Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology Global

Edition 13th Edition 13th Edition Elaine N Marie

download

https://ebookbell.com/product/essentials-of-human-anatomy-
physiology-global-edition-13th-edition-13th-edition-elaine-n-
marie-50897698

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology Global Edition 12th Ed Marieb

https://ebookbell.com/product/essentials-of-human-anatomy-physiology-
global-edition-12th-ed-marieb-22035984

Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology Eleventh Edition Global Edition

Elaine Nicpon Marieb

https://ebookbell.com/product/essentials-of-human-anatomy-physiology-
eleventh-edition-global-edition-elaine-nicpon-marieb-11090312

Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology Global Edition 13th Edition

Elaine N Marieb

https://ebookbell.com/product/essentials-of-human-anatomy-physiology-
global-edition-13th-edition-elaine-n-marieb-34949986

Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology 12th Edition Suzanne M Keller

Elaine Nicpon Marieb

https://ebookbell.com/product/essentials-of-human-anatomy-
physiology-12th-edition-suzanne-m-keller-elaine-nicpon-marieb-33795428
Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology Eleventh Edition 11th Edition
Elaine N Marieb

https://ebookbell.com/product/essentials-of-human-anatomy-physiology-
eleventh-edition-11th-edition-elaine-n-marieb-5648960

Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology 10 Ed Elaine Nicpon Marieb

https://ebookbell.com/product/essentials-of-human-anatomy-
physiology-10-ed-elaine-nicpon-marieb-11090290

Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology 12th Edition Elaine N Marieb

Suzanne M Keller

https://ebookbell.com/product/essentials-of-human-anatomy-
physiology-12th-edition-elaine-n-marieb-suzanne-m-keller-11494418

Holes Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology 15e Ise 15thise Charles

Welsh

https://ebookbell.com/product/holes-essentials-of-human-anatomy-
physiology-15e-ise-15thise-charles-welsh-51585824

Holes Essentials Of Human Anatomy Physiology Tenth Edition 10th David

Shier

https://ebookbell.com/product/holes-essentials-of-human-anatomy-
physiology-tenth-edition-10th-david-shier-2374852
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
person terminate inside the infinite; because, if they were to
terminate outside of God, they would be something different from
him, and consequently not divine persons, but finite beings.

But the law has a higher and more important bearing: it implies
that the action by which the divine persons are originated is not
transitory, successive, and incomplete, but permanent, eternal, and
complete; because God is infinite actuality, or actuality itself.

Forget for one single moment to apply this law to the genesis of
God's life, and you fall at once into pantheism. For suppose the act,
by which the divine persons are originated, to be transient,
successive, temporary, incomplete, and it would follow at once that
God is in continual development and explication. For He is either
complete and perfect, or on the road to perfection. He is in fieri,
or becoming.

And since, as we have often remarked, every development consists

of different stages of explication, the last of which is always more
perfect than those which precede it, it would follow that the
genesis of God's life consists of a successive series of evolutions,
the last of which is always more perfect than that which precedes
it. Now, assuming the genesis of God's life at one determinate
stage, and travelling backward to arrive at the first stage of
explication from which He started, we should pass from a more
perfect, defined, concrete stage of development, to one less
perfect, less defined, less determinate, and thence to one still less
so, until we should arrive at the most indeterminate, undefined,
abstract stage of evolution; at the least being—the being not
being, the first principle of pantheism.

But, keeping in view the law of immanence, every one can see that
God's action is supposed at once all perfect, complete, and
adequate—in one word, eternal; and consequently every idea of
development, progress, and succession is eliminated; and the
consequence is, that the infinite is at once conceived as being
infinite actuality; the first principle of Catholic theology—the precise
contradictory of pantheism.

Hence, according to this law, the first person is always originating,

and his origination is always perfect; the others are always
originated, and their existence is always perfect, adequate, and
complete. We say always and are originated, not because the
expressions convey the idea of eternal actuality and completeness,
but because, our mind being measured by time, we can find no
better words to exhibit the idea. Let this remark be made once for
all.

A corollary of this law is, that whatever persons are originated in

the infinite, being within the essence of God and terminating in
Him, they are—the infinite, because nothing can be added to the
infinite.

Fourth law: In the infinite there are no more than two

processions.

By processions we mean the origination of one person from

another.

Now, that in God there are no more than two processions will
appear evident, if we consider the proper operation of God. God is
a spiritual nature; the proper operation of a spiritual nature is by
intelligence and by will; therefore, the operation of God is by
intelligence and by will, and consequently one origination is by the
intelligence, the other by the will.

So far we have given those laws which govern, in general, the

genesis of God's life. We must now proceed to those laws which
govern the particular origination of each of the two divine persons.

Now, the law governing the origination of the second person is the
law of intellectual generation. Generation implies the following
elements:
 1st, the production of a living being from a living principle;

2d, identity of nature between the two;

3d, this identity required by the very natural, essential, and

direct tendency of the action by which the term is produced.

It is according to these elements of generative law that the second

person in the infinite is produced; and consequently he is really and
truly the Son of God, as the producer is Father.

For the first person, whom we have said to be subsisting by

himself, being intelligent activity, necessarily intelligences himself.
He is the God-head intelligencing himself.

Now, an object understood, inasmuch as it is understood, exists in

the understanding in an intelligible state; for to understand means
just to apprehend, to grasp intelligibly that which is understood.

The Godhead, therefore, is in himself as the Godhead understood is

in the Godhead understanding. Now, the object understood existing
in the intelligence, is what is called mental word, intellectual
conception, and by the Greeks, logos.

Hence in the Godhead exists the Godhead as mental word or logos.

St. John, with a sublime expression, which electrified all the
Platonic philosophers, began his Gospel thus: "In the beginning
(the Father) was the Word."

This Word of the Godhead being conceived by an immanent act, an

act which has neither beginning nor end, which is not power before
it is act, is conceived therefore eternally, and consequently is
coeternal with the conceiver. It is God or the infinite; because the
first person, or intelligent activity, begets him by an operation which
terminates inside himself, by the law of immanence; consequently
the Word is identical with his essence, and is, therefore, the
infinite.
Yet is he a distinct person from the first as Word.

For although the intelligent activity and the Word are both God, yet
are they distinct from each other by the law of opposition of origin,
which implies that a term proceeding from a principle is necessarily
opposed to it, and consequently distinct from it. Thus the intelligent
activity, as principle, is necessarily opposed to the Word as term;
and, vice versa, the Word as term is necessarily opposed to the
intelligent activity as principle. In other words, the intelligent
activity could not be what it is, unless it were the opposite of the
Word, and this could not be the Word unless it were the very
opposite of intelligent activity. Hence, to be intelligent, activity
belongs so exclusively to the First, as to exclude any other from
partaking in that distinctive constituent; and to be Word is claimed
so exclusively by the Second, as to be attributed to no other. The
result is a duality of terminations, possessed of the same infinite
nature and its essential attributes, each having a constituent so
exclusively its own as to be altogether incommunicable. Now, two
terminations, possessed of the same infinite nature and its essential
attributes, with a constituent so exclusively their own as to be
attributed to no other, convey the idea of two persons. For what is
a person? A spiritual being with a termination of his own, which
makes him distinct from any other, gives him the ownership of
himself and renders him solidary of his action.

