in their turn they give place to later Reformers. The quotation is this:" The contemplation of the great mystery of the Incarnation has drawn all Christian nations to venerate her from whom came the first beginnings of our redemption. But we English, being the servants of her special inheritance and her own Dowry, as we are commonly called, ought to surpass others in the fervour of our prayers and devotions." The general question is here well stated, and it is also made clear, as the author at once declares, that it is his intention to produce, "not a work of controversy, not an apology, ... but an historical investigation" of the claims of Old England to the glorious title of "Our Lady's Dowry," that is, of the proofs remaining of the devotion of the English nation, from the Conquest to the Reformation, to the Virgin Mother of God.

Two are the principal charges brought against the Church by these so-called Reformers, which are clearly enough indicated in this same name of theirs-charges of falsity and novelty; and although the latter, taken independently, is of no consequence, as all lovers of progress will readily grant, nevertheless, when brought against the dogmatic teaching and practice of the Church, it is serious indeed, and implicitly and consequentially the same as the former, as they unmistakably show by whom the charge is either made or denied. The charge is denied by Father Bridgett as far as devotion to Mary in England is concerned, and his copious quotations and multiplied facts prove beyond all doubt the doctrine and practice in question to have been from the beginning what they still are, thank God, in the Saxon Isle of Saints. Not without wonder, perhaps almost equal, Catholics and Protestants will now be instructed by their ancestors concerning the Immaculate Conception, the Virginal Maternity, the Wisdom, the Joys, the Dolours, and the Glory of Mary. With interest perhaps equal will the varied tokens of ancient devotion be studied by all: the praises and prayers, the beads and bells, the feasts and fasts, the churches and chapels, the altars and images, the pilgrimages and miracles, the sanctuaries and wells, the guilds and memorials; and then may the Catholic say of his Church "eadem semper," and the Protestant see if willing that this "proud boast" can never be the glory of his sect. The third part shows well how "Our Lady's Dowry" was stolen away, and how Britons were slaves, to their eternal disgrace, and kissed the lash and swore by their tyrants' word. Those were the days for "Expostulations"; but many were not forthcoming.-A welcome "etrenne" is "Our Lady's Dowry" for every friend of England, and for every lover of the truth.

"It has been my wish," writes Father Bridgett, at page 119, "to be the historian rather than the apologist of our forefathers. Yet I feel that I cannot enter upon the detail of the honours paid by them to the Blessed Virgin without some few words of explanation and defence." This was to be expected, and we are glad that the learned Redemptorist has been mindful of the "sanare" as well as of the "evangelizare" of his motto. Truly, it is only going over the battlefield victoriously traversed by countless Catholic controversialists; yet must it be done, were it but for the sake of some few who never saw the truth before. That there are many such we gladly admit, and we know they will be fewer when they will have read "Our Lady's Dowry," and particularly the first and sixth chapters of the second part. A Protestant publication is before us, of which innumerable copies have been sent forth by the Irish Church Missions Society to pollute this Catholic country. It is entitled "A Handbook to the Romish Controversy: being a Refutation in detail of the Creed of Pope Pius IV., on the grounds of Scripture and Reason. By Charles Stuart Stanford, D.D., Rector of St. Thomas's, Dublin." This book was sent us for refutation by a lady whose husband was apparently drawn back to Protestantism by Dr. Stanford's arguments. There are good reasons for believing that the gentleman in question was never a real Catholic. Nevertheless, for his sake principally, we shall as briefly as possible expose, with Father Bridgett's assistance, the inanity of Dr. Stanford's attack on Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Misconception appears to be the greatest difficulty of Protestantism. Is it real? Can educated men be really ignorant of the true teaching of the Catholic Church? It appears an impossibility to many of us Catholics, and much more impossible must it seem to themselves; and yet we are convinced that it is most possible, for illustrious apologies have shown it to be a fact. What, then, of Protestant devotion to the Holy Ghost? Can He leave his servants in darkness? Dr. Stanford says well in his Introduction (1852): "Our Blessed Lord has declared that God will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him. He also declares that it is the office of the Holy Spirit to teach us all things, to testify of Jesus Christ, to guide us into all truth." Lower down he thanks those friends "who continually joined with him through the progress of this work in fervent prayer to God that He might prosper it to His glory, and to the gathering in of His elect." Is all this sincere? We hope so, and must then expect to see the writer himself gathered into the one fold of Christ. Devotion to the Blessed Virgin is beyond all doubt a sign of the

