I

what is beautiful and brilliant in the arts of sculpture and painting.... but the terms 'joli,' 'gentil,' and 'propre' are made use of, like charity, to 'cover a multitude of sins'.........or, aberrations from true taste. scarcely stopped a minute in this chapel," &c.-Dibdin's Tour in France and Germany, i. 227.

Our youthful clerics, in defence of such figures and their muslin finery, argue that they have seen them in the churches of Rome itself. True; but in what churches there? In St. John Lateran's, in St. Peter's, in St. Mary Major's, in the Pope's Chapels at the Vatican and Quirinal? Never. Though not always, yet in most instances, these dressed-up figures of the Madonna are to be found in those churches belonging either to nuns, or to friars, and frequented by the lower classes. In ecclesiastical ornament, as in other things, there are two styles-the vulgar, and the refined; the first childish, the latter elevated and dignified. In Italy-in Rome, if you ask any well-educated pious clergyman about these tawdry images, ten to one but he will say to you that they are "roba di frate-roba di monaca,"-friars' stuff, nuns' stuff.

There is nothing in the rubrics to warrant the use of such doll-like figures. Let us hope that for the future our devotion may be no more disturbed, Protestants' feelings no more be pained, and good taste no more shocked by the presence in any of our churches or chapels of such extraordinary figures. DUNSTAN.

CATHOLIC EDUCATION.

To the Editor of the "Catholic Magazine and Register."

SIR.-That Catholic Poor Schools are not so generally supported as they should be is a fact-an unhappy, but a certain fact. Why this supineness to bestow knowledge upon the poor exists, it is difficult to say. That the Catholic Faith is against this ignorance, we know; but that many of the London Catholics are neglectful of their poorer brethren, we while regretting, must admit.

In a report of a School now before us, "The Islington Catholic Poor Schools," schools situated in a locality crowded with poor Catholics, and locality abounding with rich sectarians of all denominations, who proselyte largely by means of children, we find, with regret, that the annual subscriptions to these schools are but £59. 15s. 4d., and this of a congregation of upwards of two thousand Catholics. And how is this £59. 15s. 4d. raised? Not by a two shilling subscription from the entire body, but by two subscribers of £2. 2s. per annum, forty-one subscribers of £1., twenty of 10s., and five subscribers under that amount. Yes; of two thousand people to whom the schools naturally look for support, sixty-eight respond to the appeal.

Let us, in the first place, take a glance at the expenses of that school, and we will not take into consideration a sum of £47. 11s. expended for desks and other charges, but confine ourselves to what must be paid. A master and a mistress £60. per annum; coals, candles, and sundries, £14. 3s. 6d. ; books and printing to £8. 18s. Total annual expenditure, £83. 1s. 6d.. for necessaries, absolute necessaries alone.

This is the annual expense, with no provision for wear and tear of building, stoves, &c. What are the receipts? Just £59. 15s. 4d.

How then is the deficiency obtained? By lotteries and tea meetingsthings good enough in themselves, but not such as schools should rely upon for support.

It may be said, why the children pay! Yes, they do pay. In the report before us, we find that with an average of weekly attendance of 75 boys and 60 girls, the receipts for school-fees (one penny per head) have been £17. 88. in one year.

If the children's parents can't pay, Great Heaven! is it Catholicism to refuse admission to their children? to cast them in the street to become the prey of thieves and sharpers? to surrender them to the cares of Wesleyan ministers, or Church of England teachers? Are we to destroy souls in this manner? Is a child not worth one penny per week to be damned by the fault of its poverty, or the neglect of its parents? Are we only to preach and not to practise charity? Is the exhortation of St. Paul to be thrown away upon us?

Connected with schools there is another matter calling for the Catholic's strict attention. It is the establishment of a Clothing Fund with the schools, from which fund clothes shall be given to the deserving and the diligent poor. Now how stands the matter? The child is without boots, without coat or frock. The parents are too poor to provide these garments. The school has no funds. Dissenting men, blessed with wealth, step in-" Send your child to our school, we will teach it; send it to us, we will clothe it; send it to us, we will not interfere with its faith." The parent yields. It wishes its child to be taken from the darkness that now surrounds it. Parental solicitude longs for it to be clothed. The child goes amongst those who are taught to laugh at the holiness of its creed, and the sanctity of our Faith. It listens-It imbibes-It is but a child-It scoffs!

And all this, because a few shillings yearly are not spared by every family, by every one of a family in the congregation.

The Catholic poor are, especially in London, the poorest of the poor; their positions in life are such that, unless helped forward, they must ever be dragged down. Why are they to be debarred from the same aspiring hopes as protesting bodies? Why is a poor Catholic to be denied advantages other poor people possess? There is nothing physically wrong in his construction; his tastes are the same. It is because exertion is not sufficiently made, the blessings of education not bestowed upon him; because he, not nourished and supported, but left to grow or die, to bloom or not, without a helping hand being extended to aid him.

