that for a long time past his principal wish has been to put together such a work; nor do we believe there is any other Catholic in these islands so well fitted for its due execution. We may be allowed perhaps without any breach of literary etiquette, as so many years have elapsed, to mention an article of his which appeared in our number for October, 1864, on "Outlines of Gospel History," as exhibiting his singular qualifications for his self-imposed task. And we have read with great pleasure his emphatic statement (p. x.), that nothing except the Church's definition would ever lead him to admit the existence of any error in the Gospels, however small. If the Church indeed did put forth any definition on the matter, there can be little doubt she would determine in favour of F. Coleridge's doctrine and not against it.

At the same time we must admit, that for two different reasons we cannot entirely sympathize with this publication; which is in effect neither more nor less, than a harmony of the four Gospels. In the first place, it appears to us an inconvenient course, that a harmony should be published, before the author has had an opportunity of explaining the ground on which he prefers this or that arrangement of facts. We think that his dissertations should precede his harmony, and not the reverse. In fact, from pursuing the latter course, F. Coleridge has been obliged in some few places, (as he confesses in p. viii.), to adopt a different arrangement in this volume from that which he accounts the more probable; because, without the necessary commentaries, this latter would not be sufficiently intelligible to his readers.

Then, secondly, we much doubt whether "The life of our Life" is best "proposed to those who meditate" in the shape of a harmony. It seems to us, on one hand, that the true chronological arrangement of events is generally quite irrelevant to purposes of meditation. And it seems to us on the other hand, that, where more than one Evangelist records the same event with different circumstances, the prominent exhibition of this difference such as a harmony must present-would tend rather to distract than to concentrate the attention.

We offer these remarks with much diffidence. But for one reason, at all events, we are heartily glad to see this volume; viz. because its appearance would seem to convey some earnest and pledge of F. Coleridge's seriously applying himself to the completion of his undertaking as a whole.

The Preaching of the Cross. A Brief Discourse, by Rev. C. B. GARSIDE, M.A.: introductory to the singing of Sacred Music on the Passion. London Burns, Oates, & Co.

THE

HIS address will be read with extreme interest by all, who intelligently enjoy sacred music, and find in it that singular spiritual profit which it is calculated to produce. Mr. Garside quotes F. Newman's memorable burst of eloquence on musical sounds (p. 6): "They have escaped from some higher sphere; they are the outpourings of eternal harmony in the mediums of created sound; they are echoes from our Home; the voice of

angels; the Magnificat of Saints." And he proceeds to ask, whether the one legitimate or even the most legitimate-application of this divinely-given utterance be really the opera. It may surely be called the dictate of common sense, that nothing but eternal truth affords adequate scope for this most heavenly gift. Mr. Garside writes with that heartiness of genuine feeling and conviction, which generates real eloquence; and his little discourse is, in its way, quite a gem.

Church Music and Church Choirs. Two Papers reprinted from the DUBLIN REVIEW. London: Burns, Oates, & Co.

WE

E must not express any eulogy on these papers, as they so recently appeared in our pages. But we have reason to know that this publication, in a separate form, has been eagerly desired by a large class of readers.

IT

The Month for February, 1869. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.

T has always been our wish, in the DUBLIN REVIEW, on the one hand to protest earnestly against every tenet condemned by the Church, whether advocated by non-Catholics or by unsound Catholics; and on the other hand to labour, as best we can, in promoting harmony and smoothing differences between the Church's loyal children. We profoundly deprecate therefore any misunderstanding, between a periodical of such principles as the "Month" and ourselves. We think most of our readers will have been of opinion, that we cordially expressed this feeling in our January notice of our contemporary (p. 227); and we are certainly somewhat surprised by the tone in which he has replied. We will confine ourselves however strictly, to the explanatory and defensive. When our meaning has been sufficiently understood, it will be manifest how very slight is the difference between the "Month" and the DUBLIN REVIEW.

