asked to give up anything that had been proved through life and history to be a real good. Under these conditions, sooner or later, will the process of Union go forward in Germany, the heart of Europe.

"Thus, then, the domains of historical science appeared to the King like the Truce of God in the Middle Ages, or like a consecrated place, where those elsewhere religiously divided can come together, and carry on their inquiries and their work in harmony; where all impelled by the same thirst of knowledge, and drinking out of the same sacred fountains of truth, grow together into one common fellowship, and from this fellowship and brotherhood of knowledge there will one day, so he hoped, proceed a higher Unity and conciliation, embracing the whole domain of historical and thus also of religious truth, when under the influence of a milder atmosphere the crust of confessional ice thaws and melts away, as the patriot and Christian hopes and prays."

ORIGINAL POETRY.

THE PRODIGAL'S INTROIT.

IN innocency, Lord, my hands I wash

And so surround Thine altar. If I sin

In thought, or word, or deed, O, Thou most kind!
Who think'st no scorn to lift the prodigal,
Dusty and footsore, up the marble steps
Of his ancestral mansion, till at length

The Father's arms embrace him, and he stands
Within that well-remembered hall, full rich
With memories of childhood's happy hours.
There sat his mother-there his sister played;
So, eating of the fatted calf, he thinks
That homely fare far sweeter to the taste,
Than all the drunken banquets he has known
In stranger lands; thus, by the loving touch
Of Thy cool priestly hand, restore to me
The weary years the greedy locust ate.

As through the Eastern pane the dull gray light
Falls rich and glowing on the altar stair,

So now may I, all coarse, and dull, and cold,

Washed in those roseate streams that have their source

In the five healing founts of Calvary,

Come, Lord, enlightened to Thy holy place

My Father's house. O Father I have sinned;
And yet, I pray Thee, let me enter in,
And kneel where I have knelt in happier days.
And all is changed since then, except this place,-
So lovely and so loved, where oft of old
I've knelt among the faithful two or three,
To meet our own dear Lord on Sunday morn.
Oh, Thou Who hangest on the Bloody Rood!
Alike through sultry days and chilly nights-
Unchanged, unchangeable-I shut my eyes
Before I sinned, and would not look at Thee.
Those fancied pleasures now are turned to gall,
And whither shall I turn? I turn to Thee.
Oh! surely I shall see Him with a face
As hard to look on as the noon-day sun;
That face I buffeted, and from those eyes
Lightnings will flash; those eyes I spit upon.
Ah, no! the fierceness of the noon-day blaze
Is paled by anguish, and the lightning's flash

Is quenched in streams of blood; so, through the dark,
I lift my weary gaze, and see on high

A pale, wan Form, Whose large meek eyes look down
In tender, wondering pity, as they used,
Ere I began to sin; and, farther on,
The dim light of the red lamp still reveals
The hidden Godhead, emblem meet of Thee,
O burning Love, to Whom at length I turn
World-wearied, sick in body and in soul,
And pray Thee to burn out my sin and shame
In the great furnace of Thy wounded heart.
Ilide me, oh, hide me from the icy breath
Of this world's cold reproof and mocking tone!
My Own Beloved, hide me in Thy love-
Thy Sacramental love, so human, so divine,
And, sweet Lord Jesu, shrive me quick at once,
For, hark! the music ceases; see, the priest
Ascends the altar stair. Behold, great God,
The salutary Sacrifice begun!

P. P. P. O.

CORRESPONDENCE.

[We propose to devote a short space in our pages for any letters with which we may be favoured, of general interest; but, in printing such, we do not in any way hold ourselves responsible for the sentiments of our correspondents.]

DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES.

SIR,-There is an article in your last number on the Burial Service, with the greater part of which I have certainly no occasion to quarrel, containing as it does a calm and well-reasoned defence of the Catholic practice of prayer for the departed. But there is one passage, on the "peculiar Roman theory" of indulgences, based on a serious, though of course unintentional, misapprehension of that doctrine, and I feel sure, therefore, you will allow me to correct it, if only in the interest of Re-union, which all misconceptions on either side must tend indefinitely to postpone. The reviewer objects, very naturally, to "corrective sufferings" being arbitrarily remitted, and that, too, by a precise computation of days, months, and years; and again to the Church claiming jurisdiction over the "world of spirits." I will take each point in order.

