CORRESPONDENCE.

The Editor begs to remind his readers that he is not responsible for the opinions
of his Correspondents.

MR. DOWLING IN REPLY TO MR. FABER.

MY DEAR SIR,-When I troubled you with my last letter, I fully intended to take no further notice of what Mr. Faber had written, or might write, about the Paulicians. The course which that gentleman was taking seemed better calculated to shew the public the untenable nature of the paradox which he had undertaken to maintain, than any attempt to refute or expose it. But his letter published in your last number obliges me to return to the subject. It contains a passage which prevents my remaining silent.

It appears that Mr. Faber has at last seen fit to read my "Letter on the Paulicians," and has employed your pages as the medium of communicating to the public, and the author, the very low opinion he entertains of its merits. That he should express such an opinion affords me no surprise. It would have been unreasonable to expect him to confess that he had been mooting a point which had been already settled. Whatever may be his success with other people, the controversialist has rarely any difficulty in persuading himself. Our views, moreover, with respect to the use and value of historical testimony (though I beg to have it understood that mine are by no means correctly expounded by Mr. Faber) are so exceedingly different, that we are very little likely to afford satisfaction to each other on any disputed point of history. He will regard mine as common-place and unphilosophical; I must regard his as sophistical and dangerous.

But I am not going to be guilty of such an impropriety as to complain of Mr. Faber's criticising a production which has been before the public for some years; I only regret that he did not put himself in a condition to criticise it before he published his book. It would have prevented much which must have been more unpleasant to him than to me. As to what he is pleased to say of it now, I am satisfied to appeal from his judgment to all well-instructed students of churchhistory; and have only to express a modest suspicion, that Mr. Faber's recent letters in your Magazine have shewn that his opinions on such subjects are not quite infallible.

Mr. Faber's letter, however, insinuates a charge which I must not allow to pass unnoticed. In referring to the form of abjuration which I bring forward in my pamphlet (p. 35) as a strong proof of the Manichæism of the Paulicians, he is pleased to say" His autho rities, we may observe, say only, as he himself quotes them, that the form was drawn up for the use of the converted MANICHEAN; but Mr. Dowling says, that it was the very formula in which the PAULICIAN renounced his errors." And I am accordingly accused of one of

the most miserable shifts of weak and unscrupulous polemics, in arbitrarily assuming this form to have been used at the admission of the Paulicians.

There seems to be a fatality attending Mr. Faber in this matter. In the present instance he is as unfortunate as usual. To his accusation, or insinuation, or suspicion, (for I cannot quite see whether he means to make a charge of folly or knavery,) I give this plain answer: If the title of all the MSS. of the Formula Receptionis had been the same as that given by Cotelerius, it would still be quite certain that the Manichæans intended were the Paulicians; for this very obvious reason, that the document expressly names Paul and John, Constantine, Symeon, Carbeas, and the other Paulician teachers and leaders. But it so happens that the MS. transcribed by Tollius, whose work I had before me when I was writing, is actually intituled, Táğış yɩvoμévn ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀπὸ Μανιχαίων καὶ Παυλικιανῶν ἐπιστρεφοῦσι πρὸς τὴν καθαρὰν καὶ ἀληθῆ πίστιν ἡμῶν τῶν Χριστιανῶν,—i. e., “ Order observed in the case of those who are converted from the Manichæans and Paulicians to the pure and true faith of us Christians ;" and that the editor faithfully copied what he had before him is sufficiently shewn by the fact, that it is plain from his notes that he did not know who the Paulicians were. It is no doubt of great importance to Mr. Faber to get rid of the evidence furnished by this piece; which, whatever he may choose to say, was undoubtedly the form of admitting the Paulicians to baptism, for all the errors renounced in it are of a Gnostic or Manichæan character. So that if, as he would persuade us, the Paulicians did not entertain errors of that nature, they could actually obtain admission to the church without renouncing any of their peculiar opinions. To think this, is truly to suppose a marvellous want of sagacity in the civil and ecclesiastical rulers who had such an extraordinary taste for the use of "flames" and "faggot." It would have been allowing the heretics to slip through their fingers with a simplicity certainly very remarkable in men of such persecuting propensities.