We are particularly desirous to rectify one misapprehension, both because it is rather a serious one, and also because we have partly ourselves to thank for it. In October 1868, we said (p. 548) that those "deducible" and "protective" truths, which the Church from time to time infallibly declares, "were generally unknown to the Church of the Apostles." The "Month" misunderstood this word "generally." In January, consequently, we had to explain what we had meant by it; viz., that most of those truths were altogether unknown to the Church of the Apostles. Our attention however being fixed on this word "generally" and on its misapprehension, we carelessly twice committed the clerical error, of writing "the Apostles" instead of "the Church of the Apostles"; nor did we observe

this error, till we read the "Month" article of February. If our readers however will look at our October sentence, they will see that we could not possibly have had any other meaning in January than that which we now express. The question throughout concerns, not the Apostles, but the Church of the Apostles ; not what the Apostles knew, but what they taught. Their personal infused knowledge is a matter absolutely external to the whole argument and we shall say no more about it, except to express our hearty agreement with that section of Suarez which the "Month" cites; and to add, in regard to the extent of Apostolic knowledge, that we are fully disposed to accept the highest view which any approved theologian has ever laid down as probable.

These "deducible" and "protective" truths are such as the following:(1) That Jansenius's book contains five certain propositions according to its legitimate objective sense; that Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, taught the respective heresies which go by their name; and other such dogmatical facts. (2) That the words "Consubstantial," "Transubstantiation," &c., &c., truly and aptly express the respective dogmata to which the Church applies them. (3) That S. Francis of Assisi, S. Alphonsus, or any other given person canonized by the Church, is truly a Saint. (4) That the rational soul is essentially the "form" of the human body; and that any other given philosophical proposition is true, which the Church may have defined. (5) That the civil liberty of worship and of publishing books is not in itself an institution, either required by justice or salutary for society. (6) That the Pontiff's civil princedom is, under the circumstances of modern times, morally necessary for the Church's welfare.

We need not continue the catalogue of such truths. We still think it would be the natural and correct mode of speaking, to say that "most of them are truths altogether unknown to the Church of the Apostles." The "Month" differs from us here, and we have really no wish whatever to contest the point. But whichever of the two is right, we cannot see that the question is other than most purely verbal.*

This particular point however was only raised in February. What were our statements then in January? The "Month" of last August had said, that "the Church does not assume, and never has assumed, any power to discern and proclaim truths altogether unknown to the Church of the Apostles." In January we expressed two opinions à propos of this sentence. Firstly, we characterized as most unsound and mischievous the doctrine, that the Church has no power of infallibly declaring " deducible" and "protective" truths. Secondly, we implied that the sentence, which we have just quoted from the "Month" of August, had been " inaccurate" and "unguarded": and this, because, whether taken with or without the context, it would be understood "in its obvious and grammatical sense "—that is, apart from the "Month's " known character-as expressing that unsound doctrine

* The "Month," we should explain, seems not indisposed to admit that those dogmatical facts, which have been infallibly determined in later ages, altogether unknown to the Church of the Apostles": but it adds, that these are "facts," and not "truths."

were

just mentioned a doctrine however, which the "Month" of November had emphatically disavowed, and with which (as we proceeded to say in January) its Editor "has of course no kind of sympathy."* These were the two

opinions which we expressed or implied in January. On the former, which is no doubt of extreme importance, there is happily no controversy whatever between the "Month" and ourselves. The sole point of difference then is, that we regard the original sentence as having been open to legitimate misconception; while the "Month" considers that the context would have reasonably made all misconception impossible. It is certainly not worth while to say another word on such a matter. Transeat. Let us grant for argument's sake or rather for the sake of avoiding argument that we were mistaken.

We had thought, as we said in January, that our contemporary's "words" of August "would have been widely considered as a pointed declaration, on what he himself accounts the unorthodox side." The possibility of such misconception had been however brought to an end, by his reply in November. We had been 'only anxious to prevent such misconception; and our object was accomplished.