Now, the intelligent activity is a spiritual being, since he is the

Godhead; is possessed of a constituent of his own, intelligent
activity; has the ownership of himself; for, as intelligent activity, he
is himself and no other, and cannot communicate himself; and is
solidary of his notional action, that is, the action which constitutes
him what he is: he is, therefore, a person.

Likewise the Word is a spiritual nature; for he is the same Godhead

as to substance; as a relation or Word, he is the owner of himself,
incommunicable, and solidary of his notional action; hence, he is
also a person.
In other words, the Godhead is an infinite spirit; all that constitutes
him, both substance and terms of relation, is spirit. Consequently,
each term of the divine relation, as such term, has an individuality
of his own and, as infinite spirit, has knowledge and intelligence of
himself; he beholds himself distinct from the other as term of
relation, one with the other as substance. His distinction causes his
relative individuality; consciousness and intelligence of this relative
individuality make him a person.

Here an objection might be raised; to be a person implies,

necessarily, to be intelligent, which is an essential attribute of
spiritual being. Therefore the Word also must be intelligent,
otherwise he would have neither knowledge nor consciousness of
his individuality. But you have attributed intelligence to the first
person as being his particular termination; therefore how can the
Word be a person, if intelligence be the particular termination of
the first? Either the Word is not intelligent, and then he cannot be
a person, or intelligence is not the particular termination of the
first, and in that case they cannot be persons, for they cannot be
distinct.

The difficulty will vanish if it be observed that we have not

attributed intelligence to the first person as his particular
termination, but intelligent activity.

A slight attention to the manner according to which the Word is

produced in the infinite, will illustrate this distinction. The
intelligence of the Godhead is infinite in its activity and actuality, as
well as infinite in its term; which means that the Godhead
understands itself infinitely, and an infinite term is the product of
this intellection. Hence, once God has understood himself and
conceived the expression of his intelligence, the activity is complete
and fully terminated; consequently, the Word, the term of this
intelligencing, has the Godhead with all its essential attributes
communicated to him; except the activity of intelligencing, because
the activity is complete in the production of the Word.
In other words, the act of the first person is eternal, complete, and
perfect, by the laws of immanence. Its activity is fully and perfectly
exercised in engendering the Word, hence it cannot be
communicated. If it were communicated, it would argue
imperfection and incompleteness in the act and in its term. In the
act, for if any portion of activity remained to be communicated, the
Godhead would not intelligence himself to the fullest extent of his
infinity; in the term, because the Godhead not intelligencing himself
to the full extent of his infinity, the intellectual utterance which
would be produced would not fully and perfectly express the object.

Consequently both would be imperfect, incomplete, and potential.

This happens in human conception. Our mind, being finite, that is,
partial and imperfect, is forced to exert itself partially and conceive
various mental words, which would not be the case if its activity
were perfect and complete, as it is in the infinite.

This answers another objection which is brought forward by those

who lose sight of the law of immanence in the divine operation. It
is said, If the Word be intelligent, there is nothing to prevent his
engendering another Word, and this second, a third, and so on ad
infinitum.

The Word is intelligent, but not intelligent activity. When

intelligence, so to speak, is communicated to him, it has been
exercised in the engendering of himself; or better, the eternal
immanent act of the intelligent activity communicating intelligence
to the Word, is continually being exercised in the immanent
engendering of the Word; therefore it cannot be communicated to
him. [Footnote 290]

[Footnote 290: In Filio non habet intellectus illam

veluti virtutem quia iam habuit actum sibi adequatum.
—Suarez, De Trin., lib. 1. cap. 7. v. 11.]
Hence that magnificent expression of the Scripture, "Semel
loquitur Deus." "God speaks but once." But because the activity
of engendering another Word is not communicated to him, it does
not follow that he is not endowed with the act of intelligencing the
Father or himself; the Father as his principle, himself as the product
of the Father. For it is one thing to be intelligent, another thing to
be intelligent principle. To give some examples of this distinction.
The architect of a building who has planned it, is the intelligent
principle of the building; another, who understands the plan of the
building, is the intelligent beholder of the building.

God is the intelligent cause of the world, man is the intelligent

perceiver of the world.

There being, therefore, a distinction between intelligence as

principle or cause, and intelligence as perception, one may easily
conceive how the Word in the infinite may be possessed of
intelligence, without being the principle of intelligence.

The Word, who is one Godhead with the first person, a distinct
person himself, is also the substantial image of the first person.
Because, in force of the act by which he is uttered, which is
essentially assimilative, he is produced as the likeness of him whose
expression and utterance he is; and as he is one as to substance
with the conceiver, he is, consequently, his substantial image and
likeness. We conclude, therefore, that the production of the second
person in the infinite—resulting in a person, the substantial image
of the conceiver, in force of the act of intelligencing by which he is
produced, which is essentially assimilative—is governed by the law
of generation; and that, consequently, the first person in the infinite
is Father, and the second, Son. "Thou art my Son, to-day I
have begotten thee." [Footnote 291]

[Footnote 291: Ps. ii. 7.]

The law by which the third person in the infinite is produced, is
different from that which governs the production of the second.

The latter takes place according to the law of generation or

assimilation; the former is subject to the law of aspiration, which
must be understood as follows.

By his Word, the intelligent activity apprehends and conceives his

infinite perfection and goodness. For the Word, as we have seen, is
nothing but the infinite and most perfect expression or image of
the intelligent activity, and as the intelligent activity is infinite
perfection and excellence, so the Word is the utterance, the
intellectual reproduction of that excellence and goodness. Hence
the intelligent activity, by his Word, conceives and utters himself as
infinite perception and excellence. But perfection or goodness
apprehended is necessarily loved. For goodness, once
apprehended, awakens the will, and necessarily inclines it toward
itself; it necessarily attracts and affects it. The intelligent activity,
therefore by apprehending himself through his Word as infinite
perfection and goodness, necessarily loves himself.

Love implies the insidence or indwelling of the object loved in the

subject loving. The intelligent activity, therefore, who necessarily
loves himself through his Word, must be as object loved in himself
as subject loving.

This love as object must be co-eternal with the infinite, because by

the law of immanence which governs the genesis of infinite life,
every origination in the infinite must be co-eternal with the infinite.

