poreal resemblances of inward holiness and beauty are now past. "How beautiful," saith Isaiah, "are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth salvation!" Are the feet so beautiful, and is the very bringing of these tidings so decent of itself? What new decency can, then, be added to this by your spinstry? Ye think by these gaudy glisterings to stir up the devotion of the rude multitude; ye think so, because ye forsake the heavenly teaching of St. Paul for the hellish sophistry of papism.'3

Good words, Master Milton; methinks such heat neither beseemeth the philosopher nor the poet. The heavenly teaching of St. Paul is not so forgotten by 'papists,' as you, in your proud conceit of Bible-lore, imagine. Keen eyes and holy hearts had conned God's Holy Word long ere Calvin or Beza began to rail. Men like the Baptist, clothed in the modest garb of penance, have lifted up fearless voices, in every age of the Catholic Church, against abuses, and not least against the luxury and pomp of dress. They lacked not purity of heart to detect, nor courage to denounce, had 'hellish sophistry' lain hid beneath the golden cope of the prelate or shone from the jewelled tiara of the pontiff. Whenever these things were made subservient to personal vanity or haughty pomp, warnings as bold and severe as ever were uttered by inspired prophet, have been spoken by simple monks or apostolic bishops, and have been recorded in books familiar to us still. But holy men of old knew well how to distinguish between the 'purple and fine linen' which ministered to the every-day ostentation and luxury of Dives (Luke xvi. 19), and the fine linen and purple' which adorned the 'valiant woman,' when 'her husband was honourable in the gates, when he sat among the senators of the land' (Prov. xxxi. 22, 23). Both the learned and the simple of the Catholic Church know that 'pure linen" is not pure innocency;' but they know that the latter is well symbolised by the former. The learned at least have read in the Apocalypse how the bride adorned herself for the marriage of the Lamb: 'it is granted to her, that she should clothe herself with fine linen, glittering and white; for the fine linen are 3 The Reason of Church Government urged against Prelacy, book ii. ch. ii.

the justifications of saints' (Apoc. xix. 7, 8); and they consider a symbol displayed to the eye no more a 'hellish sophism' than a symbol depicted to the imagination. The simple too have not forgotten what they have so often heard in the Gospel, of angels in shining and bright apparel, and of the Master of the angels in the snow-white glory of His Transfiguration; and when the Church tells them of these events in her yearly festivals, they are not so dull but that their eyes detect the harmony between what they see in the sanctuary and what they have listened to from the pulpit. It requires other sophistry than that which is current in the Catholic Church for men to read of the visions of angels in white robes at our Lord's tomb, and then to conclude that 'all corporeal resemblances of inward holiness and beauty are now past.' The Catholic philosopher who has dwelt with loving and adoring heart on every incident of the Resurrection, and marked, with the attentive and inspired Evangelists, how the angels sat, not anyhow or anywhere, but in one case 'on the right side,' in another 'one at the head and one at the feet,' will be little moved by those who rave at priests being 'set to con their motions and their postures.'

But dress has its origin in sin! How then employ this memorial of our degradation as a symbol of holiness? And has not the variety of languages its origin in sin? and have not the ornaments of human speech been abused to sinful ends? Yet Milton would have been the last to think that learning, eloquence, and poetry cannot be consecrated to the service of religion.

They understand but little our Lord's Redemption who fail to see that the very signs and punishments of our fall have, by divine grace, become means of merit or emblems of triumph. He who was stript of His clothes on Calvary, to expiate by the shame of nakedness the ignominy of Adam and Eve and the vanities and shamelessness of their descendants, and was crowned with thorns, the produce of a cursed soil, was seen afterwards by St. John in heaven: 'On His head were many diadems, and He was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood,.. and the armies of heaven followed Him, clothed

in fine linen, white and clean' (Apoc. xix. 12-14). What new decency, Milton here would ask, were he consistent with himself, what new decency, O wondrous seer, do you think to add to Jesus Christ and His redeemed, by these visions of spinstry? See you not what handle you will lend to the sophistries of priests and prelates in future ages, who will pretend that if red garments symbolise the Passion, then red garments may well be used on the festivals of the Passion that they will institute; and if white symbolises the purity of the redeemed, then will albs and rochets, surplices and cottas, be frequent in the sanctuaries, and white chasubles and copes adorn the feasts of confessors and virgins?

