rests on Mary's justification and sanctification through the redeeming merits of Christ, and they were thus enabled to help on still further the externalizing of Christianity.

Externalism is superficiality; superficiality is frivolity; frivolity means manageableness by a strong spirit and will: thus is the riddle solved. Mary cannot be more honoured than she was before the publication of the dogma. An increase of pomp and glory at her festivals attracts the masses, but repels the more reflective. Where the eye has too much to see, where the fumes of incense bewitch one, and the whole outward man and his senses have too much to do, no room is left for the spirit and the heart. The man thus externalized is easily governed. Lastly, the Jesuits acted prudently in their selection of the point to be raised to the dignity of a dogma, since they base their polemics upon the cu'tus of Mary. Maria, tu sola interemisti hæreses in universo mundo!'—' Mary, thou alone hast brought to nought heresies throughout the whole world!'-so runs the antiphony for the Festival of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Thus their zeal was in a certain sense a question in which the honour of their patroness was concerned. But all these motives which led them to pitch on this dogma are, nevertheless, of so little comparative consequence, that they are thrust into the shade by the one true motive, viz., the desire to make the experiment, in the case of another and an unsuspected doctrine, whether the new method of deciding doctrinal questions would meet with insurmountable obstacles, and whether the same path might not be struck into to reach the fundamental dogma to be hereafter laid down, that of Papal Infallibility.

Moreover, it is worth while to look at the antecedents of this new dogmatical phenomenon. The sentence was not sent forth so very abruptly. Years before the bishops of the Catholic world were besought by the Pope to consult the theological faculties of their respective universities, and to report upon the popular belief within their dioceses. Meanwhile the Pope did not hide the fact that he himself was entirely persuaded of the truth of the dogma about to be proclaimed. This last circumstance was alone sufficient to determine the opinion of most of the bishops. The Pope's anxiety to know the popular belief of the various dioceses, and, accordingly, his laying stress on the quality of the popular belief, cannot but excite surprise, since, according to the theory hitherto received, only the episcopate has the right to testify as to the purity of Catholic doctrine, and the lay world is not consulted at all. The meaning of that inquiry can, therefore, only have been this, -it was wanted to know whether the novelty would be likely to scandalize the people, and to produce schisms, or whether, on the other hand, the seed scattered to this end in former days had already borne its fruits, and had familiarized men with the thing. This was certainly the case, since the devotional manuals of the Jesuits Wille, Nakatenus, Devis, &c., were the most widely circulated amongst the people. When in this way the opinions of the bishops had arrived at Rome, and an apparent consensus of the ecclesia dispersa had been attained, it was already possible to take further steps.

It was argued, that since the judgment of the Church had been

obtained, it was just as valid as if the bishops who voted had been assembled in council; but it is just this which is false, for according to Catholic belief, it is not in the isolated bishop, but in the episcopate, as a whole, that the prerogative of infallibility inheres. But apart from the truth or falsehood of this prerogative, every one must see that a body with free discussion and minute investigation of every doubt and scruple, cannot but lead to quite other results than a one-sided query, with a pretty clear hint as to the answer desired. If the divine-human energy-that is, the co-operation of God's Spirit and human freedom-ought visibly to pervade the entire activity of the Church, in this case human freedom was restrained to a very essential extent. Instead of summoning a council, the Jesuit maxim, Divide et impera, was followed. When now the dogmatic decision was so far ready that nothing but its publication was waited for, the Pope called together a considerable number of bishops to Rome,-more, indeed, than had been assembled at many an important council; but he declared expressly that he had not summoned them for the purpose of giving a decision, but only to join in the celebration of the ceremonial of publication.

Accordingly, it is worthy of remark, as a stroke of policy, that the Pope was not allowed to proceed so summarily, but that certain formalities, consultations, congregations, were added, in order thereby to conceal the unusual character of the new method. But for all that the Pope protests expressly that he is assembling no council around. him for the purpose, and in this protest we have the entire new method foreshadowed, that is, the Pope's all-sufficiency for the creation of new dogmas. The previous consultation of the bishops by the Pope is a free act of his own, not enjoined by any law of the Church, and depends entirely upon his arbitrary will.