By the same law also, it must be identical and one with the infinite;
because love, being originated by an immanent act, terminates
inside of the infinite, and is, therefore, identical with the infinite.
The love as object, therefore, is coeternal and identical with the
infinite; it is the infinite.
It is distinct from love as subject and from the Word, by the law of
opposition of origin, which implies that a term which originates
from a principle is necessarily opposed to it, and consequently
distinct. Now, love, as object in the infinite, originates from the
intelligent activity and from the Word. The intelligent activity, by
apprehending himself, as infinite goodness and excellence, through
his Word, loves himself. Hence, this love proceeds from both—the
intelligent activity, who conceives his infinite goodness—the Word,
who represents it, and makes it intelligible. This love-object is a
third person. For, from what we have said, it appears that love-
object is identical with the infinite, with the divine essence, and
consequently partakes of all the infinite attributes of the essence;
hence he is a spiritual and intelligent being; as distinct from both
the intelligent activity and the Word, he is possessed of a
termination exclusively his own, which makes him the owner of
himself incommunicable and solidary of his notional action. Hence
he is a person.

This third person, not being originated according to a likeness of

nature, cannot, like the second person, be called son. He is the
personal and subsisting love of the Father and of the Son; and as
the object loved exists in the subject loving, as inclining, and in a
certain manner as impelling, the subject toward it, as raising in the
subject an attraction or aspiration toward it, hence the third person
is called the living and subsisting Spirit of God.

The better to conceive this distinctive termination of the third term

in the infinite, let us suppose an attraction between two persons. It
is needless to remark that we use this term for want of a better
and more spiritual one. Suppose, therefore, an attraction between
two persons; do not make it an accident or modification, but
substantial; carry it to its utmost perfection, actualize it ad
infinitum; so that it may be able to return upon itself, to have
consciousness of itself, to possess and own itself, and in this sense
to feel itself distinct from and independent of all others—and you
will have, as product, a subsisting or personal attraction, a third
person.

Such is the idea we can form of the Holy Spirit. The Father beholds
himself totally in the Son as an offspring of himself, and loves
himself in his offspring, his perfect and substantial expression.

The Son beholds himself totally in the Father as his author, and
loves the Father as his principle and origin. This common love, this
mutual attraction, this aspiration of the Father toward the Son, and
of the Son toward, the Father, being infinite, is most actual, perfect,
and complete—a living, subsisting attraction, with consciousness
and the ownership of himself, a subsistence personifying their
mutual love and binding both in one eternal tie of affection.

Hence, by this distinctive constituent of common love, the Spirit is

the archetype of harmony and order; since in his personality he
brings the opposition existing between the conceiver and the
conceived into harmony and unity of love.

He is also the archetype of the beautiful, being the very beauty

and loveliness of God.

Beauty, in its highest metaphysical expression, is variety reduced to

unity, by order and proportion. Now, the Spirit harmonizes the
reality and the intelligibility of God into a unity of love. Hence he is
the beauty of the Father and the Son—their personal and eternal
loveliness; and as such, the archetype of the beautiful in all orders.

He is the very bliss of the infinite, because bliss is the perfect

possession of infinite life. Now, it is in the production of the Spirit
that the genesis of infinite life terminates and is complete. He is,
then, the expression of the perfect possession and enjoyment of
the infinite life—the living Blessedness of the infinite. The last law
which governs the mystery of God's life, and which is a
consequence of all the laws we have explained, is the law of
insidence.
This implies the indwelling of all the divine persons in each other. It
is founded both on the community of essence and the very nature
of personalities.

For the essence of the three divine persons, being one and most
simple, it follows that they all meet in it, and consequently dwell in
each other. On the other hand, what constitutes them persons is
essentially a relation. Now, a relation necessarily asks for and
includes the relative term. The intelligent activity is such, because
in him dwells the Word, his infinite expression. The Word is such,
because he is the expression of the intelligent activity, and dwells in
him. The Spirit necessarily dwells in both, because he is the
subsisting aspiration of the activity toward its conception, and of
the conception toward its principle.

"Believe that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." (St.

John.)

With these laws, we conclude the first part of the problem of

multiplicity raised by pantheism. It is true, as pantheism affirms,
that there must be a certain multiplicity in the unity of infinite
essence. For, without a certain multiplicity, no being can exist or be
intelligible. Pantheism, in giving such prominent importance to the
problem, has rendered great service to philosophy and to religion,
and has cut off, in the very bud, all those objections raised by the
superficial reason of Arians or anti-trinitarians of old, or Unitarians
of modern times. But, as we have seen, however able in raising the
problem, Pantheism utterly fails in resolving it; and, in its effort to
explain the problem, destroys both the terms to be reconciled.
Catholicity, fully conscious of the immense value of the problem,
unflinchingly asserts that it alone has the secret of its solution.
Without at all assuming to explain away its super-intelligibility, it
lays down such an answer as fully satisfies the mind which can
appreciate the importance and the sublimity of the problem, and
follow it into the depths of its explanation. The infinite, says
Catholicity, is not infinite as an abstraction or potentiality, a germ as
Pantheism affirms, which ceases to be infinite when it passes into
multiplicity; the infinite is actuality itself.

This actuality consists in a first personality unborn and unbegotten,

with full consciousness of himself and his infinite perfection. This
personality is active intelligence, and in intelligencing his infinite
perfection, begets a conception, an intelligible expression of that
perfection, a second person. The active intelligence loves his infinite
personality conceived by him in his intelligence. This love is a third
personality.

Three personalities or terminations of one infinite actuality: a

multiplicity in unity; unity without being broken by multiplicity;
multiplicity without being destroyed by unity.

Hence the infinite is not a dead, immovable, unintelligible unity, but

a living, actual, intelligible unity; because it is unity of nature and a
trinity of persons; because the unity falls in the essence, the
multiplicity, in the terminations of the essence.
 A Legend for Husbands.—1699.
Which Wives, Too, May Read—possibly Not Without Profit.

My story is of people that have long since passed away, so that no

one need take it as personal.

American travellers sometimes differ—though for my part, I do not

see why they should—as to the relative attractions of Paris and
London. But they seldom fail to concur in their estimate of Brussels
as one of the most interesting and agreeable cities in Europe.

And really the Flemish metropolis presents a remarkable variety of

attractions. Parks, boulevards, botanic gardens, museums, quaint
old streets, quainter old houses, libraries, great pictures, treasures
of Rubens, wealth of old MSS., and last, not least, grand specimens
of middle-age architecture, such as the Hotel de Ville and the
Cathedral of St. Gudule.

Indeed, in mediaeval monuments no country in Europe is richer

than Belgium.

In presence of her grand old cathedrals you can well understand

the enthusiasm of those artists who maintain that our age takes
entirely too much credit to itself for its encouragement of the fine
arts. Neither the past nor the present century, they maintain, will
leave to posterity monuments of such grandeur, boldness, beauty,
and originality as have been bequeathed to us by the period that
immediately followed the crusades; and strangely enough, these
bequests of the "dark ages" can bear any test of critical scrutiny,
even in the full blaze of our nineteenth century enlightenment.
Will our architectural legacies appear as well in the eyes of future
generations?

