est bona.' Cf. Rom. vi. 20-21: 'For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. But now being made free from sin and become servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.' From another point of view man is free when his powers are realized, when he is unimpeded by the hampering and distorting influence of sin. The Alexandrine view of the human soul is too much that of a monad. It is speculative and metaphysical; emphasizes unduly the separateness of each soul; passes by the influences, natural or divine, which go to make it what it is. Even though Origen believed in the 'solidarity of all that thinks and feels ' (p. 68), yet he has failed to apply his 'masterthought' in the place where it would most have helped him. It supplied him with the idea of analogy afterwards adopted and worked out by Butler; but it does not help him, as it should have helped him, to a better solution of the problems which lie round Free Will and Determinism. Here, as before, he fails from the excessively metaphysical view which he adopts. One word on the Sacramental Theory of the Alexandrines. The opinions of Clement on the subject of the much-contested words, Priest, Altar, Sacrifice, the Body and Blood of Christ, the Power of the Keys . . . were at variance with the spirit of the age' (p. 58). He was, therefore, driven to employ the 'immoral doctrine of Reserve.' There were two types of doctrine-the one the special prerogative of the true Gnostic, the other suitable for a person living the lower life of Faith. For the latter the letter of Scripture was enough. The true priest, the antitype of the priest of the Old Covenant, was the true Gnostic. The one office assigned to the presbyter is that of “making men better," and this is also the special function of the Gnostic' (p. 102). The Eucharist is an allegory. 'The Body is Faith, the Blood is Hope, which is, as it were, the life-blood of faith' (p. 106). Christ is present in the Eucharist in the heart, not in the hand' (p. 107). This is the account given by Dr. Bigg. It has, of course, been contested, but it seems on the whole to fall in with many of his ideas and prepossessions. The Church is one, true, ancient, Catholic, because the doctrine and tradition of the Apostles is one; the heretic who has forsaken her fold has "an assembly devised by man," "a school," a sect," but not a Church' (p. 100). Origen ranked far higher than Clement the authority and privileges of the clergy' (p. 214). The ordinary Christian is a priest only in a spiritual sense; the ordained priest is the vicar of God' (p. 215). He declares, but does not bestow, Absolution, yet he alone has received judgment of souls. The rule of faith which is authoritatively given by the Church is binding on all Christians. It is elaborately stated at the opening of the De Principiis. The language of Origen on the subject of the Holy Eucharist is much more definite than Clement's, much less suggestive of attenuation in the interests of the 'spirit as opposed to the letter.' 'There is a Presence of Christ, but it is a spiritual, and, therefore, in Origen's view, the only real Presence, real precisely because in nowise material' (p. 221). "It was not that visible bread, which He was holding in His hand, that God the Word called His Body: it was the word as a symbol whereof that bread was to be broken" (In Matt. Comm. Series 85, quoted, Bigg, p. 221). May we not see in these doctrines a survival of the Platonic distrust of matter? Dr. Bigg describes Origen's view of Allegorism as 'one manifestation of the sacramental mystery of nature. There are two heavens, two earths-the visible is but a blurred copy of the invisible' (p. 134). This seems to us to be a fair account of Origen's view, but to contain a most inadequate view of a sacrament. We do not deny that the whole sacramental order may be in a sense economical; but surely, while it lasts, the material side is just as real, as important, as true, as the spiritual. The material becomes the vehicle of the spiritual, but conveys its spiritual grace just by the fact that it remains material, and so reaches our senses. As the Body of Christ Incarnate was fully and entirely human, and yet is so united to the Divine Word as wholly to reveal Him to men, so it is with the Holy Eucharist. We cannot insist on the spiritual side of it without also maintaining the reality of its material media. They are not 'blurred copies' of the invisible; they convey it as material vehicles. We have now gone through some few of the points of interest and importance in this work. There are many which space compels us to pass by. We have chosen those which seem to lie nearest to questions of our own time. For the Alexandrine period is in many respects like our own. We also have forced upon us the claims of philosophy based on the interpretation of nature or of thought. We, too, have the task before us of doing what we can to smooth away differences where they arise merely from misunderstanding; of showing how the faith once delivered to the saints has still in it stores of fresh vigour, is still the truest satisfaction of all the highest aspirations of the human mind and will. We do not come forward, as Clement and Origen came forward, to champion a new way, against the angry contempt of older systems. We have to show that our most holy Faith has not become effete, as those old religions did; that it is not, like them, incapable of answering any further demands, or of looking new facts in the face. What, then, can these Alexandrine thinkers teach us as to the best way of fighting our battle? The Church has always looked askance upon the work of Origen, especially in the East. He has been condemned; he has given rise to the fiercest controversy. Clement, on the other hand, has been canonized, though his name was removed from the Roman Martyrologies by Clement VIII. (Bigg, p. 272). Must we say, then, that this is just another of those cases where the Church has been on the side of ignorance, and moralize on the inveterate hatred of superstition for real enlightenment and progress? We think there is a preferable alternative. There is in this careful withholding of unbounded confidence a real and necessary faithfulness to the Rule of Faith; there is in the attitude