Ignorant educated people say, "Oh, the poor man is well grounded in his faith; there is so much devotion amongst the poor; they will never swerve from the faith of their fathers; they are so pious, so firm in their belief."

And because they are so, the educated savage, for he is nothing better, leaves them Catholics and leaves them to starvation. A vast number of our poor can neither read nor write : who will now employ an errand boy or a labourer who cannot do both? If labour is denied them and they thieve, the laws of their country and of their Church justly punish them: but who is first to blame? Those who neglect to educate. This is no state question, but purely a Catholic one. Knowledge is offered them from other sources; they must either reject it and starve, or accept it and renounce the faith of Christ.

The report of this Islington School is, we have but little doubt, but the statement of many. How they raise money is, we fear, how all obtain it. Those who can give will not; those who have it not cannot. And yet where is the man or woman who cannot spare one shilling in three months? and eight thousand shillings would be an enormous income for a Catholic Poor School. Earnestly, therefore, Sir, would we press upon the attention of every Catholic the necessity of supporting their Poor Schools. It is a duty they owe to their Saviour, who "suffered little

children to come unto him." It is a duty they owe to society, for to educate is, in reality, to prevent crime. It is a duty due to the faith they profess, for by education is the strong arm of heresy beaten to the dust. A duty due at once to their God, their Church, their neighbour. Who will be backward in the work?

The children must be taught, must be clothed; the work of education must be undertaken; for, in the words of the amiable and talented priest, the Rev. F. Oakeley, whose address is prefixed to the Report before us:"A work truly it is, than which I know none so worthy of a devoted and enterprising zeal. A great work again and glorious, to stem the tide of heresy and infidelity which is inundating our country, even though our conversions to the faith be few and far between, instead of being, as in primitive times, by thousands in a day. And yet let us not pursue even this object, except secondary to the preservation of our Catholic children, whose loss is not compensated in importance, or even in amount, by any accessions which Almighty God has hitherto granted us from the ranks of Protestantism."

With these words of the Rev. Mr. Oakeley before us, we say to the Catholics of London—educate, educate, educate. T. W. R.

ECCLESIASTICAL INTELLIGENCE.

GORHAM V. THE BISHOP OF EXETER -The judgment in this important appeal, which has been looked forward to with so much interest by the public, was pronounced at two o'clock on Friday by the Judicial Committee of Privy Council. The members of the committee present were the Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord Campbell, Lord Brougham, Lord Langdale, Dr. Lushington, Mr. Pemberton Leigh, and Sir Edward Ryan. The Earl of Carlisle, Lord Monteagle, Sir David Dundas, Mr. Labouchere, the Chevalier Bunsen, Dr. Wiseman, and many other persons of distinction were seated within the bar. There was also a considerable number of ladies present, and the court room of the Privy Council never, perhaps, on any former occasion presented a more crowded and animated appearance. None of the Protestant Bishops were present, but a great number of their Clergy, such as Messrs. Dodsworth, Wilberforce, Maspell, Denison, &c., &c.

Lord Langdale delivered the judgment. He began by stating that the two Archbishops concurred in the judgment, but that the Bishop of London did not concur. He then stated the history of the case, and the mode of proceeding, which was objectionable, as it ought to have been by plea and proof, so as to have brought out the doctrines of the parties. Mr. Gorham had undergone a protracted examination from the Bishop of Exeter, in the course of which, to a long series of questions, very cautious and guarded answers had been given. However, the doctrine held by Mr. Gorham appeared to be this-that Baptism is a Sacrament generally necessary to salvation, but that the grace of regeneration does not so necessarily accompany the act of Baptism that regeneration invariably takes place in Baptism; that, without reference to the qualification of the recipient, Baptism is not itself an effectual sign of grace. That infants baptised, and dying before actual sin, are certainly saved, but that in no case is regeneration in Baptism unconditional. The question which we have to decide is not whether these opinions are theologically sound or unsound; but whether they are contrary or repugnant to the doctrines which the Church of England, by its Articles, Formularies, and Rubrics, requires to be held by its Ministers, so that upon the ground of those opinions the appellant can lawfully be excluded from