"Why, look around you," said to me a Flemish artist; "in those days
the erection of a costly edifice was not handed over to mere
mechanics. The body of it was intrusted to architects. Sculptors
created its woodwork. Carvers executed what is now turned out by
machinery; painters gave you pictures where you now get plaster,
and the Benvenuto Cellinis of the day worked their miracles of art
in metals which today the blacksmith hammers out at his forge. Ah!
that was the golden age of artists, when the pulpits, the altars, the
stalls, and the organ-lofts were monuments; when furniture, doors,
chairs, and tables were poems in wood; when the family goblets,
the mere handle of a poignard or a sword were chased and
embellished; when exquisite miniatures, illuminated missals, and
wood engravings made a picture-gallery of the dryest chronicle;
when fresco and encaustic decorated the walls and floors; when
ceilings and beams shone with arabesques, windows were bright
with stained glass; when, in short, all the arts brought their tribute
of beauty to a church or to a palace. It was in the fading twilight of
these artistic glories that sculpture in wood still flourished among
the artists of ancient Flanders."

Somewhat thus discoursed to me an enthusiastic young Belgian

painter, as we stood together admiring that grand work of art, the
carved oak pulpit in the cathedral of St. Gudule, at Brussels.

This pulpit is a work to which the term unique may be applied with
scrupulous fidelity.

The admiration drawn from you by sculptures in wood elsewhere

culminates in presence of this singular creation of genius. No
description can adequately place it before you or render it justice.
In its exquisite architecture and sculpture, a poem as grand as that
of Milton is spread out before you.
An outline, only, the merest outline, can be attempted to supply
description.

Adam and Eve apparently sustain the terrestrial globe. An angel

chases them from Paradise, and Death pursues them. The life-size
figure of Adam, in particular, is admirable. Carved in marble, it
would have been something for Canova to have been proud of. The
preacher stands in the concavity of the globe, which is
overshadowed by the branches of the tree of good and evil,
covered with birds and animals characteristically grouped. By the
side of Adam is an eagle; on that of Eve, a peacock and a squirrel.

To the top of the tree is attached a canopy upheld by two angels

and a female figure symbolical of truth. Above stands the Blessed
Virgin with the infant Saviour, who, with a cross in his hand,
crushes the head of the Serpent, whose hideous body, in huge
folds, twines around the tree. "This pulpit was made," said, or
rather sang, to me, the old gray-haired sexton or bedeau, to the
tune in which he had shown the lions of the cathedral for more
than thirty years—"This pulpit was made by Verbruggen, of
Antwerp, in 1699, for the Jesuits of Louvain. Upon the suppression
of their order, it was presented to this cathedral by the empress
Maria Theresa. This pulpit—"

Here I interrupted him with questions as to Verbruggen—what was

known of him? Had he left any other works? and so on, to the end
of the chapter. All in vain; I could obtain nothing but a negative
shake of the head, and a hint that it was time to close the
cathedral doors.

My stay in Brussels was prolonged many weeks; and besides my

attendance on Sundays, I frequently, in my rambles between the
grand park and what Mrs. Major O'Dowd calls the Marchy
O'flures, strayed into St. Gudule to admire the finest specimens of
stained glass in the world; to read the inscriptions on the tombs of
the Dukes of Brabant, and to feast my eyes and imagination on the
grand old pulpit.

In the course of these visits I became better acquainted with the

bedeau in charge, and after some persuasion and a few well-timed
attentions, the old man at last acknowledged to me that there was
something more than mere names and dates connected with the
history of the pulpit.

Finally, upon my solemn assurance that I was not an Englishman,

and would not write a book and put him and the pulpit therein, he
promised to tell me all he knew about it.

Accordingly, by arrangement with him, I loitered in the cathedral

one evening after vespers until the faithful had finished their
devotions and left the church.

Taking a couple of rush-bottom chairs from one of the huge

pyramids of them piled up at the lower end of the building, we
seated ourselves just outside the grand portal, and the old man
began his recital. Years have since gone by, and I cannot repeat it
in his quaint manner; but, substantially, he thus told me the

Story Of The Carved Oak Pulpit.

Henry Verbruggen was heart and soul an artist. Gay, careless,

pleasure-loving, he appeared to live but for two things; his art,
first, and then his amusements.

Verbruggen married Martha Van Meeren, the pretty, the timid, the
good Martha Van Meeren. In the mirage of his artist's enthusiasm
her sweetness, her grace, her beauty, made her at first appear to
him a sylph, a muse, an angel.

Alas! though gentle and attractive, Martha was, after all, only a
woman, of the earth, earthy. In a quiet, well-ordered household
Martha would have been a treasure; but in the eccentric home of
the artist she was out of her element.

A pattern of neatness and economy, an accomplished Flemish

house-wife, a neat domicil and well-spread table possessed for
Martha more attraction than the imaginary world of beauty in which
her artist husband revelled, even when poverty threatened or want
oppressed them. Poor Martha! In vain she remonstrated; in vain
she implored. Henry would neglect his work; he would be idle and
spend his days at the cabaret, in the society of those who were
even more idle and more dissipated than himself.

Thus years went on. Martha was not happy. A tinge of moroseness
shaded the clear sunshine of her usual mildness. Occasionally, too,
she came out of her quiet sadness and found sharp words of
reproof for Henry, and anger for the companions who kept him
from home. And so it came about that soon, in Verbruggen's eyes,
Martha appeared harsh and repulsive. Then swiftly followed dispute
and recrimination. His early enchantment had disappeared; Martha
was not the wife for him, thought Verbruggen. He should have had
one as careless, as enthusiastic as himself. Would such a wife have
suited him, think you—you who know the human heart?

Meantime things went from bad to worse. Verbruggen scarcely

came home, totally neglected his art, fell into utter idleness and the
slough of despond, and his family was soon reduced to want—
almost to beggary.

In this crisis—it was in the year 1699—a Jesuit father who had
heard of Verbruggen's talent, called upon him, supplied him with
means, and ordered a pulpit, the most beautiful his art could
produce, for the church at Louvain.

Surprise, gratitude, joy, enthusiasm, all contributed to arouse the

dormant energies of the artist. He set himself energetically at the
composition of a design for his work.
"I will make," said he, "of this pulpit my greatest production. It
shall be," he exclaimed, growing radiant with artistic inspiration,
"something that shall display at a glance the history of the Christian
religion. I will place," thus he mused, "under the terrestrial globe,
Adam and Eve the moment after the fatal act of disobedience. This
globe shall be the pulpit. Around it shall watch the four Evangelists.
Over it shall hang the canopy of heaven, supported on the right by
angels, on the left by Truth herself. The date-tree shall lend its
shade. The long scaly wings of the serpent shall encircle it,
reaching from man on earth to the Blessed Virgin in heaven. By the
side of man I will place the cherubim armed with his flaming
sword, and near Eve, young and beautiful, a hideous figure of
Death. Higher up shall be the divine infant, with one foot on the
head of the serpent; he shall stand by the side of his august
mother, resplendent in her crown of stars, surrounded by angels,
cherubs, and seraphs. Yes, all this and more will I do. The very
wood shall grow into life under my hands, and ages yet unborn
shall hear of Henry Verbruggen of Antwerp."

