forming a part of forty-seven entries only, being in a much larger proportion to the whole number than in the former pages of the book.

It cannot be doubted that at a later period, say the reigns of Queen Anne and the first George, if the same strict supervision had been exercised which it is evident was exercised over the clergy in pre-Reformation days, a much larger amount of profligacy would have been found among them, (though restrained by no law from marriage, and therefore subject to less temptation,) than at any previous time. But does not the sad experience of our own age also teach us, that if no larger amount of "licentiousness" can be proved against the clergy of the Reformation period, than is proved by Mr. Froude and similar writers, it was but like other ages of the Church? Do we not all know the sad story of a Bishop degraded in this century? Do we not all remember such cases as those of Wetherell and Dr. Dillon? Have not such cases appeared in the public newspapers, to shame us, even within the course of the present year? We do not want to proclaim the vices of those who ought to show a pattern of holiness and purity to the world, but it is necessary to point out how false the impression is that is left upon the minds of his readers, when Mr. Froude pretends that the evidence he adduces proves the age before the Reformation to have been one of so much greater profligacy among the clerical orders than any which has followed. Would that no such crimes could be proved against any priests of England in our own day; but notwithstanding the resuscitation wrought by the successive movements of the Evangelical party and High Churchmen, proofs are yet constantly before us, that God's anointed servants may fall even now, as they have done in ages gone by.

Into Mr. Froude's further remarks on the Consistory Courts and their abuses before the time of Henry VIII.'s reforms we shall not enter. It so happens that the later records furnish parallel cases to all that he cites from the earlier, as in the mal-treatment of clergymen, of the officials of the court, the refusal of the blessed Sacrament at the hands of certain priests,' &c. &c. We shall content ourselves with quoting a passage from an old writer, which is much to the purpose in the present day. "Another great fault in the Church," (previous to the Great Rebellion,) "was the intolerable abuse of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; therefore God hath made us now incapable of any jurisdiction. So just and wonderful is He in all His judgments! I confess in mine own particular I did as much desire and labour to reform it as any man could do, yet I

It is rather surprising that Mr. Froude should translate " 'panem benedictum" the "sacrament," as he does at Vol. I. p. 180. If he refers to numbers 381 and 384 of Mr. Hale's Precedents, he will find that something different from the Consecrated Host is intended.

could never prevail. Herein a little to excuse the Church, I have it, (and can produce it at this time,) under the king's own hand and seal, wherein he forbids that any churchman or priest in holy orders should be a chancellor; and this was the occasion of all the corruption of the spiritual courts: for the judges at the common law have their pensions and allowances, but chancellors have none at all, they live only upon the fees of the court, and for them to dismiss a cause it was to lose so much blood. Now if they be naught in themselves then they must for their own advantage and profit have instruments and agents accordingly; so the registers, proctors, apparitors, they were pessimum genus hominum. While the spiritual court was governed by churchmen and priests as it ought to be, (and hath ever been so heretofore,) they had their spiritual benefices and dignities to live upon, and did scorn the fees of the court: besides the holiness of the profession kept them from bribing and corruption. Little do men think how much they suffer by this one position, That Church-men should not interpose in civil and moral affairs: certainly if there be any honesty among men it must be supposed to be rather in them than in others; but there having been such an abuse it must be acknowledged that GOD is most just in all His ways, and what hath befallen us is according to the deserts of our sins." Many are striving at this day to take away from the Church what small power of discipline is yet left to her, and Mr. Froude is evidently one of those who think that clergymen are never fit to be entrusted with the exercise of this power. Let them take care they do not change for the worse; from a grave and religious tribunal to such a cheap and flippant office, dignified with the name of a court of justice, as some of our modern creations in this way have turned out. Would that the rulers of the Church could prevail upon themselves to make Church courts more of a reality than they are; and restore them to their theoretical position, as the just exponent of the Church's voice. As we have seen lately, the deputy and non-spiritual person is now the actual judge, while the individual who is placed in the position of judge, because he is supposed to have the special assistance of the Divine Gift to guide him, sinks into the bathos of an official personage whose signature makes a fiction legal, and the sentence of another nominally his own.

Our remarks upon Mr. Froude's volumes have already extended so much further than we intended that we find ourselves under the necessity of omitting much that we had proposed to say respecting his account of those so-called Reformers who suffered for their doings under Henry's tyranny; as also upon some other points connected with the conduct of the Bishops who belonged to the non-movement party. We must, however, conclude for the present;

1 Dedicatory Epistle of the Two Mysteries of the Christian Religion,' by Godfrey Goodman, Bp. of Gloucester, temp. Car. I.

and in concluding hope-though almost against hope-that when the succeeding volumes of this History appear, we may be able to return to Mr. Froude with more of approval and satisfaction in our tone than we have been able to use on the present occasion. That he can write history, and write it well, is most evident; and it is much to be desired that he will so use his authorities in writing it that his readers may really depend upon his pages as conveying to them the truth of documentary evidence to which so small a proportion of them can have access. For after all, Mr. Froude has made a nearer approach to giving us the history of the sixteenth century than any previous writer.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF UTRECHT AND HIS SUFFRAGANS ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.

OUR readers will probably recollect the late Abbé Laborde's Letter to Pius IX. (of which a translation appeared in our No. for November, 1854,) showing on what grounds the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin could not become an Article of Faith. We have now to present to them another document, bearing upon the same subject, and in a great measure (mutatis mutandis) taking the same view of the matter as the Abbé Laborde, namely, a Letter from the Archbishop of Utrecht and his two suffragans, addressed also to Pius IX. and solemnly protesting against the promulgation of the new dogma, which they regard as an injury done to the Faith and to the episcopal order. We give this document in extenso, believing that our readers will be interested in its perusal. The following translation is made from the original Latin, as given in the Observateur Catholique.

