LITERARY TREATMENT OF ENGLISH CATHOLICS BY ROMANISTS. 395 I will now give an English translation of the passage, with which a friend familiar with the German language furnished me; as indeed with the original passage, before I possessed the book. "A great deal that is new and good is to be found in Mendham's Memoirs of the Council of Trent-for example, p. 181, we find an Extract of the Acts of Paleotto, particularly his Introductions, even to separate Sessions, as to the 20th; but it has not been backed by the requisite study." It may just be observed, that the French translation, by A. de S. Chéron, agrees as closely as need be with this version, tom. ii. p. penult. And now I freely profess that I feel no dissatisfaction with the judgment of Professor Ranke. He is certainly mistaken in representing a particular passage as an extract from Paleotto; for the whole account of the concluding sessions of the council have for their continued basis the Acts of Paleotto, which are a regular and continued history of the final assembly of the council. The letters of the principal agents of the time form the other principal source. I am convinced, however, that this inadequate representation arose, not from any design, but from the hasty manner in which the author turned over the pages of the Memoirs. It is as well not to hazard a judgment on such examination; but in particular cases it may be excused. To the censure contained in the last sentence I might reply, that the professor is a gentleman not easily to be pleased. He has treated my betters, Sarpe, Pallavicino, Raynaldi, Le Plat, with a hypercritical severity which might well render me contented under my own lash. But the censure is exceedingly indefinite; and I must say that I feel no particular mortification in not coinciding in taste with Professor Leopold Ranke. If he had written his history after more experience, he would, I doubt not, have thought and written in a style very different from that which characterizes his present work. He and his sovereign, like honest men, were full of charity and confidence towards the subjects of the pope. But the archbishop of Cologne has taught them both, as the events of the last ten years have taught us, that the only natural reward of kindness and favour towards true sons of the Italian see is the gratitude of the cherished viper. As to the defects of the Memoirs, of which I am sufficiently sensible, and only wish that the task had fallen into abler, and as willing, hands, I can only say, that my real object was, not to display study or learning, but to give the public information in a simple, straight-forward way, which, it is no affectation to add, would not be otherwise within their reach. And upon this point I am not at all anxious to dwell. Fact, which is plainly fact, must be known. And now, to come nearer to the main point, it is assumed, and really asserted by the Dublin reviewer, that Ranke has refrained from quoting the Memoirs. He clenches the assertion by the following statement, that Ranke's opinion of the work was the reason of the omission. It should be understood that the Memoirs and the first volume (first edition) of Ranke's work were published in the same year, 1834—the Memoirs at the beginning of the year, as far as my recollection serves-Ranke's Popes, of course, as the fact will prove, at a later part of the year. Now it would be nothing very extraordinary, in this case, since the only portion of his history in which he had any concern with Tridentine matters was confined to the first volume, if he had omitted all reference to certain English memoirs of the council: unless, indeed, this view were contradicted by an express assertion of his own, that he had purposely neglected those English memoirs for certain alleged reasons. It is well known by those who have any acquaintance with the Berlin professor's able, but far from faultless work, that his views of the transactions which he records are very summary and sketchy; and that in rather an arbitrary manner as well as degree. It is likewise to be observed, that the author has pretty exclusively confined himself to the MSS. documents to which he had access, generally pretermitting printed and common sources. And it is the fact, that in his brief outline of the two first assemblies of the council of Trent there is no reference to the English memoirs published in the same year, and, in all probability, not till after the first part of Ranke's first volume was in the press and printed. In the account, however, of the third, last, and most important convention of the council, of which the account occurs pp. 329-351 of the first volume, second -edition in 1838, there are three distinct references to the Memoirs, as authority, pp. 334, 344, 345. In the third volume likewise, among the documents, in that the subject of which is Sarpi, p. 276, speaking of a MS. history of Milledonne which he possessed, he adds, "welche auch Foscarini und Mendham kennen." These, added to the reference first adduced, are really even more notice than a foreigner, with so little notoriety and introduction as the present writer can pretend to, could well expect from a distant university. The only wonder with me is, that the work was known at Berlin at all, particularly so early. But now, what becomes of the Dublin reviewer's assertion, that Ranke has refrained from quoting Mr. Mendham's Memoirs, with the reason given by the author for the same? and what becomes of