The artist went at his work with all the enthusiasm of genius, and
had completed the body of the pulpit without placing the
Evangelists according to his original design, when, in a moment of
malicious spite, he imagined he would punish Martha by displaying
near Eve various satirical emblems of her sex's qualities.

On the branches, then, that entwine the staircase leading up on the

side of Eve, he placed a peacock, symbol of pride; a squirrel,
symbol of destruction; a cock, symbol of noise; and an ape, image
of malice; of all which defects, poor Martha, as the angels well
knew, was as innocent as an infant.

Of the statue of Adam, Verbruggen made a chef d'oeuvre—a

figure full of dignity and manly beauty. The figure of Eve is inferior,
and has less grace and animation.
And now to complete his sculptured marital spite, on Adam's side
he carved an eagle, symbol of genius.

Thus far had he progressed when poor Martha sickened and died.
In his motherless household Verbruggen soon discovered the extent
of his misfortune, and learned, as Shakespeare has so well told the
world, that

"What we have we prize not to the worth; But being lacked and
lost,
We then do know its value."

And now came the reaction. Verbruggen deeply mourned Martha.

He sincerely deplored her. Her admirable qualities came fresh upon
his memory, and he bitterly reproached himself for his unkindness
and neglect.

Soon he fell into fits of despondency. Discouragement took

possession of him, and his pulpit, begun with so much energy,
stood unfinished.

Accustomed to find his home in order, his table spread, he soon

discovered their loss, as well as the want of a thousand little
attentions and kindnesses which none could now give him; and in
short, as he was in the high road for discoveries, we may safely
conclude that he found out, with Ben Franklin, that a lone man is
but the half of a pair of scissors.

Twelve months passed by. Verbruggen's friends counselled him to

remarry. "You are but thirty-six," said they. "You have sincerely
mourned Martha's loss, and have done full justice to her excellent
qualities; but you can yet do as well, if not better. There is Cecily
Van Eyck, talented, a painter, an artist, like yourself. Your
dispositions accord, and if she consents to have you, she will be a
mother to your little girl and make you an admirable wife."
Henry listened to his friends, thought over what they said, and
followed their advice. He became Cecily's suitor, and was accepted.

Now Cecily Van Eyck was very smiling, very sweet, very charming;
but Cecily had a will of her own.

Scarcely had the honeymoon gone by, when she enlightened Henry
with some new ideas, and gave him several very distinct notions as
to the proper distribution of domestic power in a household. In a
more propitious age Cecily would have made her mark in a
Sorosis, and been a leader of the most advanced radical wing of a
woman's rights party.

Her mastery over Verbruggen was complete, and the poor artist
even kissed his chains.

One day she said to him, "What are you doing? Your apathy is
complained of, and I am taunted with it. Remember, if you please,
that Van Eyck is a name not unknown. Let me not lose, I pray you,
by changing it for that of Verbruggen. Where is the pulpit, that
chef d'oeuvre you so long since announced?"

In reply he led her to his studio. Cecily had an artist's eye, and
more—a woman's.

"What mean," said she, "these emblems by the side of Eve?"

The sculptor blushed.

"When I made them," he answered, "I did not know Cecily Van
Eyck."

"'Tis well. But after these emblems of defects, which perhaps

women have not, what do you intend to bestow upon your own
sex?"
"I had already commenced," stammered Verbruggen—"you see the
eagle. 'Twas perhaps somewhat vain."

"Vain! Oh! no; not at all. The eagle—a bird of prey and rapine, the
symbol of brutal tyranny—nothing could be fitter. Well, and what
further do you intend?"

Verbruggen could find no reply.

"Well, then, listen," continued his wife, "to render full justice to
your sex, near the eagle you will place a fox, emblem of deceit; a
parrot, emblem of noisy chatter; a monkey eating grapes, symbol
of intoxication; and a jackdaw, emblem of silly pride."

Verbruggen executed her orders with a docility most edifying. The

pulpit was soon finished, and, fortunately for us, has been
preserved intact through years of war and revolution. Higher
teachings have been proclaimed from it, but to those who know its
story even its dumb wood speaks a salutary lesson.

"Ah sir!" ejaculated the old sexton, when he had finished the story
of the pulpit, "if I had known the history of that pulpit before I
married a second time, I—"

Just then I came away.

 The Future Of Ritualism.
We propose to devote a few pages to the consideration of Ritualism
and its probable future, because it is an interesting religious
movement which is of great importance to many souls, and
because it seems to us to have reached its crisis. A writer in the
Churchman (an Episcopalian journal of Hartford, Ct.) wonders that
Catholics take such an interest in his communion and its members.
"Our bishops being no bishops," he says, "our clergy only decently
behaved laymen, our laity a perverse generation whose only chance
of salvation lies in the charitable hope of their invincible ignorance,
surely it is wasting powder and shot upon us to criticise our doings
when we are thus only playing at being a church." It is certainly
true that in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and also of every
ecclesiastical body which has the apostolic succession, the bishops
of the Episcopal Church are no bishops, and the clergy are mere
laymen. It is also true that the extreme High-Churchmen are
"playing at being a church." But cannot the writer understand our
zeal for the salvation of souls and our honest desire to help those
whose religion is only a logical farce? We assure him that if he does
not appreciate our sincerity, he does injustice to the feelings which
should animate every Christian heart. We see that which every
intelligent and unbiased mind can see, a party in the Episcopal
Church holding opinions which are suicidal to every species of
Protestantism, and which lead directly to the Catholic faith, and we
know that those who belong to this party cannot long continue in
their present position. They must come honestly forward to us, or
go backward to lose what little faith they have. Is it wonderful that
for the love of Christ we beg them to be truthful to their
convictions, and manly in their profession? Is it strange that we
attempt to show them that the doctrines they profess to hold have
no home in Protestantism, and that the church they pretend to
venerate is only a fiction of their imagination?
In this spirit we write now a few words which will, we hope, fall
into the hands of Ritualists, and help at least some to the
knowledge of the truth. Let us say at once, and in all candor, that
our sympathy is with the movement which is called Ritualism, and
that from its beginning we have earnestly prayed to God to bless it
to the conversion of many souls. We hope it will go on and prosper,
and be truthfully developed; for we can think of nothing so fearful
as "playing church," when the question is one of salvation. There
is, however, among some of the leaders of this movement, a want
of honesty and a direct untruthfulness which surprise us greatly. If
this dishonesty be not wilful, it is owing to an obliquity of mind
which it is hard to comprehend. The object of this article is to show
that Ritualism can have no standing in the Episcopal Church, and
that they who would propagate it had better lay down the weapons
of insinuation and falsehood and be brave enough to look the truth
full in the face.

There is nothing gained by attempting to skulk away under the

general meaning of the name which the world has applied to a
particular signification. "There can be no religion without external
ceremonies, say the High-Churchmen, "therefore, Ritualism is
proper and necessary." This argument is as fallacious as the
following "There is no man without a body, therefore the negro is a
necessity to the human race." The question, honest friends, is not
whether the religion of Christ demands ceremonies, but whether it
demands the particular ceremonies advocated at St. Alban's and
other ritualistic churches. And Ritualism does not mean the
adoption of any rites in the service of God, but the use of the
peculiar ones which are recommended by the leaders of the
movement in the Episcopal Church. Why, then, not say so at once
with manliness? A man will make little progress in our day who is
afraid to avow his creed.

