was that passed him at such a time, you naturally deny that there was any fool, otherwise you would indirectly confess yourself such a person. Mr. Golightly's questions could not be answered according to his meaning without implicitly conceding the validity of his objections and the truth of his views. The Cuddesdon people therefore wisely answer his grammatical words, and succeed in giving no answer at all to the question really at issue. We congratulate them on the progress they are evidently making in the theory of equivocation and suppression of truth. At the end of the pamphlet is an appendix containing those prayers used at the college which are "accused of a Romish tendency;" one of these, from "a modern original source," strikes us as so peculiarly un-Roman, that we must transcribe it for our readers' edification, in order to let them see what sort of prayers our adversaries think we use: "Almighty God, we beseech Thee to hear our prayers for all such as sin against Thee, or neglect to serve Thee [especially N.]; that Thou wouldest bestow upon them true contrition," &c. Fancy praying with a loud voice in church for all publicans and sinners, especially Smith! What a nice set of Pharisees Cuddesdon must turn out! And this is "accused of a Romish tendency!" Truly we cannot see any thing Romish about it, nor imagine a possible parallel, except perhaps a fervent daughter recommending a tepid mother to the pious prayers of an archconfraternity. Short Notices. THEOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, &c. Semi-Protestantism: a Few Remarks on the Second Pastoral Letter, and other Publications, of the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett. By Richard Ward, Catholic Missioner at Frome. (Bristol, Austin and Oates; London, Burns and Lambert.) The ability and calm strength of this pamphlet make us hope to see the writer exercise his pen on larger subjects, or rather on larger divisions of the same subject. His charity and conciliatory tone eminently fit him for controversy, while his clearness and force are much more incisive than any amount of words steeped in vinegar and gall. The application of much of the pamphlet is personal to Mr. Bennett, and certain of his late publications; but in the conclusion the writer generalises his observations, and erects his antagonist into the representative of a school to which he gives the name of semi-Protestantism, and against which he argues in a masterly way. The following extracts are given to show what this conclusion is, rather than to give a specimen of the literary merits of the pamphlet, from which other passages might have been selected with more effect. Those that we give explain what the writer means by "Semi-Protestantism." "The Jews believed the Scriptures; but did not believe in our Lord Jesus Christ. Having come, therefore, to be their Light, He bids them 'search the Scriptures;' that from the Scriptures, which bear testimony of Him, they may learn to know and follow Him. Protestants are so far like the Jews, that they believe the Scriptures, but do not believe that our Lord continues, through the medium of the Church, to afford mankind a living and visible rule of faith. And the Church, availing herself of their belief in the Scriptures, might say to them, in the spirit of our Lord's admonition to the Jews: Search the Scriptures; for ye expect to find in them the religion of Christ, and they bear witness, that as He was sent by the Father, so have I been sent by Him, to teach His religion to mankind.' But here the resemblance ceases. For in reply to our blessed Lord the Jews did not say,-at least there is no record of their having said,- We search the Scriptures; but whether they give testimony of Thee we care not to inquire. Thine own admonition proves that the Scriptures, and not Christ, must be our Light.' And here, at the point where the Jews differ from Protestants, their resemblance to Mr. Bennett begins. They deny not that Christ, when He comes, shall be their Light. Nor does Mr. Bennett deny that the decision of the universal Church, when it may be had,' shall be the rule of his faith. But they say that He who stands before them is not the Christ. And Mr. Bennett protests, that the unity of the Church is not visible now, and that, until it appears, her decision cannot be had. And this semiprotest destroys the principle of authority, which he professes to uphold, quite as effectually as if he denied it in express terms. It substitutes seeking' and waiting for following' and obeying' quite as perniciously as the principle of private judgment. Rather, it is that principle in a very flimsy disguise; and the mock homage which it pays to the authority of the Church is a symbol of the monstrous illusions which it has in store for its dupes. . . "For how stands the case? Mr. Bennett delivers two messages to his parishioners: one to this effect,-that the universal Church possesses by divine appointment a spiritual authority to which their understandings must surrender and submit; the other to this, that the same universal Church has been for centuries, and still is, a house divided against itself.' Now, since no man can serve two masters,' this latter message, from which they learn that the Church's authority has been rent asunder, and is now divided against itself,' seems to mock, defeat, and annul the former, which teaches them the spirit of subjection. Most reasonable therefore it is, and most necessary, that they should ask him whether these two messages are equally authentic; whether he has received them himself from one and the same source; and whether they are delivered by him with the same sanctions. As to the former, which proclaims the Church's authority, this we know to be part and parcel of his creed. It comes, as he believes, from Christ Himself; and has been handed down from age to age, having the blood of martyrs, and their miracles, for its seal. But the other message, which seems to contradict it; what account has he to give of that? From whose lips has he been taught that the 'one faith' (and therefore that authority which is the corelative of faith) has to be gathered piecemeal from the variations of a divided body? He dare not assert that this too is a revealed truth, a dogma for which he would be bound to lay down his life. It is, he must admit, but an opinion of his own. A mere opinion; springing out of his own view of the present state of Christendom, and supported by his private interpretation of Holy Scripture and Church History. An improbable opinion; involving impalpable absurdities, and based on the gratuitous assumption that the Anglo-Saxon communion is a constituent part of a dispersed society which nowhere, on the face of the whole earth, bestows on it the faintest semblance of recognition. 