But I heartily wish to have done with this discussion. It is plain that the evidence which has satisfied every scholar who has examined it will have no effect upon Mr. Faber. He is too deeply in love with his witnesses to admit anything against them. He is too deeply pledged to his theory to give up any part of it. He tells us that he has entered upon this subject at considerable length elsewhere. He will do as he pleases; but I cannot help thinking that he would have done better to confine the exhibition with which he has lately entertained the students of history to a periodical work. The maxim is, "Dulce est desipere in loco." He can scarcely expect to increase his reputation with posterity by saddling the defence of a baseless fancy upon a work which has any prospect of perpetuity.

Though I have scarcely to thank Mr. Faber for any unusual measure of courtesy, I may truly say that I write of him "more in sorrow than in anger." I have no childish ambition of triumphing at his expense, and purposely abstain from all allusion to the many topics of his letter which would furnish matter for expostulation and pleasantry. I only add, that it has been extremely painful to me to find

him writing in a tone and upon principles more worthy of a philosophe of the last century than a Christian divine of our own. It was in an evil hour for his fame that, with such a slender provision of the neces sary information, and unacquainted as he is with the very rudiments of historical criticism, he should have ventured to discuss important questions connected with the ecclesiastical history of the middle ages. I am, my dear Sir, yours very truly, J. G. DOWLING. Southgate-street, Gloucester, March 5, 1839.

ON THE SUPPRESSION OF "WAKES."

SIR,-From your Magazine I have learnt that "there are petitions to parliament now under signature," and that "a society is established, with the Bishop of Hereford as patron, for the suppression of Sunday wakes." Now on reading this intelligence two things occurred to me-first, if these assemblies, although as riotous as described, be "wakes," is it wise or proper to apply to parliament about them? or, if they be "bloody routs," why should one on the episcopal bench be singled out to patronise a society for their suppression? As a leader of the forces to quell disturbances, one would have thought that the lord-lieutenant of a county would have been the fittest person. But before we talk of suppressing these meetings, let it be determined whether they are in anywise connected with the ceremonies of the church, whether they may not be an abuse of some of its almost forgotten privileges, or are they the revels of an ignorant peasantry? I Rm the last man that would connive at any riotous assembly of the people on any day; and I do hope, if there be not sufficient power at present in the hands of the magistrates to suppress such meetings, that the legislature will forthwith grant what may be requisite. I feel jealous of any lay interference with anything which regards the church, and I therefore trust her faithful children will pause before they sign any petitions to parliament for its interposition with "wakes." A precedent, however, may be found in the reign of Hudibras, when, in consequence of the prayers "against the Egyptian bondage of holidays," an ordinance was passed to abolish festivals, die Martis, 8 Junii, 1647. But with all due deference to such high authority, and to any interpretation which may be given in some new dictionary in this enlightened age to the word "wake," I cannot divest myself of reverence for those festivals which are described in the first edition of Dr. Johnson as "the feasts of the dedication of the church, formerly kept by watching all night."

Now, if the meetings in Herefordshire are in nowise growing out of any religious relic, why should the clergy and the bishop be so forward to put down what may be better left to the arm of civil power? If, on the other hand, they are some vestige of better things, may not the church, with episcopal power and blessing, remedy the evil? I do hope it may. In the first place, therefore, let us see what a "wake" is; and here I will call attention to the definition of it as given above

"the feast of the dedication of the church, FORMERLY kept by watching all night;" and what is very similar to this is implied in the Welsh word gwylmabsaut, literally meaning, the watch feast of the holy son-i. e., of the patron saint. Bingham states, that the festivals of the martyrs (from which the dedication feast was taken) were always introduced with a vigil. And the connexion between fast and festival is most beautifully brought before us in the last of Mr. Newman's published Sermons, from which I take the liberty of transcribing the following passage:-" This, too, must be said concerning the connexion of fasts and feasts in our religious service-viz., that that sobriety in feasting which previous fasting causes, is itself much to be prized, and especially worth securing. For in this does Christian mirth differ from worldly, that it is subdued; and how shall it be subdued except that the fast keeps its hold upon us, and, while it warns and sobers us, actually indisposes and tames our flesh against indulgence? In the world, feasting comes first, and fasting (qy.?) afterwards." The propriety of this is pointed out by Hooker, with his usual felicity of expression; he says, "It seemeth that fasts have been set as the ushers of festival days, for preventing of those disorders as much as might be, wherein notwithstanding the world always will deserve, as it hath done, blame, because such evils being not possible to be rooted out, the most we can do is in keeping them low, and to create in the minds of men a love towards a frugal and severe life, to undermine the palaces of wantonness."

