a Roman origin, when, of sixty-seven days included in their number, sixteen are of Eastern origin, seventeen are British, fifteen French, two African, one Spanish, and five Italian and Sicilian; leaving only eleven Romish Saints? And of these, thirty-one commemorate persons or events before the first general council in 325; fifty-two before the sixth general council in 680; and fifty-seven before the schism between the Latin and Greek Churches in the ninth century; while the remaining ten are all English.

But if Romish means what was sanctioned by the Western Church for many centuries, then indeed the name is truly given. And what is there which the Anglican Church retains which is not in this sense Romish? Nay, many things in her ritual, which are justly cherished as venerable, are much more so. Nearly all the Collects in the Book of Common Prayer are translations from the Roman Missal, through the medium of the Sarum and other offices, which were given to the English Church by the Bishop of Rome. And the Epistles and Gospels for Sundays and such festivals as have special ones appointed, are chosen from the same source. In these things the Greek and African Churches are much less regarded than in the Kalendar, yet there is never a whisper of their being Romish. I forbear to mention the many glorious edifices and wealthy foundations which the Anglican Church makes use of, notwithstanding their Romish origin. Is the memory of the saints the only thing which must be disparaged as Romish? Better were it that the mere mockery of a Kalendar, for such it becomes, were done away, and that their blessed names with many other pious monuments of ancient times were consigned to quiet forgetfulness, than that they should be thus commemorated with a scornful pity. Who shall draw the line of distinction between what is Romish, yet may be kept; and what is not more so, but must be discarded? The Puritan says Episcopacy, and Liturgies, and solemn order, and the sign of the Cross are Romish. And the nominal Episcopalian for the same reason condemns the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and Priestly Absolution, and Penance, and deep outward reverence for holy things and places. The rule for the observance of Friday as a fast-day, which Mr. Wheatley

a

defends, rests on no stronger authority than the holydays; both are enjoined in the Kalendar. Till this variety of opinion is settled on some more enduring ground than the mere affirmation of a private person, or of a body of men acting privately, and not as the authorized representatives of the Anglican Church, we may with good reason doubt the consistency of measuring what is Romish merely by what falls in with the pre-established theory of any doctor however eminent. And if the Kalendar is generally and properly named according to the Church to which it belongs, this Kalendar is truly Anglican. For the English Church was called Ecclesia Anglicana long before its separation from the communion of western Christendom.

Mr. Wheatley then proceeds to give four reasons why the Popish holydays were retained in our Kalendar; which may be thus shortly stated.

First, "Upon account of our courts of justice, which usually make their returns on these days, or else upon the days before or after them."

Secondly, "For the sake of such tradesmen and handicraftsmen, and others, as were wont to celebrate the memory of their Tutelar Saints."

Thirdly, "Churches being in several places dedicated to [God in honour of] some or other of these saints, it has been the usual custom in such places to have wakes or fairs kept upon those days: so that the people would probably have been displeased if, either in this or the former case, their favourite saint's name had been left out of the Kalendar."

Fourthly, "The histories which were writ before the Reformation do frequently speak of transactions happening upon such holydays, or about such a time, without mentioning the month: so that, had these names been quite left out of the Kalendar, we might be at a loss to know when several of these transactions happened."

He thus concludes his preliminary remarks: "For the foregoing reasons our Reformers thought convenient to retain the names of these days in the Kalendar, though not with any regard of being kept holy by the Church. For this they thought prudent to forbid, as well upon the account of the

great inconveniency brought into the Church in the times of Popery, by the observation of such a number of holydays, to the great prejudice of labouring and trading men as by reason that many of those saints they then commemorated were oftentimes men of none of the best characters. Besides, the history of these saints, and the account they gave of the other holydays were frequently found to be feigned and fabulous. For which reason, I suppose the generality of my readers would excuse my giving them or myself any further trouble upon this head: but being sensible that there are some people who are particularly desirous of this sort of information, I shall for their sakes subjoin a short account of every one of these holydays, as they lie in their order. But must first bespeak my readers not to think that I endeavour to impose all these stories upon him as truths; but to remember that I have already given him warning that a great part of the account will be feigned and fabulous. And therefore I presume he will excuse my burdening him with testimonies, since though I could bring testimonies for everything I shall say, yet I cannot promise that they will be convincing. But however I promise to invent nothing of my own, nor to set down anything but what the blind Romanists superstitiously believe."

