principles. As this view may be new to many of my readers, I will give some proof of what I advance.

Mr. Tayler, a clever writer of that school of modern critics, who have most completely forsaken the traditional belief both of Catholics and Protestants, and who most boldly question not merely the authority but even the authenticity of much of the Old and New Testaments, boasts that they do this in obedience to the fundamental tenets of the most anti-ritual of all Protestant sects. The early Quakers,' he says, 'had got hold of a great truth, when they maintained that the Spirit was above the Scripture; that the Scripture had, indeed, a high secondary value, but only in proportion as it was a true vehicle of the Spirit.' And he quotes the words of the Quaker Barclay : 'From the revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints have proceeded the Scriptures of truth; but because they are only a declaration of the Fountain, and not the Fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of Faith and Manners. They are a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit, from which they have all their excellency and certainty.' Mr. Tayler, in another place, speaks still more to the purpose. 'A Scripture utterance of divine truth cannot be interpreted like a legal instrument, merely by a literal acceptance of the words which it contains. We must go through the words to the Spirit which fills them from the Highest Mind, and which can only be interpreted by a kindred spirit within our own. The old Protestant confessions, broader than the theology which grew out of them, appeal to the witness of the Spirit in the last instance as the consummating evidence of divine authority. Luther, with a rough boldness of speech, which would have made our modern scripturalists stand aghast, maintained that the Spirit of Christ was the only decisive test of the Apostolic origin."3

I may give another instance of the tendency of Puritan principles to exalt the interior Spirit at the expense of the external Teacher. Milton was so absolute a scripturalist, that

2 The Character of the Fourth Gospel, by Rev. J. J. Tayler, p. 176.
3 lb., Preface.

though he would give perfect toleration to Arians, Lutherans, Socinians, in a word to any who professed to derive their errors from Scripture alone, yet he would allow no toleration whatever to Catholics, and this, as he often alleges, principally because they appealed to tradition as well as Scripture as the complete Rule of Faith. Yet Milton lays down principles regarding the interpretation of Scripture which are broad enough to sustain the whole edifice of modern Rationalism.

'It is difficult,' he writes, 'to conjecture the purpose of Providence, in committing the writings of the New Testament to such uncertain and variable guardianship, unless it were to teach us by this very circumstance that the Spirit which is given to us is a more certain guide than Scripture, whom, therefore, it is our duty to follow.'4 It is well known that Milton's principles regarding spiritual worship made him a vehement opponent even of the modified Ritual of the Episcopal Protestants of England. With this language of the Puritan Milton we may compare that of Bishop Colenso, who has acquired a certain fame by popularising in the English language some of the criticisms of German Rationalism. It is perhaps God's will,' he writes, that we should be taught in this our day, among other precious lessons, not to build up our faith upon a book, though it be the Bible itself; but to realise more truly the blessedness of knowing that He Himself, the living God, our Father and Friend, is nearer and closer to us than any book can be; that the voice within the heart may be heard continually by the obedient child who listens for it; and that shall be our Teacher and Guide in the path of duty, which is the path of life, when all other helpers-even the words of the Best of Books-may fail us.'

The principle here laid down, in terms almost identical, by Luther and Barclay, Milton and Colenso-that the Spirit is a surer guide than Scripture-is repeated in every variety of form by modern writers. It comes in reality to this, that the Spirit that teaches themselves is surer than the Spirit that taught Matthew and Mark, Peter and Paul. But it sounds better to make it a contrast, not of men, but of methods. To

4 The Christian Doctrine, ch. xxx.

E

say that the voice of the Father and Friend' speaks more clearly to Colenso than to Paul, or that Colenso listens more like' an obedient child' to the voice speaking' within his heart' than John, who laid his head on the breast of Jesus-this might seem arrogant. But by vague circumlocutions it may be made to pass as a bright and noble view of religion, to exalt spiritual insight over mere literalism, the living God over the dead book.

An exactly similar ambiguity is practised with regard to Ritual. Were any one to maintain that, in their adoration of God, Luther and Calvin were more 'spiritual' men than St. Bernard or St. Bonaventure, or that Protestants in general worship God more spiritually than Catholics,-such a proposition would sound ludicrous; whereas an air of plausibility can be thrown over the more abstract proposition that Ritual is the contradictory of Spiritual, and that there is more real religion where there is less ceremonial. It is always convenient for men bent on destruction to have a formula which seems constructive. Thus at the Reformation Catholic worship was abolished and Catholic churches were pillaged, with the cry of 'God is a Spirit, and requires spiritual worship.' At the present day the social order of Christendom is being pulled to pieces with the motto, 'A free Church in a free State;' and the Bible is being undermined with a pretence of free interpretation and deeper insight, as opposed to bondage to the letter.

My object here is not, however, to combat Rationalism, but to show that logically and historically it is the direct outcome of the principles on which Catholic modes of worship are opposed.

The Quaker's blunder in thinking that the action of the Spirit of God must needs be immediate, individual, and eccentric-that He cannot or will not make use of what has a material element or a fixed form-is the foundation of modern Rationalism. The Grace of God cannot be connected with sacramental rites,' cries the Puritan. 'The Truth of God refuses to be imprisoned in the dead phrases of Scripture,' echoes the Rationalist.

6

'What has the free love of God to do with

legal works?' chimes in the Antinomian. Thus we have three branches from the same stem of false Spiritualism.

In opposition to them all, the Catholic Church holds that the Spirit of God is given to man to interpret and vivify the written words that He has inspired, to facilitate and sanctify the use of the outward rites that He has appointed, and to multiply and elevate the good works that He has commanded.

Worship in spirit and in truth has God for its ultimate Object, and God for its immediate Author; and though it is in no way necessarily dependent on the body, the body may be the useful servant of the soul, both in its conception and in its expression. This is the Catholic interpretation of our Lord's words; let us see how it is borne out by the history of His life.

CHAPTER III.

IMPRESSIVE RITUAL.

SECTION I. DIVINE PAGEANTRY.

AMONG the characteristics of Catholic worship, that which attracts the attention and criticism of strangers most easily is magnificence or splendour.

It is perfectly true that, according to Catholic teaching, splendour has a legitimate place in the worship of God. We hold that it is lawful and good at times to make impressions on the soul through the senses. But no Catholic ever considered magnificence as an essential or even ordinary quality of ceremonial. Such a notion may exist among Protestants; but I am at a loss to account for it, except from the fact that few Protestants ever witness Catholic worship, unless when they have been attracted by the rumour of some extraordinary function; or read of it, unless in the newspaper report of a solemnity. Yet they talk of pomp and pageantry, and gorgeous rites, and imposing ceremonial, and sensational effects, as if these were the staple of our every-day worship. If they wish to account for the hold which the Church retains on the affections of a Catholic population, or her success in converting the heathen, the attractions of a gorgeous ceremonial are the ever-ready and adequate explanation. Now I have undertaken to justfy Catholic facts and principles, not the dreams of popular imagination; so it is necessary to state what really are Catholic principles in this matter.

First, then, magnificence is not of the essence of worship, whether private or public. We know well that true spiritual worship may exist without grand or imposing ceremonies, and