There is one omission in our January notice, which has been pointed out to us since its publication. The expression, "truths altogether unknown to the Church of the Apostles," originated with Mr. Liddon; it was accepted by the "Month" (so to speak) ad hominem, and not as the mode of expression which the "Month" would of itself have chosen. According to our own sincere view of the case, the context in general, and particularly the adoption of Mr. Liddon's own words, rendered the sentence even more liable to misconception than it would otherwise have been. But, as the "Month" thinks otherwise, we regret that the thought did not occur to us, of mentioning the fact to which our attention has now been drawn.

We must not conclude without explaining two sentences-entirely unconnected with this little controversy-which the "Month," in a note, has cited for reprehension from Dr. Ward's writings. In both cases there is misconception of Dr. Ward's meaning; in the former, very important misconception. Dr. Ward is apparently understood in the "Month" as having maintained, that our Blessed Lord's human perfections-His human love of God and man, His human wisdom, His human compassionateness, &c. &c.— are not personal perfections of God the Son. Such an opinion, we suppose, could not be characterized less severely than as heretical at all events, it was never Dr. Ward's. The very sentence, quoted in the "Month," speaks of some previous explanation having been given, as to the sense in which the words were used; and we wish his critic had referred to that explanation. The same explanation is given still more clearly in the concluding pamphlet of that controversy, in the course of which the sentence occurred. See "Correspondence between Rev. F. Roberts and Dr. Ward," pp. 17, 29. We will quote one sentence from the latter page. "If by 'personal perfection" be

* We say confidently that this was our meaning, because we have the clearest memory of what we intended to say. We do not ourselves even now see how our words can bear any other sense: but this is of course matter of opinion, and we have no wish to argue it.

6

66

meant a perfection appertaining to the person,' most incontestably the perfections of the sacred humanity are personal perfections of our Blessed Lord." And Dr. Ward proceeds to say, that he had avowedly used the phrase “personal perfection" in a sense altogether different." It would occupy some space to set forth what Dr. Ward did mean; and we refer therefore any one who may care about the matter, to the above-mentioned pages of the "Correspondence."

The "Month" cites secondly a sentence, taken from our January notice of Mr. Lloyd's work on Free Will (p. 220). We had said that "the Catholic who tries to live in the presence of God, is very frequently indeed during the day. . . . labouring to fix his thoughts on God, against the opposite solicitations of surrounding objects and interests." Now Mr. Lloyd, who is apparently not a Christian, holds (p. 28) that "effort" in the direction of good "is nothing else than freely endured pain." We replied, that "of course there are particular seasons, of violent temptation e. g. to mortal sin; or again of aridity and the like in the case of the more saintly; which would not only bear out Mr. Lloyd's description, but a great deal more.' "But as a general rule," we added and this is the sentence to which the "Month " objects "the interior Christian's effort at fixing his thoughts on God is accompanied by predominant sweetness and great sensible devotion." We did not speak therefore concerning periods of temptation to mortal sin, or again of aridity; nor further did we speak as is plain from the context-concerning times of meditation. We spoke concerning those frequent intervals through the day, when an interior Christian turns his thoughts by an effort from the dust of this world, to one or other spiritual and heavenly thought. Certainly the writer of the notice had no right to speak of such matters from his own experience; but (if he rightly remembers) he had learned this lesson from the late F. Faber, to whom he always looked up as a great authority on such matters. If we spoke incorrectly, we regret it; but we are still under the impression that our statement is perfectly accurate. We may add, that it seems to us peculiarly in harmony with the general spirit of F. Rogacci's treatise on "Holy Confidence," to which we have devoted a previous notice.

Turning to a totally different subject, we heartily thank the "Month" for inserting in this number a translation of Card. Caterini's letter on the Pope's civil princedom. We referred to this letter in January (p. 225) as to one of much importance; and we hope our readers will carefully study it.

WE

The Union Review for March, 1869. London: Hayes.

E notice this number chiefly for the purpose of saying, how much we regret to find the new editor imitating his predecessor, in what has been, from the first, among the worst features of the "Union Review": the indulgence of mere invective against opponents, without even the attempt at any argumentative corroboration. Nothing e. g. could be more legitimate,