learn of Him, he assumes the position of a Master, and criticizes and blasphemes like an infidel. If he "weighs facts" at all, he only stoops to do so, as if in charity "to the current conceptions of Christianity," which are attested for Nineteen Centuries by the Church, "the pillar and ground of the Truth."

Who the author of "Ecce Homo" is, we do not know; nor have we much concern. A late report states, that it was placed in the publishers' hands at the instance of Dean Stanley. We are not surprised at this. The work is quite worthy of such a patronage. A man who declared in Convocation that he took his place beside the "despised and rejected" Colenso !-a man who dares to avow himself the follower of one who blots out the Atoning Sacrifice of the Cross from the Hymnody of the Church; a man who has introduced the notorious Professor Jowett into Westminster Abbey as a preacher, surely, he might well be looked to, to aid in the dissemination of a work which crucifies the Son of God afresh and puts Him to an open shame. No wonder that infidelity, specious but bitter, is poisoning the minds and hearts of so many of the best young men of the English Universities. Here is the appalling danger which now threatens the very life of the Mother Church.

The volume, "Ecce Homo," is engaged entirely with the Humanity of Christ. We are forewarned that it is to be followed by another, which will treat of His Deity. The author however, in this volume, has made the Humanity of Christ more imperfect than that of many individuals, who have appeared. Yet he tries to compensate for this terrible blasphemy, by exhibiting Christ as the greatest Genius of the race. The fancy of that French dancing master, Renan, the coarse intellect of that Dutch, civilized heathen, John Strauss, never paid such an impious compliment as this to Christ. Such indeed is the climax advanced modern thought has reached, in its treatment of Christianity. But it is nothing but the recurrence of modern thought to the tracks of old heresy and skepticism. Should the author, in his next volume, make Christ to be perfect God, in being the "Creator of modern Theology

and Religion," it will be only another instance of his self-contradiction. The revolution which Christ accomplished upon earth was not, according to "Ecce Homo," the result of towering and matchless genius. It is but one of the myriad consequences of Christ's perfect Obedience to an Infinite Law, and of the great Plan of Redemption, whose unfathomable mysteries Angels contemplate with adoring wonder. Yet the author of "Ecce Homo" can understand it all! though to do it, he must compass the universe, and comprehend in all their infinite height and depth and length and breadth, the thoughts of the Eternal.

Wherein the charm of "Ecce Homo" consists, it is hard to say. His style is, indeed, sometimes scholarly and elegant; but it is more frequently stilted, involved and verbose. It has, throughout, the jingle of a peculiar rhyme; but it lacks entirely that robustness, openness, and preciseness of a very tyro in legitimate and exact thinking. There is nothing really new in the whole production, but a few feeble dreams and wayward fancies. All else are but fragments, taken from the urn of ancient infidelity, clothed in the miserable rags of what is called "modern progress of thought." To deal gently with him who goes out of his way to assail the Incarnate God, the Life of the world, is to partake of his crime. This is our only apology for the plainness with which we have written.

ART. IV. THE BISHOP OF EXETER, TRACT NUMBER NINETY, AND CHURCH UNITY.

On the Insuperable Differences which separate the Church of England from the Church of Rome. Letters to the late Charles Butler on the Theological Parts of his "Book of the Roman Catholic Church." By HENRY PHILLPOTTS, D.D., Lord Bishop of Exeter, formerly Rector of Stanhope. New Edition. London: Murray. 12mo., pp. 344.

IN several of our late Numbers we have alluded to the fact that there are, at the present time, men in the English Church who are untrue to that Church, and to the Catholic principles on which she was reformed. We know and believe her to be a true branch of the Catholic Church of Christ. We know and believe that the English Reformation was, under God, guided and perfected by men who thoroughly comprehended and appreciated the work to which they were called. Of course, our own position, as a true branch of the Church Catholic in these United States, is immediately involved in this whole question, and it is both our right and our bounden duty to guard jealously and defend fearlessly, the fundamental principles which are involved in it. The Catholic character of the English Reformation, this is the great fact, never to be lost sight of; and with the proofs of that fact we can never be too familiar. The right of the English Church to reform herself, was undeniable. The First General Council declared and established as follows:

"Let the ancient customs prevail, that are in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them all, forasmuch also, as the Bishop of Rome hath the like custom. In like manner in Antioch, and all other Provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the Churches."*

The Second General Council, at Constantinople, and the Third, at Ephesus, re-affirmed the same principle, strongly and

*Canons of Council of Nice. Can. VI.

unqualifiedly, and in language with which our readers are familiar.