his veracity? The reason for a false assertion falls, together with the falsehood of the assertion, and only serves to render the falsehood double. It will be remembered, that the Dublin reviewer-perhaps throughout he will claim the benefit of an Irish bull-has thought fit, under shelter of the Prussian professor, to impugn the "learning" as well as "study" of the author of the Memoirs. I am not at all concerned to vindicate the learning of that author; but I am concerned to expose to the public the sheer invention, the palpable, interested, calumnious, and, I fear I must add, intentional, falsehood, of the gratuitous addition. The reader who examines well the extract from the Dublin Reviewer will probably admire the dexterous construction of the whole, and the art displayed in it of intertwining so much neutral truth with so much substantial, though similar, untruth, as either to recommend the fabrication in a lump, or provide a point of defence on detection, as the case may require. I cannot, however, conclude without offering the critic my best thanks for the real, though involuntary, compliment which he has paid my work. If there were not something in it calculated to make him LITERARY TREATMENT OF ENGLISH CATHOLICS BY ROMANISTS. 397 and his church feel, I believe he would as gladly have omitted all reference to it, as he feigns the professor of Berlin to have done. I do not take to my learning, or study, or any other quality, the credit of being formidable to the members of the Roman communion; but I well know that nothing is more closely concealed, and more dreaded when exposed, than some of the vital documents of their own church. Nothing which her enemies can say carries so much terror to her heart as the echo of her own words. In the case of a work, then, which is hardly more than such an echo, the point with them (since compulsion as yet is out of the question,) is, to obviate the curiosity especially of their own people as effectually as possible. And this is to be done, not by violent or elaborate censure, which would disclose the feeling excited, and defeat the object, but by an apparently dispassionate and passing remark, which shall impress upon the reader that the work in question is entitled to no particular attention, and may be neglected without any loss of valuable information. The obnoxious author is not to be set upon with sword or pistol, but he is to be quietly smothered with a wet blanket. To do them justice, Romanists have treated their own brethren, on necessity, in the same way. A Watson and a Widdrington, a Berington and a Geddes, have been silently entombed with the observation, as the sub-jesuitic C. Butler would phrase it, "they are not much esteemed by catholics." Even their great historian, C. Dodd, fell within the gripe of a catholic constable, who compelled him to say, that "there is little mercy to be expected" from those who attack the jesuits. He adds, "The cry is, Lord, have mercy upon him: take him, gaoler." Dodd well understood his own church.* Whether the reported be the real conductors of the Dublin Review, I known not, though I believe it. But I certainly had it to learn, that it was so important an object to them to put an extinguisher upon their own most authentic conciliar records, as exhibited in the Memoirs, that, for the sake of attaining it, they were content to deliver up their own veracity, or, what may be dearer to them, their reputation for veracity, to irretrievable contempt. One effect of their inconsiderate liberality is certain and entitled to gratitude-for the future, their world as well as our own will understand the exact value, not only of their judgment, but of their assertion. JOSEPH MENDHAM. Sutton Coldfield. P.S. In my letter on the Papal Index of 1835, which you did me the favour to insert in your last, the oversight is committed of representing Mr. Hallam's Constitutional History as existing in a Latin version. The words Latine vero refer to the title only, which is immediately added, as is usual in similar cases-viz., Blunt's Vestiges and others. Romanists sometimes erect a petty triumph on such foundations. An Apology for the Church History, &c. 1742, p. 202. This, with the "Specimen of Amendments" will doubtless be reprinted by Mr. Tierney. VOL. XV.-April, 1839. 3 F TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. SIR,-In the last number of the Church of England Quarterly Review I observe an article on "The Tracts for the Times," in which the reviewer, in no very mild spirit, though probably much to his own satisfaction, endeavours to invalidate the authority of tradition, the rejection of which, he tells us, was the vital principle of the Reformation; and he dismisses one after another all the primitive fathers, as wholly undeserving of the least attention. It may, however, be matter of some doubt, what are really the views on this subject which are intended to be set forth in this review. On the one hand, the reviewer maintains (with Dr. Shuttleworth) that, the first links being wanting, no addition to the length of the chain will remedy the defect-that tradition is not to be set up (even) as auxiliary to revelation-that he cannot understand how this tradition, assumed to be pure, is to be proved more genuine than the traditionary rubbish which may be read in the patristical pages-that the main point to be decided is the vadidity or invalidity of tradition-that this must be the stand which every one of common