1. The "days, months, and years" of a "partial" indulgence are

interpreted, I believe, by all our theologians as referring to the canonical penances imposed in this life under the earlier discipline of the Church. This discipline has long, for sufficient reasons, been discontinued; but, inasmuch as the corrective chastisement required for the sinner's good cannot, as your reviewer justly observes, be "arbitrarily remitted by any power in heaven or earth," it must be endured as God sees fit, either here or in purgatory. So much of this chastisement as would correspond to the specified duration of the old canonical penances is remitted by the Church, so far as in her lies, in a "partial," the whole in a "plenary" indulgence. If a person gains the indulgence for himself the act of jurisdiction, such as it is, is exercised over the living. In any case there is a condition always implied, and now invariably stated, in every grant of indulgence, in the clause "so far as it may please God," or words to that effect. No one doubts that the actual result depends on the state of mind of the person who seeks to gain the indulgence, and other circumstances beyond the cognizance or control of the Church.

2. But suppose the indulgence is gained, as nearly all may be, for the dead? Your reviewer observes that "the spiritual discipline of the Church does not necessarily extend to the world of spirits." The word I have italicised may be dropped. The Church neither claims, nor can possibly possess, any jurisdiction whatever over the world of spirits. Indulgences granted for the dead are granted, as theologians express it, "by way of impetration." Let me explain. A person goes to communion, and gains a plenary indulgence (one or more can be gained after every communion) for the soul of a dead friend. By doing so, he not only prays for his friend, which of course he could do in any case, but he gains him an interest in the suffrages of the Universal Church; and this rests on a principle your reviewer will, I am sure, readily admit. He demurs to the "hearing of the saints' merits," but that is simply one aspect of the Communion of saints, by virtue of which the prayers and good works of one member of the mystical body become the common property of all. All human merit is of course ultimately derived from the merits of the God-man, whence S. Augustine's well-known dictum, embodied in the decrees of Trent, that in crowning our merits God crowns His own gifts. No one dreams of disputing that the granting of indulgences is a matter of variable discipline, but so far as it has a theological bearing, it rests on the doctrine of the communion of saints.

Should it be further objected that at least the mass of uneducated people conclude that every indulgence, plenary or partial, takes full and immediate operation, I can only reply that, whatever ignorance or misapprehension may prevail on the subject, nobody would think of contenting himself with gaining a plenary indulgence for himself or another and then leave the matter, as though all were settled. On the contrary, people go on through life availing themselves of opportunities to gain them as they occur. It is a method

by which the Church allows her members, on certain condition (communion is the principal one), a direct part in the suffrages of the whole body for themselves or the particular departed soul for which they desire to pray. I have purposely confined my explana

tion within the narrowest limits consistent with clearness.

Your obedient servant,

CLERICUS CATHOLICUS.

A CATHOLIC VIEW OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
JUDGMENT.

SIR,-Will you allow a Catholic to suggest some considerations in reference to the recent decision of the Privy Council, which seems to have occupied the notice of your Oxford correspondent? I am not going to undertake the defence of Messrs. Williams and Wilson, who have written much at variance, me judice, with sound doctrine and good faith; but it is important to ascertain precisely what has aud what has not been rued. The three counts on which the appellants were acquitted are-(1) a denial of imputed righteousness, (2) a denial of verbal inspiration, (3) a denial of eternal punishment. 1. Imputed righteousness, I seed scarcely observe, is not only no doctrine of the Church, but is a condemned and most immoral heresy. You would have had good cause to complain had it been enforced on your clergy. This point accordingly, I see, is passed over sub silentio in the "Declaration" emanating from Oxford. 2. Verbal inspiration is neither a dogma nor a heresy, but it is quite certainly a mistake, for it is capable of demonstrative disproof. The language of the Court on this point is in perfect accordance with Catholic doctrine. "The Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, that has ever dwelt and will dwell in the Church, which (rather who) dwelt also in the sacred writers of Holy Scripture, and which will aid and illuminate Holy Scripture, trusting to receive the guidance and assistance of the Spirit." The Bible is neither the whole Word of God nor is the whole Bible (e. g. the speeches of Job's friend) the Word of God. There is a human mixed with a divine element both in written and unwritten traditions, and it is the Church's office to discriminate the one from the other as occasion serves, 3. The third point involves confessedly the greatest difficulty, and I am by no means prepared to defend Mr. Wilson's language upon it, still less that of the Privy Council, which goes considerably beyond him. But it is well to bear in mind how very little has really been decided on this subject by the Church : nothing except that there is such a thing as eternal punishment, for whom or for how many it may be reserved we cannot tell. Catholic divines of eminence have thought that there might be a limbus puerorum, not only for unbaptised infants, but for those who die (like the great multitude of heathen, and many even in a Chris tian country,) infants in mind though not in years. And I have