" as the definition of 1854: having been issued by the Holy See, and accepted by the Episcopate.

But the dispersed Ecclesia Docens has not only condemned various propositions as heretical; she has condemned a very far larger number as worthy of some lower censure. Are we to understand Mr. Maskell as denying her infallibility in these minor censures? There are some ominously-sounding words in p. 11, as though no determination of the Church were infallible except definitions of faith. Yet we will not rashly suppose that Mr. Maskell can intend to deny, e. g., the infallibility of the "Unigenitus." As we pointed out in July (p. 226), a local council, "most fully approved" by Benedict XIII., declared that this Bull is "a dogmatic, definitive, and irreformable judgment of the Church"; and that "if any one does not accept it in heart and mind", he is to be counted "among those who have made shipwreck concerning the Faith."

Among those various doctrines, which the dispersed Ecclesia Docens teaches infallibly and obligatorily yet not as "of faith,"-one, as we have ever alleged, concerns the Pope's civil princedom: declaring that that princedom is necessary for the Church's well-being. We quoted however in July (p. 233) a passage of Mr. Maskell's, which would universally be understood as a denial of this doctrine. We must now consider in order his various replies to our statement.

He had said, that "no one can believe this" civil princedom "to be essen

tial in the slightest degree to the just authority. . . of the Catholic Church." By this expression, as he now explains (p. 7), he meant no more than that the civil princedom is no part of the Church's essence; that the Church indeed, by divine promise, will remain on earth to the Day of Judgment; but that there is no such promise in favour of the Pontiff's temporal dominion. Since this was Mr. Maskell's meaning, our only unfavourable criticism (so far) is, that he expressed himself too mildly against his opponent's doctrine : for no Catholic, remaining such, can possibly hold the tenet which Mr. Maskell disclaims.

He proceeded to 66 that say, some may doubt whether" this princedom be "essential in the slightest degree" "even to the well-being of the Catholic Church"; and that "to himself it is almost a matter of indifference." Such language however, he now explains (p. 6), is not inconsistent with his holding and in fact he does hold—that (in the words of Pius IX.) “this civil princedom of the Holy See was given to the Roman Pontiff by a singular counsel of Divine Providence; and that it is necessary in order that the same Roman Pontiff . . . .* may be able to exercise with fullest liberty supreme authority . . . . and provide for the greater good of Church and faithful."

Again, we "pressed on" Mr. Maskell's "attention" (p. 234) Card. Caterini's letter, written by the Pontiff's command, declaring, that to reject the above-mentioned doctrine on the civil princedom, is to 'incur “the dread sentence pronounced on those who will not hear the Church." Mr. Maskell replies (p. 112), as we understand him, that he quite agrees with Card. Caterini's letter; and he says explicitly, that we "cannot hold more strongly " than he does "the lawfulness and antiquity of the temporal power, its fitness and (under God's permission) its necessity." Mr. Maskell goes on to designate it as "monstrous ", that men "should deny the fitness, the antiquity, and probably the very many advantages of the civil princedom of the Roman Pontiff." All this is very satisfactory so far as it goes: but why then did Mr. Maskell profess, that "to himself" this very princedom "is almost a matter of indifference"?

We further argued in July (p. 234), that the Catholic Episcopate has endorsed the Syllabus; and that the Syllabus declares an obligation to be incumbent on all Catholics, of holding that doctrine on the Pope's civil princedom, which is set forth in six specified Pontifical Acts. Mr. Maskell will neither affirm nor deny that he holds this doctrine; though he "has no wish to volunteer an opinion contrary" thereto (p. 10). But he argues that, at all events, no interior assent is due to the doctrine of these Acts, because "the bishops have never placed it before their people as of faith" (p. 11). Now, in endorsing the Syllabus, they have placed it before their people, as

We cannot understand Mr. Maskell's difficulty in the Pontiff's words which here follow-" never subject to any prince or civil power." Perhaps the following paraphrase may be intelligible to him; which, we think, every one will admit to be faithful: "in order that the Roman Pontiff may not at any time, by being subject to any prince or civil power, be prevented froin exercising with fullest liberty, &c. &c."

a doctrine which "all Catholics are bound (debent) to hold most firmly." And we should have been glad if Mr. Maskell had noticed this fact, to which we solicited his attention.

We never said (see Maskell, p. 10), that on Mr. Maskell's view, the Pope's "acts of sovereignty are contradictory to true morality." We said that, on Mr. Maskell's view, the doctrine taught by the Ecclesia Docens, on this subject, is contradictory to the rights of the Roman people, and therefore contradictory to true morality.