66 Authority says: There is one Church, whose decisions are secured from error by the promises made to its visible head: therefore to this head every member of the Church, without exception, must in matters of faith surrender his own mind. Private judgment says: Let every man be his own Pope. But this is more easily said than done. Some men have an aptitude for being duped; others for being persuaded; others for being awed. Then the semi-Protestant minister steps in, and addresses his parishioners to this effect: Let us divide these two principles between us. You take the duty of submission, and act upon it by obeying my voice. I will represent the principle of private judgment by withholding my own submission from every living soul. Thus you will have the merit of obedience; and that merit will be increased by the perception that your obedience is rendered to a fallible, and denied to an infallible Pope.' We sincerely hope that the sale of his little book may encourage our somewhat shy author to trust himself and his pen to longer and more frequent labours. Popular Objections to Catholic Faith and Practice considered. By Wm. Dodsworth, M.A. (London, Burns and Lambert.) Mr. Dodsworth is an earnest and thoughtful man, and his matter is always good and sensible; but we think the title of this pamphlet gives a false impression. Popular objections require a popular reply; he who professes to answer them, professes to do so ad populum, to write down to the level of the objectors. We have tested this production, and it has failed. A person was sent to us for instruction, and as she was going we looked for a book to lend her: Mr. Dodsworth's new pamphlet was lying on our table; the title promised just the things we were looking for; we took it up, but before lending it we glanced at a page or two. The first sentence on which our eye rested was this: "If the Church be asked for, no abnormal condition,' no " abeyance' or 'dormancy' of gifts for fourteen or fifteen centuries, no tampering with the plain words of our Lord's promise, is indicated in her reply. There is no requirement of the tale of bricks with a refusal of the straw,""&c. We read out the sentence; but of course our patient was hopelessly mystified. If the objections discussed are "popular," the manner of discussing them is eminently the reverse,-a misty generalised vocabulary, and a syntax not always correct, produce a result quite opposite to the clear incisive style necessary to the popular controversialist. For such a purpose it is better to be shallow than deep and dark. Above all things, pellucid language is requisite. But Mr. Dodsworth has not studied this gift. We must record our opinion, that one reason why our controversies are so little read is because we cannot or do not write for the people. We may sneer at Milner, or Robert Manning, or Father Parsons; but we question whether any of our present writers addresses the popular mind with equal effect. We really do not know of any modern tracts which speak the language of the people-which prove their authors to have the "art of easy writing what should be easy reading," and to take pains not to "Confound the language of the nation With long-tailed words in osity and ation." To complete the picture of the Church in India which we gave in December last, we reprint the following tabular statement of the Catholic statistics of India from the Madras Catholic Directory for 1858. One of the writers in the Rambler, who is engaged on a Life of Father Campion, begs to inquire through its pages, whether any of its readers can give him information about some books which probably contain valuable information concerning the martyr. One is a Concio apologetica contra Ed. Campianum, preached at Oxford by a quondam friend of his, Tobie Mathew, and published there in 1638. Again, in a work entitled The Foot out of the Snare, by John Gee, an apostate, mention is made of several Catholic books which appear to contain information about Campion. One reference is to F. Richard Conway's Apology, p. 281, where there is an account how "one Mr. Anderton, a Lancashire gent, was cured of the stone by some relics of F. Campion; and being afterwards of another disease laid out for dead (ut ei jam pollices ligarentur), by the help of the martyr's flesh laid on his body he was raised to life." The writer has looked in vain for any information concerning this book of F. Conway, whom he supposes to be the F. Conyers who was confessor to the English College of Douai in 1600. Again, for Campion's girdle Gee refers to Edmund's Book of Miracles, another work of which he can learn nothing. If any reader can give any information about these books, he will confer a great favour upon the writer. London: Levey, Robson, and Franklyn, Great New Street and Fetter Lane, E.C. THE RAMBLER. VOL. IX. New Series. MAY 1858. PART LIII. THE MISSION OF THE LAITY. It is desirable to correct a mistake into which many wellmeaning persons are wont to fall, with respect to the position and the duties of the laity in the Catholic Church. According to a very common Protestant idea, the Catholic laity are the tools, the instruments, or the victims, of an ambitious, grasping, and intriguing priesthood. They are forced blindly to follow wherever they are led. They have no intelligent place in the vast Catholic system. Unable to exercise any independent act of judgment, tamely submissive to the iron rule of authority, the laity of the Church, according to the prevalent Protestant notions, occupy within its pale a position almost strictly analogous to that of the scholars in a large public school. They sit at the feet of their masters with considerable fear, and with little affection; and if they hesitate to comply with the imperious demands of those who hold them in spiritual bondage, they are either compelled to an unwilling obedience by the terrors of conscience, or they are rudely repulsed from the communion of their brethren. We cannot, indeed, feel surprised that notions so wild and so unreal should prevail among those who are strangers to Catholic unity. It is a note of the true religion, that it should ever present itself as an enigma to those without-as a mystery which cannot be unravelled, until an inward capacity has been imparted to the mind, not unlike the restoration of sight to the blind, or the bringing in of a light into a dark room. Not until this capacity has been bestowed upon the intellect, is the true character of the Church comprehended. People wander up and down, turn hither and thither, become vexed through disappointment, lose their patience and temper, and at last break out into angry imprecations, when they VOL. IX.-NEW SERIES. Y |