Indeed, if we now go a step farther, we see that in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, that of the Infallibility of the Pope is already pronounced, nay, more, is already practically applied, already anticipated !!!

According to the foregoing, the Pope, in his plenitude of power, has finally determined and declared the dogma respecting Mary. The Catholic Church has accepted it, and accordingly has solemnly acknowledged the Pope's right to declare it, has set her seal to the divine truth of his dictum, i.e. has proclaimed his Infallibility. Accordingly, it can be nothing more than a mere formality, a simple piece of child's play, if it be desired to promulgate the Papal Infallibility as a dogma in strict form. The article has only to be proposed with the stroke of a pen, and the unanimous assent of all must be assured; for the gainsayer will only need to be asked, 'Why do you believe in the Immaculate Conception of Mary?' Answer, 'Because the Pope has said it. Ergo, he is Infallible. The doctrine of a tacit consent of the Church, which some would gladly interpolate as a saving clause, is a convenient device, but is plainly at variance with the fact, that opinions which have passed current as those of the Church, have never become formal, and consequently binding dogmas, until they have been expressly sanctioned by the next General Council.

This is the serious aspect of the time; this causes the secret fermentation which we find going on in the Catholic Church, when we look at its doctrinal tendencies. The Jesuitical impulses at work in this matter are plain; the Jesuitical interests and those of the Church here coalesce. An ecclesiastical schism on a grand scale was generally looked for, when the new dogma was published, just as when Gunther's doctrinal system was condemned a wide-spread revolt of this powerful school was expected. Neither event happened. And it is well that it did not happen. For what would have come out of it? A separate camp of semi-Catholics, which would soon have collapsed, like Jansenism, for example. But a secret fermentation, a widespread dissatisfaction of the most gifted spirits within the Catholic Church, is the characteristic of our age. The ferment is still a secret one, for men may rather be said to be sensible of the oppressiveness and uncomfortableness of their ecclesiastical condition than to have a clear insight into the Catholic belief and life. It would be a great misfortune if this process of fermentation were to be interrupted by any premature general secession; it must follow its natural course, and lead to the conviction that in Christianity there are only two ways possible, that of the autocratic Papacy, and that of evangelical freedom, -a middle course is impossible. When men are discontented with the Church of the fully developed Papacy, nothing but a transition to the free Evangelical Church is possible.

On the Study of the Indian Question.

THERE is no portion of a modern professor's lectures of greater practical value to those whom he is privileged to address than that in which he seeks to direct the studies of his hearers by giving a brief critical account of the literature of his subject. Until the student is put upon the right track through the pathless forest of books, he is as literally in 'wandering mazes lost' as any child in unknown thicket or coppice, or any ship, without either chart or steersman, in the middle of an ocean. What the steersman is to the ship, or the guide to the child, the lecturer ought to be to his inexperienced hearers. He can, if he be competent, save years of fruitless study to the learner. Placing himself at the point of the different roads along which the members of his class design to travel, he can select the books, or parts of books, which each party will require for the attainment of his object, and by a general statement of the merits and bearings of each work can place the student at an advantage in studying almost equal to that which he himself enjoys in lecturing. The questions, what to read, and what not to read, are as important at this stage as the questions, how to read, and how not.

Now, the duty that the professor discharges to his class, we intend, in the few following pages, as well as our ability will allow, to discharge to all those amongst our readers who wish seriously to study

the Indian question. We shall presume that every one will be glad to know a little more than he already knows concerning one or other of the numerous branches-of this great subject, and we shall presume that very few have read everything that has been written upon it. It will be safer, perhaps, to write as though no one had read anything; we shall then be able the better to reach the two classes of readers, viz., the large majority who read only for the sake of adding to the stores of their information, and the few who wish or are compelled to study with a really practical aim and purpose.