Ritualism means a good deal more than mere rites and ceremonies.
We do not take our good friends who put on Catholic vestments as
automatons who are dressed up by the tailor to show off his art.
They are not so senseless as to play for the benefit of the dress-
maker alone. There is doctrine beneath all this external ritual which
is intended to show forth the sacrifice of the mass, and the real
presence of our Lord in the holy Eucharist. It includes the whole
sacramental system, and the power of the priesthood. There is little
outward distinction between the tenets of the Ritualists and the
creed of the Catholic Church. They may pretend to draw a line for
the satisfaction of fearful disciples, but really there is little
difference. As far as we can see, they are willing to accept our
faith, so long as they can enjoy it without submitting to the
Catholic Church. They go to confession, and invoke the saints, and
pray for the dead, and believe in the seven sacraments, and kneel
devoutly before the bread and wine which they elevate for the
adoration of the people. "You can have," said a leading Ritualist of
this city, "everything in the Episcopal Church which you can find in
the Catholic communion, and why therefore should you go away
from the fold in which you were born?" We ought, therefore, to
define Ritualism as a movement toward the actual faith and
worship of the one church of Christ, which were rejected by all
Protestants at the Reformation. This is its true definition before
every honest mind, and any attempts to hide under generalities,
are attempts at deception. It will perhaps bring our remarks to
more clear conclusions, if we show, first, that these doctrines which
underlie the whole movement can have no status in the Episcopal
Church; secondly, that any attempts at disguising the truth, only
injure the leaders in their enterprise; and lastly, from the indications
of the present, conclude the future of Ritualism.

Little time need be spent to persuade any honest mind that the
sacramental system can have no home in the Anglican communion.
First of all, the great body of the people reject it, and can never be
made to accept it, while they say with sincerity that they see no
distinction between it and the teachings of the Catholic Church. If it
be deemed worth while to profess substantially all the doctrines of
Trent, why not undo the Reformation and go back at once to the
fold which their forefathers forsook? And, as Bishop Lee remarked
at the opening of the late Episcopal Convention, what right had the
church organized by Queen Elizabeth to set forth articles of faith, or
in fact to be a church at all, if not on the Protestant principle of
private judgment? The majority of Episcopalians have the greatest
possible aversion to anything that can be called Romanism, and
will, as a body, never allow themselves to be catholicised. In this
country there is great liberty of speech, and great pretensions are
easily tolerated; but when it is understood that such pretensions
mean more than words, the spirit of Protestantism, which is the
only living thing in the Episcopal Communion, shows itself in full
armor. Individuals daily come to the one fold of Christ, but the
body will never move from its hostile attitude. It will stand
consistent to its own principle until the hour of dissolution. If any
Ritualist doubts this, let him actually practise all he preaches, and
openly avow all he believes. His eyes will soon be opened
sufficiently to see that the antagonism between himself and his
surroundings can never be removed.

Our friends, the High-Churchmen, are zealous upholders of church

authority; but where is the authority to which they submit? Their
own church ought to be an authority to them, yet we find that its
decisions have no weight for their minds. The articles are against
them, and every doctrinal judgment that has been made
throughout the history of the controversy is distinctly adverse to
their views; yet they insist on holding on, and appealing from the
stern present to the impossible future. The thirty-nine articles are
really the doctrinal standards of the English Church and truly
express the belief which formed and animates their communion.
When these articles are given up, if such an event should ever take
place, the Episcopal brotherhood will commit suicide and vote itself
out of existence. These remarkable canons of doctrine condemn the
whole sacramental system, deny any real presence of Christ in the
blessed Eucharist, and cut away, root and branch, any
encouragement which the Ritualists might find in the other portions
of the Prayer-Book. Whatever authority therefore the Episcopal
Church has, is most decidedly against the unnatural children who
profess great fondness for their mother, call her by great names
which she disowns, and still never obey her. We have before us a
declaration of principles made in the year 1867, in which are
contained the very doctrines which the articles condemn, and which
the bishops, whenever they have spoken, have rebuked. One
sentence particularly pleases us by its great frankness and amiable
sincerity. "We heartily and loyally obey the authority of our own
particular church, receive every one of her doctrines, and adopt,
as our own, her every act of devotion." Article xxviii says, "The
sacrament of the Lord's supper was not by Christ's ordinance
reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." The declaration
of these loyal children declares that "Christ is really present in
the Holy Eucharist, and being present, is of course to be adored."