We have no wish to enter into controversy with Mr. Maskell on Pontifical infallibility. He is fully tolerated in holding as yet Gallican opinions; and he will of course yield a firm assent, to whatever dogma the Vatican Council may define. But he expresses so strongly his confidence in F. Newman as a theologian, that we may perhaps do some good, by pointing out how widely F. Newman differs from him on one important matter. Mr. Maskell (p. 22) regards it as displaying a somewhat uncatholic spirit, to contemplate with hopeful anticipation a new definition of faith. But F. Newman (see "Anglican Difficulties," p. 285) says that "whenever a new definition of doctrine is promulgated by the competent authority," "a ready and easy acceptance of the apparent novelty and a cordial acquiescence in its promulgation is the very evidence" of a "Catholicly-disposed" mind.

A Few Words on Reunion and the Coming Council at Rome. By Gerard F. COBB, M.A. London: Palmer.

IT

T is impossible to exaggerate the charitableness, forbearingness, and truly Christian spirit exhibited in this pamphlet. We thank the author heartily for such an oasis in the desert; such a peaceful variety in these days of bitter and angry controversy. We cannot but confidently hope, that one who seems so deeply animated with piety and love of God, may be led nearer and nearer, by prayer and seeking after God's will, to the full measure of Catholic truth.

It gives us great pain then to say, that we really cannot see any argumentative purpose which the pamphlet will serve. We have taken great pains to understand Mr. Cobb, though we are far from confident that we have succeeded in the task; but so far as we do understand him, his ecclesiastical theory includes these two propositions:

I. There is one only society on earth which, in the fullest sense, is the Church of Christ; viz., the society which submits herself to the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction. She is infallible in her definitions of faith; and moreover, the great mass of mankind are commanded by God to be in her communion, and so submit themselves to the Pope.

II. But there is an important exception to this obligation. Suppose a certain aggregate of bishops at some given period rebel against the Pope and form a separate society, without conspicuously exhibiting more unchristian qualities than their opponents. Centuries afterwards (to the end of the world?), those born of parents who are members of this society, are exempted

by God from the obligation, which He has imposed on all others, of submitting to the Holy See.

This second proposition is certainly remarkable; and (we venture to think) not less heretical than any tenet of Arius or Nestorius. Strangeness however and heresy are no reasons-rather the contrary-why we should not carefully consider it. But the fact is—though our readers will hardly credit it-that Mr. Cobb has not adduced in its favour a single argument of any kind whatsoever, but has rather treated it as self-evident. We call on him then (1), either to accept our statement of his thesis or to correct that statement; and (2) to adduce arguments for the said thesis, whether from ecclesiastical definitions on the one hand, or from Scripture and Tradition on the other. No possible good can be done by controverting on petty details, while this fundamental issue remains untried.

We would only correct one mistake into which he has fallen. He very naturally accepts the first of the four Gallician articles; he holds (see our number for last April, p. 466) that "kings and princes are not by God's ordinance subjected in temporals to any ecclesiastical power." But it is rather too bad that he should suspect the "Civiltà" of sympathizing with such Gallicanism (p. 70) ; and that too in a passage, which expresses orthodox doctrine (one would have thought) with the most unmistakeable clearness. We should add, in conclusion, that Mr. Cobb is most honourably distinguished from many of his brother unionists, by his consistently candid and equitable judgment towards the Holy Father and the Roman Catholic Church.

In Spirit and in Truth; an Essay on the Ritual of the New Testament. London: Longmans & Co. 1869.

THIS

HIS is an attempt, by a Catholic writer who has chosen to remain anonymous, to prove to Protestants that ecclesiastical Ritualism and Symbolism are in conformity with the teaching of the New Testament. It has, at least, one distinctive merit-that of a very complete classification and examination of the passages both in the life of our Lord and in the writings of the Apostles which authorize the symbolical and ritualistic principle. The Gospels, when "searched" with an unprejudiced eye, yield some results that should startle Dr. Cumming and Dr. White. Their school is pleased to speak of our Lord as nearly always placed before us "under lights which are moral and spiritual, rarely ever in connection with anything simply of a ritual nature." (Let us remark, in passing, the ingenious begging of the question contained in the word "simply" in this passage.) Now it would seem to be an undeniable fact that throughout the whole of our Lord's life, from the stable of Bethlehem to the sepulchre in the garden, not only was He Himself the object of symbolical observance on the part of others, but He also used symbolism Himself in a multitude of those external actions which He saw fit to perform. The writer of the work before us brings this fairly out in one of his chapters; we may quote his summing up and conclusion :