true Church, well known to friend and foe, and the Doctor attacks it even in a prefatory note (1869): "In the journals of this date there is a report of the anniversary speech of the Pope, when receiving the felicitations of the Sacred College and Senate of Rome, upon his having reached the twentyfourth year of his pontificate. He concludes as follows: 'I invoke the almighty protection of God on the Sacred College, on the Prelates, on this beloved city, and those who represent it. I pray especially for two sorts of persons-those who are in tribulation, that God may be their helper; and those still more unhappy who live in sin, that God may give them victorious grace. Even in Rome there are some few souls abandoned of God, who mistake the shadow for the substance, falsehood for truth, and who, leaving the path of justice, lose themselves in the forest with ravenous beasts. Woe to such, for, to them is owing the loss of all good. May God save you from such a fate, and may He, by the intercession of Mary, bless you, as I desire, with all the fervour of my heart.'" Readers who have been treated to Gladstone's latest abuse in the Quarterly, will be comforted with this quotation of the Rector of St. Thomas's. What is wrong?—“ By the intercession of Mary." That the Pope should even wish the Mother of God to pray for her fellow-creatures!! Is the indignation manifested sincere? Hear him: "And yet it is the same who evinces this defiant contempt of divine truth, who claims to be the Vicar and Vicegerent of the 'one Mediator between God and man;' of Him who is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them;' and whom the head and representative of the great Apostacy would thus rob of his special prerogative, and so degrade his office, and profane His name!" Is this insolence or ignorance? What name is profaned by the Pope? Is it the name of God, which the Pope magnificently exalts? Is it the name of Jesus, which is not mentioned at all? "But it should be mentioned !" And so it is equivalently: for JESUS IS GOD. Did the Pope forget this, or did his reviler forget it? Is he sincere? Is he ignorant? A reflection of Father Bridgett's comes in most appropriately concerning this Protestant fury that the Pope should even desire to be prayed for by Mary. "In the time of Elizabeth," he writes at page 120, "the madness went so far, that they not merely declared it unlawful to ask the saints to pray, but were afraid lest the saints would pray without being asked; and tried to persuade themselves that this last chance of their salvation had no ground.

Alas, could the saints have wept in heaven,

they would have shed tears abundantly at seeing men thus perversely rejecting the mercies of God for their salvation, and heaping up sophisms to deprive themselves of Christian hope and consolation."

But let us go, as the Doctor invites us, to Article VII., page 89, of his Handbook, to hear his worst against the Communion of Saints, and wonder again at his ignorance, and that of Protestants generally, whom we may suppose one in his position to fitly represent. His objections to the Invocation of Saints fill twenty pages of his libellous production; as the space, however, is for the greater part filled up with confirmatory quotations, it will not be a very long work to hear his arguments and answer them. And here, I may observe, that the Catholic's best argument for the entire teaching of the Church is that article of the Nicene Creed with which Dr. Stanford opens the discussion: "And I believe One, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Did he himself see this, his difficulties would vanish away. We Catholics invoke the saints, not because we have found out of ourselves that it is good and useful, but because we have been taught this by The Pillar and The Ground of Truth.. The Doctor's objection might, perhaps, have been arranged in better order; we take them, however, as they come :—

I. Objection, page 90: "The Word of God sets forth God alone as the object of prayer.-See Psalm xlix., 14, 15; Daniel, ix., 9: Phil. iv., 6; John, xiv., 13; xvi., 23; 1 Pet., iii., 12. Is it not plain, from these passages, that prayer should be offered to God alone?"

Answer. No, Dr. Stanford; it is not plain; in no one of the quoted texts does the word alone, or its equivalent, or its exigency occur! But, on the contrary, these very texts confirm the power of the saints to help us, and consequently our right to invoke their assistance! The promises here made were made to all and for ever, for they are unlimited. Therefore, the saints above-and far more worthily than we-can offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and pay their vows to the Most High, and whatsoever they shall ask the Father in the name of Jesus, Jesus will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; because the eyes of the Lord are upon the just, and his ears unto their prayers. Did Dr. Stanford imagine that we pray to the saints, as they and we pray to God? Did he fancy that our devotion to the saints interferes in any way with our far different worship of and trust in God? Then, his the ignorance of Mr. Hallam, and useful for him the instructions given in the "Dowry," at page 13: "The phrase 'exclusive worship of saints,' suggests a state of

things which has no reality in history whatsoever. If the Church has ever given the fullest encouragement to the popular devotion towards the 'saints and servants of God,' it is because by no other means can the exclusive claims of God to supreme adoration and undivided allegiance be so powerfully impressed on the soul, as by the honour given to those who made the service of God the whole object of their lives. When God worked a miracle to vindicate the integrity of His servant Samuel, 'all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said to Samuel: pray for thy servants to the Lord thy God that we may not die. .. And Samuel said: fear not far from me be this sin against pray for you.

the Lord that I should cease to But if you still do wickedly, you shall perish." (1 Kings, xii.) This passage contains all the principles on which the cultus of the saints is founded. There is then no such thing as 'exclusive worship of saints.' The worship of the saints neither excludes nor encroaches on the worship of God. It is part of it, and a very important part. The people who greatly feared the Lord and Samuel, and who asked Samuel 'to pray for them to the Lord his God,' practised the only kind of worship of the saints which ever found encouragement in the Catholic Church. And Samuel at least saw no contradiction between such worship and serving God in truth and with the whole heart.""

II. Objection, pp. 90, 91: "In order that the saints should be able to comply with the prayers addressed to them, invoking their aid or intercession, they must be supposed to hear, or to know the prayers which are offered to them, when they are supplicated either in word or in thought. If so, must not all hearts be open to them? Must not all desires be known to them? But does not God claim this power to Himself. See 3 Kings, viii., 39; Apoc. ii., 23. If God only knows what is in man, is it not contrary to the word of God to attribute such knowledge to the saints?"

Answer. No, Dr. Stanford, once more; for what God knows, his saints can know from Him. Did the Doctor ever see this truth? Will many see it now? Shall I go farther, and ask the Protestant what his idea of Heaven is? In what is our future happiness to consist? Is it in knowledge and love? Shall our knowledge be complete and satiative? Shall we know all we are capable of knowing? Shall we know all things which we may desire to know? Shall we know more or less than we know now? Shall we not know the wants and wishes of our fellow-creatures, such especially as regard ourselves? Is not this a possible, a becoming, and a desirable