"Letter of the most Illustrious and Reverend Lords John Van Santen, Archbishop of Utrecht; Henry John Van Buul, Bishop of Haarlem; and Hermann Heykamp, Bishop of Deventer, to the Sovereign Pontiff Pius IX., on the new dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, established by him on the 8th December, 1854.

"Most holy Father,

"In the one thousand eight hundred and fifty-fourth year of the LORD's Incarnation, on the 8th December, in the Church of S. Peter, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of our SAVIOUR, was solemnly promulgated by your

Holiness, as a dogma of the Christian Faith.

We cannot sufficiently express how much that event has astonished, nay, afflicted us! We might, perhaps, be reproached with not having sooner put forth our opinion on so portentous an occurrence. The sincere faith of the Church of Utrecht is sufficiently known throughout the whole of the Catholic world, and all true Catholics have doubtless thought that she has unhesitatingly rejected the novel and false dogma of the most holy Virgin Mary. But our Church has not deemed that this good opinion respecting her faith was a sufficient reason to prevent her manifesting publicly her opposition to the new dogma. We owe it to our own dignity, to the Catholic Faith, to the defenders of the truth, to reject that dogma openly. We should therefore consider ourselves wanting to our duty, if we any longer kept silence.

"The integrity of the faith in which we have been brought up from our tender years, does not allow us to remain silent. The office with which we have been invested, notwithstanding our unworthiness, imposes upon us a most serious obligation, namely, that of openly declaring our sentiments on the event in question. For we are persuaded that the sacred deposit of the faith admits neither of augmentation nor diminution. As Bishops of the Church Catholic, it is our office and duty to preserve intact the deposit of the faith. Keep the deposit, wrote S. Paul to his beloved Timothy (1 Tim. vi. 20). S. Vincentius Lirinensis did not think that that was written for S. Timothy alone. All his successors in the episcopate must consider that it was also written for themselves.

"Now, the opinion that you have put forth in regard to the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Mother of our LORD, would cause an augmentation to the Faith. Before the eleventh century, in fact, never and nowhere has such a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin been known. If we turn to either the Eastern or the Western Church, and question those two divisions of the Catholic world concerning the Faith, we cannot discover even the slightest trace of such a belief being entertained before the period above-mentioned. If we appeal to the Sovereign Pontiffs, your Predecessors, previous to the age referred to, we are convinced that such an opinion was equally unknown; nay more, it would be an easy matter for us to quote the language of Sovereign Pontiffs, at variance with such an opinion. On this point let Innocent III., Innocent V., and Clement VI. be heard. We could easily adduce clear passages from Holy Scripture, diametrically opposed to that novel opinion. Nothing therefore can be extracted from the two sources of the Divine Word in favour of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of GOD. With the view, consequently, of preserving, as much as in us lies, that which has been committed to our trust, we raise our voice, and declare that the above-mentioned dogma bears on the very face of it the mark of

novelty. Such is the first and important reason which induces us to put forth our opinion on this matter.

"But not even to the heads of the Catholic Church has the decision concerning that doctrine been left ;-and this is the second complaint we have to prefer to your Holiness. The right of adjudicating belongs, in fact, to Bishops. No regard whatever has been had for that prerogative which is inherent in the episcopal office. The whole episcopal order has not been consulted on the matter. The individual voice merely of those whose writings have been sent to Rome on this subject, and not the voice of their Churches, has been heard. Nevertheless it is certain that the judicial prerogative essentially belongs to the episcopate. The council held at Jerusalem, the first and pattern of all councils, proves this prerogative. For after S. Peter, the first of the Apostles, had spoken, S. James rose and said, My sentence is-(Acts xv. 19). But what Bishops, successors and vicars of the Apostles, who heard you singly proclaiming a new doctrine of the Faith, have defended their privileges? In very truth they have either been dumb witnesses or abject sycophants. Oh! how the episcopal dignity was degraded in that assembly, so illustrious in appearance! Not one was seen to be an uncompromising guardian of the rights of his order! Without offence would we say, most holy Father, that in order that the head might be raised higher than is meet, the most illustrious members of the body have been depressed! We, by the goodness of GOD, not yet unmindful of our dignity, complain of the wrong offered to it. "But there is a third reason which compels us to reject publicly the false dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, namely, the love of our Church. This love demands from us the greatest care in preserving our Church from error. In that Church, the faith, although more than once imperilled in this country, has, by the Divine favour, been preserved inviolate until this day. We have consequently thought it our duty to repel every species of novelty bearing upon the fundamental Articles of the faith. After the confusion introduced amongst us three years ago in the hierarchical order, there might be danger of corrupting the Catholic Faith. Our intention is to guard against this danger. We must strive, as much as in us lies, to present our Church to CHRIST as a pure Virgin. It is to us a holy obligation to transmit to posterity the ancient faith as simple and as pure as we have received it from our predecessors. Opposed to all novelty and attached to antiquity, we, with Tertullian, thus distinguish true from false doctrine :-'It is evident that that comes from the LORD, and is the true doctrine, which has been delivered from the first, but that that is foreign and false, which has been introduced afterwards.' (Præscript. c. 31.) We are no less admonished than was Timothy by the Apostle of the Gentiles, 'to avoid profane and

to you