If we were young, or rather, we ought to say, if the reader be young, and has many hours of leisure, combined with an unusual faculty for dulness and tautology, he should, as a first step, read the Koran, with Sale's Preliminary Discourse. There are books which give an account of the Koran, such as White's 'Bampton Lecture,' and others of a similar nature, which would be of use in the critical study of Mohammedanism, but of no practical value whatever for the purpose the student would have in view in reading the Koran as an aid in mastering the Indian question. What we say here, we wish every man who is about to take part in Indian politics during the next six months could read: there is absolutely no book, or collection of books, which will give the reader so wide, so clear, so faithful a clue to the character and the government of our Mohammedan subjects in India as this book of their religion. A resident in Oude, or the north-western provinces, might very soon learn the practical part of the Koran by mixing, as he would be obliged to mix, with those who receive and obey it as the book of their religion and law, but out of India there is nothing that can supply its place. You could no more understand the character of the ancient Jews without the aid of the laws of Moses than you can the character of the disciples of Islam without the laws of Mohammed. It is needless to remark that they are to a true 'believer' infinitely more than the Bible is to the majority of so-called Christians. In fact, there is no analogy between the two books. Christ is our religion. Mohammed is not the religion of the Mohammedans. The book that they believe to be divine in its origin, as we believe the Saviour himself to have been, is to them all in all. Its title, 'Koran,' To be read, is accepted as their first law. When read it is lived as few Christians live the life they have taken up -One word more on this primary source of knowledge. It is, as we have already indicated, the dreariest, the fullest of repetitions, and, we might add, the stupidest of all the books it has been our good fortune to read. Remembering the Night Thoughts,' Mühler on Sin, and some other works in Mr. Clark's 'Theological Library,' we know this is saying a great deal; but the reader need only look through half-a-dozen pages to be convinced of the truth of what we have said. None but one of the family of Dryasdust-who might read Chitty on Conveyancing for the same reason-would think of taking up the Koran from any other motive than a sense of duty or necessity. Yet it is in some places as studded with the peculiar beauties of Eastern literature as are the heavens with stars. It expresses some moral truths with a force inferior to that of

no uninspired writer, not even excepting Milton. It is also the standard work of Arabian literature; its greatest book of genius, and the work that fixed for ever the Arabian tongue. Its service in this respect was not inferior to that performed for German by Luther's translation, for English by the Authorized Version, and for the French by Pascal's Letters. Mohammed publicly and successfully challenged the most eloquent men in Arabia, which was at that time, says Mr. Sale, stocked with thousands, whose sole study and ambition it was to excel in elegance of style and composition, to produce even a single chapter that might be compared with it.

We cannot ourselves pretend to have read any of the laws of the Hindus, nor is it necessary for any but an Oriental scholar to make himself acquainted with all the fables and falsehoods which the Brahmins have denominated their history. For all purposes of information, and for most practical purposes as well, the admirable and succinct summaries contained in Mr. Mill's History of British India,' will be found amply sufficient. It is to be borne in mind that the Hindu laws are not allowed to be read or studied by the common people. None but Brahmins may read them, and their interpretation is authoritative. The Hindu, as Mr. Mill observes, believes that a complete and perfect system of instruction, which admits of no addition or change, was conveyed to him from the beginning by the Divine Being, for the regulation of his public as well as his private affairs, and he acknowledges no laws but those which are contained in the sacred books, but the word of the Brahmin fixes the limit and operation of those laws. In this respect the Hindu differs essentially from the Mohammedan religion, which knows no distinction of ecclesiastical rank or caste. Had it been otherwise, the Suttee would have been an absolute impossibility, for, as Professor Max Müller has established,* it has been maintained by the Brahmins, not by a misinterpretation merely of a passage of the Vedas, but by a positive contradiction of it. The passage which they have held to prove it is now known actually to forbid it. The recent dissemination of this circumstance throughout India, has, perhaps, aided not a little to rouse a high-caste opposition to the continuance of the English rule.

We need scarcely say that there is only one 'History of British India' viz. Mr. Mill's-which is at all capable of yielding satisfaction to any but the most superficial of readers. Mr. Macfarlane's is a useful compilation, but dry, unanimated, and altogether deficient in originality of research. Miss Martineau's, which originally appeared in the form of a series of letters in the 'Daily News,' will be found as practically useless in its contents as it is, to ourselves at least, forbidding in its tone. It is the first history by a lady Deist and Positivist that we have read, and we trust it will be the last.

Mr. Mill's book-of which we may as well now say that a cheap edition is being issued in monthly volumes-is, as far as a general history can be, as comprehensive in its scope as it is exhaustive in its

* Oxford Essays, 1856,