If all the histories which he promises to give were mere fictions, there would be less injustice in this careless and even scornful mention of them. But since only "a great part of

the account is feigned and fabulous," some of it must be true and authentic. Yet there is no attempt made to separate the one from the other, or to guide those who are unacquainted with the subject in their search. An air of discredit is thrown over the whole, notwithstanding the appearance of candour in the admission that there is some truth mixed up with fable. As far as may be gathered from his manner of relating them, the lives of S. Ambrose, S. Austin, S. Jerome, and other Fathers and Doctors of the Church are as fabulous as any of the strange legends which he relates. One might have thought that the more the true facts were overlaid with rubbish, the more precious would they become, and the worthier of being set forth in their purity by a careful separation. And if ever

so few of these histories are true they are the lives of holy and devoted men who now see God. And even those narratives which are doubtful may at least be the lives of such, and on the possibility of their being so ought to be spoken of with great reverence. Did these names come together by chance? Is their honour to be thus jested away by a light word? Are they not rather part of a priceless treasure which the Catholic Church values above rubies, and even if she cannot trace the minute history of each, she firmly believes that it belongs to a bright jewel in the crown of her God? We are bound to examine, and if our search should end only in uncertainty, it is no less our duty to speak with respect of what remains doubtful, distrusting our own discernment rather than the truth and wisdom of former ages of the Church.

It would serve no purpose to point out many inaccuracies in the histories which follow; such as that S. Hilary died in exile; and, in a later edition, that "our second Reformers under Queen Elizabeth thought convenient to restore the names of these saints to the Kalendar." But these inaccuracies are sometimes of great importance, as throwing a light upon the theory which he undertakes to establish. Thus on the 7th of August, the festival of the Name of Jesus,-he remarks that "this day was formerly dedicated to the memory of Afra, a woman of irregular life in Crete, who being converted to Christianity suffered martyrdom, and was commemorated on this day; though since the Reformation it has been dedicated to the name of Jesus." Why is not the present celebration, to which it is now set apart, mentioned first? What has S. Afra to do with the name of this day in the Anglican Kalendar? Why is it made answerable for more than it professes to record? Above all, why is a name allotted to this day which does not occur at all in the Kalendar of the Western Church? S. Afra is celebrated in the Lives of the Saints on the 5th of August, but the missals and breviaries of the West take no notice of her. And again, the Name of Jesus is to be found in the Kalendar of the Church of Sarum long before "the Reformation." This complication of mistakes is, to say the least, suspicious. A holyday now ordered to be observed is set aside in an inferior place, to make way for a saint

one.

less known than many others, and which the Western Church has never commemorated. And the merit of the substitution of so unexceptionable a feast as that of the Name of Jesus is claimed for "the Reformation," contrary to the truth of history. Mr. Wheatley dares not to include that venerable name in his catalogue of Romish Saints' days, and so is constrained to invent a former commemoration for this day, and to forget that the present is really more Romish than the alleged ancient How unfavourably does this example illustrate his theory! Supposing his account of it to be true, how are we to explain the place of this holyday in the Kalendar? The name of the saint who on his supposition, and in accordance with his theory, should have been preserved to mark the day either for the people or the historian, he declares to be erased, and a new title given to the day. But this new name, coming as he says after the Reformation, can fulfil none of the purposes which he makes the holydays serve. Nor is the true state of the case more favourable to his theory. For if it seem at first to confirm it, by showing that this holyday is no exception to it, the evident reason of his allowing it to appear an exception must not be forgotten. He had this alternative,— either to describe this holyday as appointed like the rest before the sixteenth century, and so include it among the "Romish Saints' days whose feigned and fabulous histories the blind Romanists superstitiously believe;” or to make it pass for a festival of "the Reformation," and thus at the expense of a little discredit to his theory allow it to be mentioned with honour, even though on his principles it is useless. Religion prevailed over logic, and the result we have seen. He does not solve the difficulty in a later edition of his work by concluding his account of S. Afra with these words: "How it came afterwards to be dedicated to the Name of Jesus I do not find."

In the same way Mr. Wheatley prefixes to his account of Lammas a history of the festival of S. Peter's chains, which has no place in the present Anglican Kalendar. And he concludes by saying that "the Popish people thought the mass of this day very beneficial to make their lambs thrive." This is surely one of the lessons of the holyday instead of being a