sense will take in this dispute -and that there is no point which may be more satisfactorily determined, even if a reference be made to the weary volumes of the fathers; for their credulity will shew that tradition flowing through their pages cannot be regarded as apostolical. On the other hand, he allows that tradition, legitimately employed, is not without its value. And he tells us that, where "we find the obvious purport of the scripture illustrated by the belief and practice of the primitive church, we allow to the fathers the high respect which they deserve." But surely the reviewer must himself be aware that the testimony of these primitive fathers, whom, it seems, he does allow to be deserving of high respect, is valuable, not merely on points where the purport of scripture is obvious, but especially where there is a controversy and dispute. And by a singular felicity in the putting together the contents of this very number of his review, he has himself given us, in another article, a very apposite example of a case in point. In the notice of Mr. Harcourt's volumes on the Doctrine of the Deluge, the reviewer, alluding to the opinions of those who deny the truth of baptismal regeneration, says, "In refutation of these new interpreters of the scriptures, of these men who would understand the minds of the apostles in a way differing from that in which they themselves understood them, Mr. Harcourt examines the doctrine according to the fathers of the three first centuries, and cogently asks, Who are most competent to judge what was the meaning of the language used by the evangelists and apostles? Shall we consult those who lived fourteen centuries after them, or those who lived with them, and conversed with them, and were taught by them, and received from them all their knowledge of Christianity? And if no reasonable man can doubt that their contemporaries were the most capable of conveying to us that instruction, it follows that those whom they instructed were in the best condition for receiving the truth, and transmitting it to their successors in return. The nearer we ascend to the fountain head, the purer will the water flow; the three first centuries, therefore, after the apostles, were more likely to know in what sense the apostles themselves used a theological term, than any three centuries that have since elapsed.' None, it would be supposed, (continues the reviewer.) could be found ready to controvert this sound canon of criticism; but such unfortunately there are." Does the reviewer mean to class himself as one of the unfortunate controverters of a sound canon of criticism? Does he mean this as a gentle hint that we are not to pay the least attention to what he writes in his other article about tradition? Again, the reviewer with great simplicity observes, "Modern systems of theology have perplexed what before was simple; we must therefore look to the unsophisticated Christianity of the primitive church." Excellent indeed; the tradition of the primitive church may then be made auxiliary to revelation-the volumes of the fathers, if weary, are yet useful for settling the disputes between theologians. Has the reviewer then found the first link, which he thought was wanting? Has the patristical rubbish been cleared away, and have some valuable materials been discovered? Is the credulity of the fathers suddenly changed into a wholesome faith in apostolical teaching; so that tradition flowing through their pages may be regarded as apostolical? Again, the reviewer tells us that, “Mr. Harcourt may fairly be said to have set the subject of baptismal regeneration at rest; for it is impossible for any one of contrary opinions to overthrow the evidences which he has collected. Feeling the strength of these evidences, he rightly urges, that the four first centuries of Christianity are better interpreters of the sense of any controverted term used by the apostles, than Zuingle or Calvin, who lived more than a thousand years after them. This continuous stream of unanimous testimony from the apostolic uge downwards sweeps every objection before it." And I think, in the general sweep, we may believe that the reviewer's favourite position, as stated above, "that the rejection of tradition was the vital principle of the Reformation," has been irrevocably lost. I trust, however, that the reviewer himself was not endangered in the flood, though he does tell us, that "every one of common sense" was to take his stand on this very point-" the invalidity of tradition." Your space will not admit of my enumerating the happy juxtaposition of bane and antidote in this number at greater length. I shall conclude with simply asking, "if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" and also, whether it would not be advisable, before he assumes to direct the views of the public on a point of such importance, that the Editor of the Church of England Quarterly should have some definite views of his own? I remain, Sir, yours truly, F. F. ON RATING TITHES. DEAR SIR, The pages of the "British Magazine" have, from its commencement, been most liberally open to fair and gentlemanly discussion; and I should regret much if it were considered that I had transgressed in my observations upon the rating question against such rules. I am not aware that I have written in the spirit of" crimination," or personal dispute. My object has been simply to make known the true bearings of a most important question; and with this |