Now, if the bishops of the Anglican communion have any right to

decide in litigated questions, they have spoken with sufficient
plainness. The "Catholic school" in England has had a hard road to
travel while one after another their favorite positions have been
condemned. The last decision of the Privy Council is adverse to the
ceremonies of Ritualism, and of course to the doctrines which
underlie them. Twenty-eight bishops of the American Episcopal
Church have published an open protest against the new movement,
and the late Pastoral of the Convention reasserts the principles of
the Reformation, denies the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist,
and concludes the subject by saying: "We would most earnestly
deprecate those extravagances in Ritualism, recently introduced,
which tend to assimilate our worship to that of a church hostile to
our own. And we must urge you to remember that the reverent
obedience to their bishops and other chief ministers, promised by
the clergy at their ordination, would, if faithfully rendered, prevent
these evils." We are not aware that anything more explicit be
required by our friends who "love their own particular church" so
well; but if the above be not enough, we imagine they will not wait
very long for something more.
The most painful feature, however, in this movement, is an
apparent want of truthfulness and a disingenuousness which are
inconsistent with the earnest desire to know the faith of Christ. It is
very hard to comprehend the course of some of the leaders in this
"Catholic revolution," unless their aim be to maintain a cause
without any regard for truth or justice. They are sometimes very
insincere in their condemnations of Romanism before the people,
when in their hearts they must see that they are making dupes of
the ignorant.
A very vapid book has been handed to us, entitled Conversations
on Ritualism. The Rev. Mr. Wilson (Ritualist) instructs Mr. Brown,
and opens his eyes to see that there is a pure Catholicity all
unknown to Rome, and even to the (beloved) East, which is now
about to revive and do wonders. Mr. Brown is informed that the
American Church has not yet been put together. The elements of
which it is composed are floating around; but so sure as the sun
rises some bright day, the chaos will be one beautiful scene of
order and unity, when all shall think alike, and the brilliant altars
shall blaze with candles and smoke with incense. Now, Rev. Mr.
Wilson "doubts if there are many of his bishops and priests who
know more than the mere A, B, C, of the real question of the
church worship." They will, however, be enlightened, because the
world is to see the "gorgeous Ritual without the doctrinal errors
and corruptions of Rome," and to take a "pill which is not to be
gilded." Puritanism comes in for a terrible malediction. "If ever an
evil spirit has appeared on the earth, of such a character as to put
men out of patience with its inconsistencies and absurdities, that
spirit is Puritanism." O Puritanism, Puritanism, thou that abhorrest
pictures and flowers, stained glass and altar-cloths, thou that lovest
whitewash and blank hard-finish, with what amazement shalt thou
hereafter discern the glories of the heavenly city, the New
Jerusalem! "This Puritanism is a very subtle and persistent poison; I
have known it to crop out where least expected; I have even
known of mitred heads which seem in some way turned by it." But,
bad as it is, it is not worse than Popery, which good Mr. Brown is
taught to distinguish well from Ritualism. Then Rev. Mr. Wilson,
speaking ex cathedra, defines what this Popery is. Its errors are
"the cultus of the Blessed Virgin; adoration of the cross, images,
and relics; the doctrine of purgatory, Transubstantiation, Papal
pardons, indulgences and dispensations, supererogatory merits, and
forbidding the clergy to marry." Pope Wilson, who rejects the
authority of Pius IX., pronounces these doctrines and practices as
grave errors. There can be no doubt, therefore, of the clearness of
his vision, and discussion were useless and certainly inappropriate.
But, behind the scenes, what is the practical difference between the
Catholic doctrine condemned, and the belief symbolized by the
Ritualists? Mr. Brown has gone home quite satisfied, and he will not
hear our conversation, and we can afford to talk our honest
convictions. The cultus of the Blessed Virgin and the saints is
nothing more than the devotion which our friend, Mr. Mackonochie
approves under another name. Catholics do not adore the cross,
nor images, nor relics. They treat them with veneration and
religious respect, and so do the Ritualists. Rev. Mr. Wilson prays for
his departed friends, though for the world he would not say out
loud Purgatory. Transubstantiation he does not accept, though he
believes that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ,
and to be adored with every outward symbol of devotion. Pardons
are very good in themselves, if the Pope has nothing to do with
them; and as for forbidding the clergy to marry, he would leave
that an open question. Many of the Ritualists have evinced a
preference for a single life, and a desire even to establish convents
and monasteries. Mr. Brown is sleeping quietly on his Protestant
pillow while Mr. Wilson prays before his crucifix, and is a Romanist
at heart though not in name. We fear there are many Mr. Browns,
and Madame Browns, and Misses Brown, who are likewise
deceived. In religion we would prefer more manliness and
outspoken honesty. These Conversations on Ritualism are only
an example of what we have often seen and heard with much pain.
We have great hopes of any man who is truthful; but when there is
a desire to deceive, and an unwillingness to follow truth to its just
conclusions, there is little chance for argument. But some of the
Ritualists are as unfair toward their own church as they are toward
us. It cannot condemn them; for whatever language it may use,
they will interpret it to suit their own case. When Tract No. XC.
appeared, the entire English communion scouted its attempt to
reconcile the articles with Catholic doctrine. Now, there is no
difficulty in explaining away every objectionable point and making
those thirty-nine daggers inoffensive. The Baptist Quarterly says:
"The twenty-fifth article declares, 'The sacraments were not
ordained to be gazed upon,' an unquestionable interdiction of
eucharistic adoration. But this, we are told, must mean that they
are not to be looked upon without reverence and devotion. So
article twenty-eight says, 'The sacrament of the Lord's supper was
not by Christ's ordinance lifted up or worshipped.' This, it is said,
may mean that elevation may not be practised, on the ground of its
being done by Christ's ordinance, but it may be done on some
other ground. What may be the casuistry of men who can so
defend their principles, it is difficult for minds accustomed to frank
and straightforward actions to comprehend." If the Privy Council
forbids the practices of the Ritualists, the Church Record tells us
that "they must indeed be short-sighted who suppose that the
disuse under compulsion of the ritual expression of a doctrine will
hinder it from being taught and believed." If the whole house of
American bishops distinctly deny any presence of the body and
blood of Christ in the Eucharist, and forbid any worship of the
elements, on the ground that Christ is not there, then these loyal
churchmen are "cheered," and take refuge under the incautious use
of a term which in one sense might be objected to even by
Catholics. Say the bishops, "Especially do we condemn any doctrine
of the holy Eucharist which implies that, after consecration, the
proper nature of the elements of bread and wine does not remain;
which localizes in them the bodily presence of our Lord." The
prelates meant to say that our Lord is not really in the sacrament,
and had no idea of the theological objection which Catholic doctors
might find to the use of the word localize. The Catechism of the
Council of Trent tells us that our Lord is not in the sacrament "ut
in loco" that is, he is not limited or circumscribed by the ordinary
laws of quantity and extension. This is evident, because our Lord is
present by miracle and according to the conditions of his glorified
humanity. "When the Pastoral is examined," says the Churchman,
"it turns out to be a denial of a physical or carnal presence, which
the writer (in The Catholic World) not having the fear of the
Council of Trent before his eyes, declares must be local." The
Pastoral says nothing about a physical or carnal presence, the
precise meaning of which in high-church casuistry we do not know;
but it denies any "bodily presence." Now, if our Lord's body is there
at all, there is a bodily presence, and that presence is localized,
that is to say, he is within the species of bread and wine. To use
the words of St. Cyril, "That which appears to be bread is not
bread, but the body of Christ; and that which appears to be wine is
not wine, but the blood of Christ." It is hard for us to believe that
the author of the above stricture on the Pastoral knows what he
means himself. If by "physical" he means according to the ordinary
laws of physics, he need not beat the air any more. If by "carnal"
he intends to say that our Lord is not in the Eucharist, as when in
the days of his sojourn on earth, he was subject to all the natural
conditions of flesh and blood, he will find no adversary in the
Catholic Church. The substance of the bread and wine is changed
into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and he is in the
Eucharist sacramentally, but as truly and really as he is at the right
hand of the Father in heaven. Two substances cannot coexist at
one time in one and the same space, and so, according to the plain
definition of our creed, the Incarnate Word is miraculously present,
whole and entire in either form, and under every consecrated host
in the world. That the bishops meant to deny distinctly any true
presence of Christ in the sacrament, is evident enough to any mind,
and we cannot admire the candor of the writer who would try to
escape from it by a quibble upon a word whose common
acceptation is quite plain. The Church Record would have us
believe that anything can here be tolerated, provided you do not
use the word "Transubstantiation."

