ORIGINAL POETRY. THE AUTHOR OF "THE CHRISTIAN YEAR." I. JULY 14, 1833. "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle ?" The night was black, and but few stars were bright, The old Cross gleaming in the morning air Of future triumph to our soldiers spoke; Sword, breast-plate, helmet, each to other given, II. MARCH 29, 1866. "Eternal rest give unto him, O Lord; and let perpetual light shine upon him." A change unken'd has overpassed this land, Redclothed once more, show forth God's mighty hand. Strangely the wills of men He moulds anew; Nourishing rain, keen winds, autumnal dew, Stern Winter's Frost, or Autumn's golden glows, Succeed, to bring forth Earth's all-beauteous flowers. The Cross's deep'ning Way-when Grace in showers LITERARY NOTICES. Ir is a bad sign that some of our leading Catholic newspapers and serials have given an almost unqualified praise to Mr. Freeman's Rites and Ritual, (London: Murray.) We are fully conscious of the advantage of having at last obtained a live Archdeacon who is prepared to defend to a considerable extent the Catholic system of worship, and we thank him for what he does defend. But Catholic worship apart from Catholic dogma is not only no blessing, but a snare, a delusion, and a curse. Without the truth as it is in Jesus, we had far better be rid of our copes, our chasubles, and our incense, and appropriately return to the external ugliness of Protestantism. It has been reserved for Mr. Freeman to excogitate and invent a heterodox notion,-an idea which, ignoring the Athanasian Creed, divides the Person of Christ, and is twentyfold more difficult to accept than the scholastic theory of Transubstantiation; viz.:-that the Dead Body and Blood of Our B. Lord are mysteriously present in the Eucharist, apart from His Person and His Presence, but are not to be worshipped. At pp. 97 et seq. of our first volume, we patiently examined this newly-invented and monstrous heresy (for so it is) at some length, and therefore shall only quote a few passages from its author's present pamphlet to show that he still unhappily retains it. In spite of his pious phraseology and considerable learning, we cannot do other than regret his appearance as a defender of Catholic observances, for he belongs to another camp. He may possibly help us for the moment, but he will certainly sow the baneful seed of theological error for many a long year, fostering crotchets and hindering Re-union. His recommendation of that which is good and true cannot condone his avowed promulgation of that which is markedly novel and false. If he could completely misrepresent the Archdeacon of Taunton's doctrine, his neighbour and contemporary, much more might he do the same for the Fathers-which he certainly has done with singular success. Here are two statements, which if not the most flagrant heresy, such a thing as heresy does not exist :-"Is it not perfectly certain from hence (i.e. from S. Chrysostom's Liturgy) that in the conception of antiquity Our Blessed Lord was not lying personally on the altar: that personally He was as regards His majestic Presence on His Throne in heaven? and, as regards His mysterious Presence on earth, it was to be sought not in or under the elements, but (according to the proper law of it), in and among the faithful, the Church of God, there present? For He is invited to come by an especial efflux or measure of that Presence, and to give the mysterious things-His Body and Blood."-(P. 38.) And, again: "It is said [the writer is attempting to combat the Catholic Faith,] that Christ's Body, wherever It is, and under whatsoever conditions existing, must demand and draw Divine Worship towards It. Is it so indeed? Then why, I should ask, do we not pay Divine Worship to the CHURCH, for the Church certainly is His Body, His Flesh and His Bones. Nay, why do we not worship the individual communicant? for he, certainly, has received not only Christ's Body but Christ's very Self, to dwell in him."-(P. 39.) Such remarks as these are not only feeble and childish, but ridiculous and insulting to his readers on the part of one claiming to be regarded as a ritualist and theologian, and are altogether unworthy of so grave and momentous a question. High Churchmen who are so hard upon Dr. Colenso, might surely find subjects for indignation nearer home. And yet the Ecclesiastic terms Mr. Freeman's book "a truly seasonable publication," and the Church Times designates its author as a person who holds "the first rank save one, among English Liturgiologists." We regret to have to record our deliberate conviction that as Archdeacon Freeman's theories are false and dangerous, his present tractate ought to be read-if read at all-with "many grains of salt." The Heavenly Father: Lectures on Modern Atheism, by Ernest Narille, &c. Translated from the French by Henry Downton, M.A. (London: Macmillan). We are always inclined to suspect a book, and its author consequently, of shallowness, that affects to see any danger of Christians, or of mankind in general, lapsing into atheism. Pantheism, rationalism, the deification of man or of nature, is but another phase of idolatry, differing from that of the ancients only as being of a more spiritual and refined cast, in proportion to the general advance made by man in his social condition since then; and this is a danger to which angels themselves were once liable. But that atheism should ever be the besetting peril of a generation like the present, so wedded to the study of cause and effect as it has been by the progress of the inductive sciences, is what we should think no man in his senses could propound seriously; and a book with a sensational heading seems to apologise beforehand for certain defects of matter which it thus attempts to conceal. Neither, again, do we think the first part of its title unobjectionable--The Heavenly Father-if it is intended to advocate "faith in God, as it has been given to the world by the Gospel." Why not more distinctive and avowed Christianity? To make men intellectual