I trust I have quoted enough to shew that fasts should precede festivals-i. e., "wakes;" and I think it may be fairly concluded that it is from the neglect of one that the other has grown into abuse. So beautifully and intimately do most of the ordinances of our church depend on one another; we may not at once perhaps perceive their utility, and at last we only learn it, not from obedience but from disregard of them. For this reason I should with great reluctance see "wakes" abolished: while they are kept, a hope may exist for the reintroduction of the primitive watch or fast; but if the feast be done away with there will be but little chance of its being ever restored, under any restrictions. There are many things which in themselves seem of little consequence, but from the neglect of which great evils flow. If our saints' days were regularly kept holy, and their vigils properly observed, a greater reverence might grow for holy men and holy things. How many churches are the tombs of martyrs! how many altars have we seen profaned! and with what little respect is the priesthood sometimes treated! Let it therefore be tried, before wakes are put down, whether a strict and proper attention to the fasts, festivals, and vigils of our church may not yet render those feasts subservient to the cause of religion. Let us hope, too, that such a course may be taken, the obvious one for the clergy; and what may not be expected from their exertions, strengthened by the approbation and encouragement of their bishop? But let not all the labour, all the toil, (as is too frequently the case,) be thrown on the clergy; let the gentry, let farmers, keep the fasts, and attend the festivals with their families; it is from their absence that disorder is likely to ensue.

While masters and mistresses are present, the servants must be under some restraint; and if the former were imbued with thorough Christian principles, there would be less fear of the latter falling into excess. It is from the want of the presence of those who have control, of those who from station and from years ought to set an example, that others "run riot;" and I would caution those who enjoy this world's goods, in the words of an ancient father, that "by festival solemnities and set days we dedicate and sanctify to God the memory of his benefits, lest unthankful forgetfulness thereof should creep upon us in the course of time."

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient humble servant,

MILES.

ON THE LITERARY TREATMENT OF ENGLISH CATHOLICS BY ROMAN CATHOLICS.

SIR,-The case which I am about to set before you and your readers is, in part, personal to myself, as it concerns a work of mine," Memoirs of the Council of Trent," &c. It is likewise personal to yourself, as you were pleased to pronounce an encomium upon the work, of which I have gratefully availed myself in every advertisement of it which has appeared. But neither of these facts, or both together, are the chief reason by which I should feel inclined, or perhaps justified, in troubling either myself or the public on such a subject. It is because the case which I shall produce is of a public character, as illustrating the kind of honesty and honour which protestant writers have to expect from authors, particularly professed critics, of the Roman church, more especially if anonymous, that I venture to occupy a portion of your pages with a discussion which might otherwise need an apology.

In a Dublin Review for last year, No. IX. p. 43, at the close of the note, occur the following words: " M. Ranke refrains from quoting Mr. Mendham's Memoirs of the Council of Trent, because, as he justly observes (vol. iii. p. 289), the author of them has not displayed the learning and study necessary for working out his materials." The article is a review of "Ranke's History of the Popes."

I apprehend that any competent reader will interpret this passage as an assertion, in the first place, that Professor Ranke has refrained from quoting the Memoirs; secondly, that he has given as the reason of the alleged omission, that the author failed in certain necessary qualifications; and thirdly, that the necessary qualifications in which he was deficient were, both learning and study.

The reviewer expressly refers to the place of Ranke's history which he professes to represent. It is as follows:

"In Mendham's Memoirs of the Council of Trident findet sich manches neue und gute; z. B., finden wir p. 181, einen Auszug aus den Acten des Paleotto, sogar dessen Einleitungen, selbst zu einzelnen Sessionen, wie zur 20sten; aber es ist nicht das gehörige Studium dahintergesetzt."