But what shall we say of the following language taken from the
Churchman? "The Romish Church does not, comparatively
speaking, care one fig for transubstantiation, the celibacy of the
clergy, the employment of her particular liturgy and ceremonial. She
has sacrificed these for dominion in times past. She will do it again.
She will explain away transubstantiation, she will admit the
marriage of the clergy, she will make almost any other concession,
if she can get her penny's worth in return. But one thing she does
care about, and that is the Pope's supremacy." The author of this
famous passage is unsafe in any community, and ought to be
continually watched by detectives. It is easy to write falsehood, and
not very hard to speak it; but it avails very little those who have
the hardihood to use it. We have come to the conclusion, from a
long experience, that high-churchmen will never be driven from
their ground by any decisions of their own church, and that many
of them are exceptions to the ordinary laws of humanity. They are
inaccessible to reason. On this ground they will excuse us if we
pray the more earnestly for them, or endeavor to point out to the
world their wonderful inconsistency. They advocate a kind of
infallibility which, to be sure, is not within the reach of any one,
and yet when the Catholic Church is called infallible, they find the
very idea inconsistent with their reason. "So long as Rome keeps to
itself, it is grand, imposing, and may pass for powerful. But when it
appeals to argument and ventures into the province of reason, it
admits the possibility of an adverse conclusion. Infallible men must
not reason, they can only pronounce." Perhaps it was a hoary head
that indited these words in the Churchman, or it may have been a
young and inexperienced warrior. Is there any objection to show
the grounds of our faith to one who asks for them, and may not
even the writer of the above enter upon an argument to prove the
existence of God, "without admitting the possibility of an adverse
conclusion"? It is something new to us that we can only defend by
argument the things that we doubt. We do not reason on the
intrinsic credibility of the doctrine proposed to our belief, but upon
the extrinsic evidence that God, the only revealer, really proposes
the doctrine. And we are quite ready to show to any honest mind
the proofs that the Catholic Church is the one and only church of
God. Nay, this has been done by our fathers and doctors from the
beginning. Every Catholic is infallible so far as his faith goes,
because he relies upon the church which is infallible; but this does
not prevent him from defending by reason the creed which he
holds. The same luminous author asks if "Rome will stand equally
well the daylight which will be let into her secret places." So also
the accusation has been made, that "the Romish Church has one
set of doctrines for the public and another for the initiated; that to
converts she always showed her best face, and did not reveal her
true features until she had fairly caught them in her iron grasp." In
reply to these nursery tales, meant for crying children only, we say
briefly that Rome has no "secret places" whatever; that the daylight
shines in her, and through her; and that all she holds and teaches
is in her catechism, which is taught to young and old. Any one who
wishes to know her creed can easily find it out, and it is as much in
the possession of the unlettered peasant as it is of the learned
philosopher. It is barely possible that they who write and speak
such silliness as the above may be honest; but surely, if they are in
their right minds, there is no excuse for their ignorance. Dear
Ritualists, when you wish to keep your friends or parishioners from
going Romeward, pray tell the truth; for when they find out that
you have tried to deceive them, they will all the faster run from a
system which cannot bear honesty and plain-dealing.

There is another point in which our good friends who like to call
themselves Catholics are manifestly either ill-informed or
disingenuous. They profess to see a great distinction between the
schismatic Greek communion and the Catholic Church, and speak
as if there were the slightest hope of any intercourse between
themselves and the Eastern sects. The separated Greeks are
certainly in a lifeless state, owing to their schism and their slavish
subjection to the state; but their standards are as decisive against
Protestantism and the English pretensions as even the canons of
Trent. To speak otherwise, and to represent to an unlettered person
that there is any approximation between Anglicanism and the East,
is only an attempt to deceive. The position of the schismatic
Christians of the East is quite simple upon our views of Catholic
unity; but we venture to again urge our brethren of the Episcopal
Church, to prosecute their investigations and do something more
than pass resolutions such as are every year triumphantly carried at
the sessions of the American and Foreign Christian Union. "Why not
quietly wait," says the Churchman, "and let us be snubbed?" We
are quite willing to wait; but in this day of telegraph and steam
improvements, may we not beg the committee to move a little
faster? In the mean time, we would place in their hands a little
manual, by Dr. Overbeck, a Russian priest, who speaks only the
sentiments of his whole communion. We quote from the English
edition of his work on Catholic orthodoxy. Speaking in the name of
the Greek Church, he says in answer to Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon,
(page 97,) "We do not want your power nor your riches; these are
no baits for us. We are content with our poverty and our pure faith,
which nobody shall sully; and are we to commune with a church so
replete with heresy as the English Church is! Are we to expose
our only treasure, our pure faith! You have installed heresy in your
pulpits; you do not cast it out; nay, you cannot cast it out, because
your church is historically a Protestant Church, and Protestants
framed your articles which you contrive in vain to unprotestantize.
God forbid! No communion with an heretical church! No
communion with the English Church—it would be the grave
of orthodoxy." Again, (page 89,) "The Orthodox Church does not
recognize the English Church to be achurch, in her own meaning
of the word, any more than the Lutheran, Reformed, or any other
Protestant Church. If we, nevertheless, use the term church in the
controversy, it is only a conventional mode of speaking, while
disproving the fact, and denying the truth of the underlaid idea."
"The English Church is not, and never was recognized by any
Catholic Church."

From what we have seen, the prospects of Ritualism are not very
bright. Whatever authority the Episcopal Church possesses will
undoubtedly be used to prevent its growth and influence. It is quite
certain that it can never be grafted upon the service or discipline of
a communion whose very existence depends upon its
Protestantism. The bishops are in a directly hostile attitude toward
the movement; and if some of them let it alone, it is, perhaps,
because they think that it will the sooner die out. Ritualists will go
forward to a certain point, and High-Churchmen will stand
ungenerously behind to take any advantage of their success, and to
disavow all responsibility when the hour of trouble comes.
After a while, the whole revolution will cease, and while many will
become Catholics, others will return to indifference, and to greater
torpidity than at the beginning. Already there are signs of division
among the movers in the drama. They are not agreed on the
question of quantity, some proposing to go much further Romeward
than others are willing to follow. English Ritualists are dissatisfied
with their American friends, and accuse them of cowardice or want
of frankness. The bishops snub them at every opportunity, the
powers of the state fall down upon them, and they cannot come to
any settled conclusion what to do. In this country they can act as
they like, untouched by civil authority, and yet the whole land can
boast of only one or two churches where ceremonies are carried
out according to the code. It is doubtful how long these churches
can be supported on the voluntary principle. Our own judgment is,
that a few years will see the end of a movement which ought to
result in many conversions to the Catholic faith. If there were strict
honesty among the leaders, we should be more hopeful; but when
false statements are constantly made, and the "No Popery" cry is
held up as a blind by even the advance-guard who wear chasubles
and hear confessions, what encouragement have we for the future?
It is so easy to retrace one's steps and to look unconscious of all
harm if the tide of battle turns. We know of more than one bishop,
and many ministers in the Episcopal Church, who have recanted
their errors with more or less manliness, and are now in the
surgeon's tent, far away from all danger. The lawn-sleeves and the
fair heritage have proved too much for their faith in things eternal.
They who once were ready to accept all the decrees of Trent and
utterly reject the articles of their own church, have become doctors
of divinity, with large families of children, and the pangs of
conscience have ceased. Monasteries well organized have been
broken up by the marriage of nearly all the reverend monks, and
communities of sisters have been seriously embarrassed by the
drafts the clergy have made upon their number. We mention these
facts in sorrow; for it is a sad proof of the inconsistency of man in
matters of religion. Why should we expect any more from the
Ritualists than we have realized from their cotemporaries or
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com