As to the work of Reformation itself, Archbishop Cranmer said :

"When they, the Papists, boast of the Faith which has been in the Church these thousand years, we will join 'them on this point. For that doctrine and usage is to be followed which was in the Church fifteen hundred years past. And we shall prove, that the Order of the Church set out at this present by the Act of Parliament, is the same that was used in the Church fifteen hundred years past."

91

Again, "Lest any man should think that I feign anything of my own head, without any other ground or authority, you shall hear, by God's Grace, as well the errors of the Papists confuted, as the Catholic Truth defended, both by God's Sacred Word, and also by the most old approved authors and Martyrs of Christ's Church."t

Again, "This is the true Catholic Faith, which the Scriptures teacheth, and the Universal Church of Christ hath ever believed from the beginning, until within these four or five hundred years past, that the Bishop of Rome, with the assistance of his papists, hath set up a new faith and belief of their own devising."‡

Again in A. D. 1556, "Touching my doctrine of the Sacrament, and other my doctrine of what kind soever it be, I protest that it was never my mind to write, speak, or understand, anything contrary to the most Holy Word of God, or else against the Holy Catholic Church of Christ; but purely and simply to imitate and teach those things only which I had learned of the Sacred Scripture, and of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ from the beginning; and also, according to the exposition of the most holy and learned Fathers and martyrs of the Church."||

Again. In his Speech on General Councils, A. D. 1534, or 1535, he said: "That when all the Fathers agreed in the exposition of any place of Scripture, he acknowledged he looked on that as flowing from the Spirit of God, and it was a most dangerous thing to be wise in our own conceits."§

So also, Bishop Jewell, in all his works, everywhere affirms the same thing. He says, in his "Apology for the Church of England:"

"Our doctrine, which we may much better call the Catholic doctrine of Christ, is not so new as but that it is commended to us by the Ancient of Days, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, in most ancient monuments, the Prophets and Gospels, and writings of the Apostles. . . . . But, then, as to their religion, if it be so ancient as they pretend, why do they not prove it so from the examples of the

*Cranmer's Works, Vol. IV., pp. 2 and 3. Ib., Vol. II., p. 356.

| Ib., Vol. IV.,

p. 126.

+ Ib., Vol. II., p. 313. § Ib., Vol. II., p. 14.

Primitive Church, from the Old Fathers, and the Ancient Councils? Why doth so ancient a cause lie desolate and without a patron for so long a time? Indeed, they, the Romanists, never want fire and swords; but then, as to the ancient Fathers and Councils, there is with them a deep silence."*

Again. "We, the English Reformers, have approached, as nearly as possibly we could do, the Church of the Apostles, and the ancient Catholic Bishops and Fathers, which we know was yet a perfect, and, as Tertullian saith, an unspotted virgin, and not contaminated with any idolatry, or any great or public error. Neither have we only reformed our doctrine, and made it like theirs, but we have also brought the celebration of the Sacraments and the forms of our public rites and prayers to an exact resemblance with their institutions or customs."t

This rule, then, was the unerring guide of the English Reformers; HOLY SCRIPTURE INTERPRETED BY PRIMITIVE CATHOLIC ANTIQUITY. As Tertullian says: "This principle avails against all heresies. Whatsoever is first, is true; whatsoever is later, is adulterate."

The right of Reformation, then, on the part of the English Church, and the fact that that Reformation was conducted on genuine Catholic principles, are points not to be disputed. As to the absolute necessity of the Reformation, we shall not enter upon that question now. It was admitted, again and again, publicly and formally, in the very bosom of the Roman Church. Councils, Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, the most pious and learned of her Doctors, all plead earnestly for, and demanded a deep, thorough work of Reform. This question, of the Necessity of the Reformation, is one simply of fact, and is of vital importance in this discussion.

What all the influences are, which prompt the course of the men in the English Church at the present day, to whom we have alluded, and who are seeking Unity between the English and the Roman Churches, we do not presume positively to affirm. Doubtless they differ with individuals. Whether it is an honest but mistaken estimate of the value of a merely external Unity, where there is no real agreement; whether it is from an ignoring of the fundamental differences in Doctrine and Organization between England and Rome; whether it is from sympathy with the corrupt Faith of Rome, and with

*Ch. V. Sec. 3.

Ch. V. Sec. 15.