Seriously, will a dispassionate man maintain that clothing is too cursed in its origin to be consecrated to the service of God, when he reads that aprons taken from the body of St. Paul cured diseases and drove out evil spirits? (Acts xix. 12.) Will he maintain that the fort and colour of vestments have no symbolic teaching-useful not only to the rude multitude, but to the learned and the spiritual also-when he reads all that is related in the New Testarnent of divine visions, whether seen by the mental eye alone, as by St. John at Patmos, or witnessed by him and others with bodily eyes on the Mount of Transfiguration or around the Sepulchre ?

But, since Milton appeals against our 'hellish sophisms' to the 'heavenly teaching of St. Paul,' I will here transcribe a passage from that Apostle's First Epistle to the Corinthians, which is so minute and mystical on an apparently trifling point of Ritual, that if it were found in Durandus, instead of in a letter of the great Apostle, it would certainly be mocked at as a piece of Popish folly. As the whole passage is rather obscure, I will give it in the excellent translation of Mr. Conybeare rather than in either the Catholic or Protestant version.

I praise you, brethren,' begins the Apostle, 'that (as you say) you are always mindful of my teaching, and keep unchanged the rules which I delivered to you. But I would have you know that Christ is the Head of every man, and the man is the head of the woman, as God is the Head of Christ. If a man should pray or prophesy in the congregation with a veil

over his head, he would bring shame upon his head (by wearing the token of subjection). But if a woman prays or prophesies with her head unveiled, she brings shame upon her head as much as she that is shaven. I say, if she cast off her veil, let her shave her head at once; but if it is shameful to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her keep a veil upon her head. For a man ought not to veil his head, since he is the likeness of God, and the manifestation of God's glory. For the woman's part is to manifest her husband's glory. For the man was not made from the woman, but the woman from the man. Nor was the man created for the sake of the woman, but the woman for the sake of the man. Therefore the woman ought to wear a sign of subjection upon her head, because of the angels. Judge of this matter by your own feeling. Is it seemly for a woman to offer prayers to God unveiled? Or does not even nature itself teach you that long hair is a disgrace to a man, but a glory to a woman? for her hair has been given to her for a veil. But if any one thinks to be contentious in defence of such a custom, let him know that it is disallowed by me, and by all the Churches of God' (1 Cor. xiv.).

....

It is not necessary for us to enter into questions as to the force of the precepts here given, or to inquire whether it was the Apostle who had abolished the custom of the tallith or veil which the Jews put over their heads when they entered their synagogue. What concerns the matter of symbolism is this-that for these external practices the Apostle assigns deep doctrinal reasons. He will have the doctrine to be expressed by symbols. And with regard to these and similar practices he had already given rules. Ritual had been part of his authoritative teaching. He does not treat the matter as one of simple indifference, in which each man may abound in his own sense. Though he appeals to reason when he says, 'Judge by your own feeling,' yet to any man who should say that he feels differently, he replies, "Neither I nor the Churches of God admit of your custom.' Mr. Conybeare gives to the expression, 'Let the woman be veiled, because of the angels,' an interpretation which, if it is admitted, adds another reason for ritualistic discipline. The angels,' he says, 'are sent as ministering ser

vants to attend upon Christians, and are especially present when the Church assemble for public worship, and they would be offended by any violation of decency or order.'

Was it fair in Dr. Vaughan merely to say, 'You may read epistle after epistle of St. Paul, and not find one word touching upon anything of a Ritual nature'-a thing which might be said of nearly every Papal Encyclical-and then, without even a reference to the above passage, to conclude that St. Paul was a decided anti-ritualist?

SECTION III. SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE.

THIS will be the proper place to consider whether a legitimate argument in favour of symbolic ceremonial may not be drawn from the figurative style used in Holy Scripture, both by the prophets when speaking of the times of the New Testament, by our Blessed Lord in His parables, and especially by St. John in the Apocalypse. I find this distinctly denied by Dr. Vaughan. 'It is true,' he says, 'the language of the New Testament is often pictorial and symbolic; but the picture and the symbol are in the teaching, that they may not be in the worship. They have so done their work to the mind, as to have become superfluous to the senses.' I must confess that the philosophy of this assertion is not very apparent; it not only contradicts the general instinct of mankind, but it is directly opposed to the testimony of Holy Scripture. Try by it such passages as the following: 'There came from Judea a certain prophet named Agabus. He, when he was come to us, took Paul's girdle, and binding his own feet and hands, he said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost: The man whose girdle this is, the Jews shall bind in this manner in Jerusalem,' &c. (Acts xxi. 11). On this occasion, neither did the prophet Agabus nor, I think I may safely add, the Holy Ghost, deem the symbolic action superfluous to add emphasis to the divine announcement. Or again: 'He breathed on them, and He said to them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall

H