of Clement and Origen a real unfaithfulness, however little intended, to the Church's Creed. It is true that the Church had to win its victory in the intellectual field as well as in the moral; but it was to be a real victory and not an unconditional surrender. Platonism provided forms, which to some extent the Church could adopt. It developed points of view which were a real gain and help to Theology. But when all is said and done, it was the result of the free investigation of Nature and Thought, and it must in its highest manifestations retain the limitations which belong to its origin. It has no words to express the Faith which is the key to this world and the next. It was this sense of the inadequacy of the solution offered which led the Church to reject it. We cannot but feel that this rejection was right, if we conceive for one moment what would have been the result of the other plan ; the history of the doctrine of Transubstantiation is enough to show the ruinous misfortune of binding the Church to one form, to one stage in philosophy. At the present time we are invited, in view of the present conditions of philosophic speculation, to modify our dogma, to adopt the terms and assumptions of one or another system, and throw overboard all that they will not hold. The Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, even the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, can be held in the old way no more. Philosophy will show us a more excellent way. We have no need to cut ourselves adrift from these speculations, although they may seem menacing; they are the real outcome of the period in which we live, and express much that is true. We shall find, perhaps, that many of our beliefs have an analogy in the philosophic realm, or that our own theology is fragmentary, so that we have brought upon our heads the scorn of philosophers, when a full statement of our point of view would show it to be undeserved. This fault, it is to be feared, is not unknown in the Church of England. Let us not shrink from acknowledging it, so far as it is imputable to us, and let us make amends, not by feebly accepting anything and everything which is offered us, but by a fuller and bolder statement of the Eternal Faith of the Church of Christ. The true theology contains the true philosophy, natural and moral; for in the knowledge of God is all Truth and Eternal Life. ART. IV.-PAPAL INFALLIBILITY By the 1. The Case of Galileo. (Nineteenth Century, May.) REV. JEREMIAH MURPHY. (London, 1886.) 2. The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of them. By the REV. W. W. ROBERTS. (Oxford, 1885.) 3. Essays on the Church's Doctrinal Authority. By WILLIAM GEORGE WARD, Ph. D. (London, 1880.) 4. When does the Church Speak Infallibly? or, the Nature and Scope of the Church's Teaching Office. By the REV. FR. KNOX. (London, 1870.) 5. The Catholic Church and Biblical Criticism. (Nineteenth Century, July.) By ST. GEORGE MIVART. (London, 1887.) 6. Mr. Mivart's Modern Catholicism. (Nineteenth Century, October.) By Mr. Justice STEPHEN. (London, 1887.) 7. Dr. Mivart on Faith and Science. (Dublin Review, October.) By the Bishop of NEWPORT AND MENEVIA. (London, 1887.) IN the May number of the Nineteenth Century, 1886, appeared a rejoinder from the Rev. Jeremiah Murphy to the article by Mr. St. George Mivart, to which we called attention in our issue of January 1886. In commenting on Mr. Mivart's article, we expressed an opinion that, while such an attack upon the Roman ecclesiastical authorities was most improperly made by one professing to be at the same time a loyal and consistent Roman Catholic,' it was nevertheless delivered with such effect that those authorities would find it difficult or impossible to sustain or reply to it. The Rev. Jeremiah Murphy, against whose criticisms in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record Mr. Mivart's article was specially directed, is not of our opinion he rather thinks and, as he deems, clearly demonstrates that Mr. Mivart's parallel then breaks down at all points, and his headlong and unaccountable assault on ecclesiastical authority is a complete, a lamentable breakdown' (p. 735). Even with the new light that Mr. Murphy brings, we are unable to detect a single point at which Mr. Mivart's 'parallel breaks down ;' on the contrary, it is even clearer to us than before that his parallel is well and truly drawn. Partly, then, to uphold the judgment passed in our former article, and partly taking occasion of this discussion to remark upon certain matters connected with the lately decreed Papal Infallibility, we propose again to review the question with the assistance of Mr. Murphy's article. We are chiefly impressed in reading that article by the writer's want of candour, in evading rather than fairly and straightforwardly meeting the argument of his opponent. We venture to say that there is not a single criticism that he makes on Mr. Mivart's presentment of the Galileo case (which he calls a false and distorted version of it) that has not been abundantly and triumphantly anticipated either by Mr. Mivart, or by the Rev. W. W. Roberts in his admirable little work, The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the Earth's Movement. To what purpose would controversy be carried on if, when an argument had been fully and fairly met and refuted, it might again be calmly advanced as if it held the field without dispute? Mr. Murphy is like those combatants in our sham-fights, who obstinately refuse to be 'dead,' no matter how untenable the position they have taken up, or how withering the fire to which they have exposed themselves. He reproduces, e. g., the old objection that heliocentricism is not a matter of faith or morals and therefore does not fall within the scope of Papal Infallibility. What the Pope's opinions may be on matters not revealed or not in any way connected with Revelation . . . need be of no concern to Catholics' (p. 728), as if the Roman authorities would have dealt with the matter at all if it had been ‘in no way connected with Revelation;' as if Mr. Roberts and Mr. Mivart had not over and over again pointed out that the matter at issue was, not the truth of Copernicanism, but the true interpretation of Scripture; as if Dr. Ward, that |