believers in God at this late period of the world is but a sorry aim. If they are not taught or brought to love Christ with their whole heart, there will never be any real conversion of the head. We do not think that our author got much out of Professor Faraday, and we shall be surprised, agreeably indeed, if, after perusing his work, that eminent "savant" felt called upon to make a stronger or more definite profession of faith than he has. We confess to finding nothing in these lectures at all savouring of originality: nothing that has not been said over and over again, as well or better. However, their author has read and can make use of his contemporaries, and reproduce what they have said with method and even with eloquence; and in Switzerland, where we fear there is a great deal of abstract unbelief and a general turn for speculation, they may do some good; but, unless we are greatly deceived, they are not practical enough for England, even were England tending towards atheism, which we utterly disbelieve. Positivism may be the dream of some minds amongst us, but while it has such a vigorous and determined opponent as the Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford-to name no more—its fallacies will not be allowed to pass unchallenged; and even if they were, positivism is not really atheism, nor would it ever be likely to have the effect of driving into atheism many minds of the practical British mould. Mr. Baird's Three Lectures on The Mystery of Bethlehem (London: Hayes) are very decidedly above the average of even the better class of sermons in learning, depth, and theological precision. The third, on the effects of the Incarnation, is the ablest and most original. There are some passages, however, which the author would do well to correct in a second edition, which his Lectures certainly deserve to reach. There is a false analogy at p. 8 of the Preface, repeated in the third lecture, between our Lord's suffering life and the divided state of Christendom; which would imply that division is the normal state of the earthly Church, as suffering was of our Lord's human life. Mr. Allies' comparison between S. Augustine and Cicero, which is quoted at p. 39, is a very unfair one, for S. Augustine ranks among the highest examples of Christian sanctity, and Cicero is one of the poorest moral specimens of the better class of Pagans. We have so lately expressed our opinion on the Scotist and Thomist controversy, in reviewing Mr. Liddon's Sermons that we need not return to it here, further than to observe that Mr. Baird's remarks upon it in his concluding note do not appear to us happy, and the criticism on a recent Roman Catholic work on the Atonement based upon them is both irrelevant and unjust. It does not follow because the Scotist view is more accordant with Roman and the Thomist with Protestant theology, that the Roman Church is tending to rationalism; nor does the fact (if it is a fact, which we greatly doubt) that the Thomist view is more effective for preaching "to the hearts of our people" prove its truth. The same argument would apply, or certainly would have once applied, in full force to the Lutheran heresy of justification, or the Wesleyan view of conversion. And to say that "the sacrificial aspect of our Blessed Lord's death, and its connection with the pardon of sin has been more clearly and fully taught in the English Church, and in the foreign Reformed Communions, than in the Church of Rome," is a piece of claptrap paradox quite unworthy of so thoughtful and devout a writer, and at issue with his own previous statement of the connection between a denial of the Eucharist and of the Cross. We should not have taken the trouble to point out these blemishes in a really valuable set of lectures, if we did not think them quite worth the trouble of revision. It is difficult to review a writer who lays claim to divine inspiration, and who certainly, if he is not a prophet, must be a late arrival from Hanwell. Mr. James Biden has composed a pamphlet on The Pestilence, why inflicted, (Gosport: Legg,) and claims to be heard because he has been "dealt with in a manner not ordinary," and "Divine aid has been accorded' him for his various publications (of which a list is kindly supplied,) though, sad to say, "my books have been so little read, there seems to arise a necessity for repetition "an inference possibly inspired, but hardly logical. It is instructive to learn on the high authority of one who gives 30 reasons for assuming that he is the " son of man " mentioned in Ezekiel, a watchman unto the house of Israel," that " barous, heathenish, pagan ritualism" must be replaced by an observance of the decalogue; our belief in priestly ordination, baptism, and consecration, original sin, eternal punishment, a personal devil, and "a straightlaced belief in creeds" generally, must be abandoned; and that when at last the "millions of human beings called Christians" are delivered from idolatry and priestcraft the pestilence will cease, but not sooner. "Romanists" may be interested to learn that High Mass is worship of the sun, and "Protestant high-churchmen," that the 20th chapter of Ezekiel refers to their restoring "the abomination of their fathers," i. e. Convocation, in the year 1855. and " our bar The second edition carefully revised and well-printed of Bishop Forbes' Explanation of the Nicene Creed (London: Parker and Co.) will be welcomed by many. It is one of the best of the bishop's books, being written with great lucidity, considerable theological knowledge and a thoroughly excellent system and style throughout. The author has had an eye to the needs and difficulties of present times, so that on points where other writers are apt to be ambiguous, uncertain, or misty, the Bishop of Brechin is clear, forcible and distinct. We know of no volume of the same size which is so well calculated to be of great use both to theological students, or to laymen who desire to know something of the Queen of Sciences, and as such we |