K

the benefice to which he has been presented. This opinion must be decided by the Articles and Liturgy; and we must apply to the construction of those books the same rules which have long been established, and are by law applicable to the construction of all written instruments. It appears, that from the first dawn of the Reformation until the final settlement of the Articles and Formularies, the Church was harassed by a great variety of opinions respecting Baptism and many other matters. The Church, having resolved to frame Articles of Faith, as a means of establishing consent touching true religion, must be presumed to have desired to accomplish that object as far as it could, and to have decided such of the questions then under discussion as it was thought proper, prudent, and practicable to decide; but it could not have intended to attempt the determination of all the questions which had arisen or might arise: and in making the necessary selection from those points which it was intended to decide, regard was had to the points deemed most important to be made known to the members of the Church, and to those questions upon which the members of the Church could agree; and that other points were left for future decision by competent authority, and, in the meantime, to the private judgment of pious and conscientious persons. Under such circumstances, it would perhaps have been impossible to employ language which would not admit of some latitude of interpretation: the possible or probable difference of interpretation may have been designedly intended, even by the framers of the Articles themselves; and in all cases in which Articles, considered as a test, admit of different interpretations, it must be held, that any sense of which the words fairly admit may be allowed, if that sense be not contradictory to something which the Church has elsewhere allowed or required; and in such a case it seems perfectly right to conclude, that those who impose the test, command no more than the form of the words, employed in their literal and grammatical sense, conveys or implies; and that those who agree to them are entitled to such latitude or diversity of interpretation as the form admits. If there be any doctrine on which the Articles are silent, or ambiguously expressed, so as to be capable of two meanings, we must suppose that it was intended to leave that doctrine to private judgment, unless the Rubrics and Formularies clearly and distinctly decide it. If they do, we must conclude that the doctrine so decided is the doctrine of the Church. But, on the other hand, if the expressions used in the Rubrics and Formularies are ambi guous, it is not to be concluded that the Church meant to establish indirectly as a doctrine, that which it did not establish directly as such by the Articles of Faith-the code avowedly made for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion. He proceeded, therefore, to examine the Articles and Prayer-book, "for the purpose discovering what it is, if anything, which, by the law of England, or the doctrine of the Church of England as by law established, is declared as to the matter now in question; and to ascertain whether the doctrine held by Mr. Gorham, as we understand it to be disclosed in his examination, is directly contrary or repugnant to the doctrine of the Church." Considering, first, the effect of the Articles alone, it is material to observe, that very different opinions as to the Sacrament of Baptism were held by different promoters of the Reformation; and that great alterations were made in the Articles themselves upon that subject. The Articles about religion, drawn up in 1536, state that infants ought, and must needs be baptised; and, that by the Sacrament of Baptism, they do also obtain remission of their sin, and the grace and favour of God. Insomuch as infants and children dying in their infancy shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not. The Articles of 1552 and 1562, adopt very different language from the Articles of 1536, and have special regard to the qualification of worthy reception. The Twenty-fifth Article of 1562 distinctly states, that in such only as wor

of

thily receive the same, the sacraments have a wholesome effect or operation. The Article on Baptism speaks only of those who received it rightly; and, with respect to infants, instead of saying, like the Articles of 1536, that "they obtain remission of their sins by Baptism, and that, dying in their infancy, they shall be undoubtedly saved thereby, and else not;" it declares only, "that the Baptism of young children is in anywise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ;" stating nothing distinctly as to the state of such infants, whether baptised or not. The Articles of 1536 had expressly determined two points. 1. That baptised infants dying before the commission of actual sin were undoubtedly saved thereby. 2. That unbaptised infants were not saved. The Articles of 1562 say nothing expressly upon either point, but state in general terms that those who receive Baptism rightly have the benefits there mentioned conferred. What is signified by right reception is not determined by the Articles. Mr. Gorham says that the expression always means a fit state to receive-viz., in the case of adults, "with faith and repentance," and in the case of infants," with God's grace and favour." On a consideration of the Articles, it appears that, besides this point, there are others which are left undecided. It is not particularly declared what is the distinct meaning of the grace of regeneration-whether it is a change of nature, a change of condition, or a change of the relation subsisting between sinful man and his Creator. Upon the points left open, differences of opinion could not be avoided; and that such differences among such persons were thought consistent with subscription to the Articles, and were not contemplated with disapprobation, appears from the Royal declaration, now prefixed to the Articles, and which was first added in the reign of King Charles I., long after the Articles were finally settled.

He then proceeded to consider the case as affected by the formularies, first observing that there were parts of the Prayer-book which were strictly dogmatical, parts which were instructional, and parts which consisted of devotional exercises and services. On the latter, he laid down this rule :-"It seems to be properly said that the received formularies cannot be held to be evidence of doctrine without reference to the distinct declarations of doctrine in the Articles, and to the faith, hope, and charity by which they profess to be inspired; and there are portions of the Liturgy which it is plain cannot be construed truly without regard to these considerations." He instanced particularly the Burial Service, which expressed sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life," though it was read over all who were not excommunicated. Some of them, clearly, might have died impenitent. The assertion, therefore, in that formulary, could not be unconditional; and the other formularies, such as that of baptism, must be construed on the same principle. In the office for the administration of the public baptism of infants, first comes a prayer for the infant, that he (being delivered from wrath) may be received into the ark of Christ's Church; another prayer, that the infant coming to God's holy baptism may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration. Before the ceremony is performed, the sponsors are questioned, and make their answers; and then comes the prayer, in which it is said, “Regard, we beseech Thee, the supplications of this congregation; sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin; and grant that this child now to be baptised therein may receive the fulness of Thy grace." Thus studiously in the introductory part of the service, is prayer made for the grace of God. After the baptism has been administered, the Priest is directed to say, "Seeing now that the child is regenerate, and grafted into the Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits:" and after repeating the Lord's Prayer, thanks are thus given" We yield Thee hearty thanks, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate