the Great, Venantius Fortunatus, and Bede. Gregory's principal hymn is, "Veni Creator Spiritus;" but the second of the three is the most distinguished of that period, from one of whose hymns the author gives a quotation which furnishes evidence of the "creeping in of a tendency towards the worship of the material cross as early as the sixth century."

We have already expressed our opinion upon this (the "thirteenth") chapter, or Mediæval period, as possessing peculiar merit. To give one or two more extracts from it will necessarily contract the space which can be granted for some passages in the remaining portion of the book.

At the head of the list of "the last and richest of all the periods of hymnology, the Medieval," stands the "royal name of Robert II. of France;" followed by Peter Damian, the Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, Adam of St. Victor, Peter the Venerable, and Thomas à Kempis.

6

"But it was reserved for Archbishop Trench to dig out of the mouldering relics of the past a hymn written by a monk of Clugny, one Bernard de Morlaix, the translation of which, by Dr. Neale, has supplied the Church of every denomination with favourite hymns. The most general name by which it is known is 'Jerusalem the Golden.' The original is a poem of about three thousand lines, called 'De Contemptu Mundi,' a melancholy satire upon the corruptions of the times. The first appearance of it in print is in a collection of poems, De Corrupto Ecclesia Statu,' by Flacius Illyricus, who laboured at that subject, and compiled also a very useful work called Catalogus Testium Veritatis,' or an account of those many 'witnesses to the truth' who sprung up in the bosom of the Church from the earliest ages down to the times of Luther, their works being but a foreshadowing of his. We cannot speak too highly of this poem of Bernard, nor of the merits of Dr. Neale's translation. . . . . The imagery in the original poem is gorgeous; but Dr. Neale has excceded the original in many parts of his translation. . . . . And the whole version forms one of the finest sacred poems in the language." (pp. 359, 360.)

In the hymns of the different periods, as in a glass, is to be seen truly reflected the state of the Church in respect of its doctrine. Now, from the evidence thus furnished, we learn that in the hymns of the fifth and seventh centuries the doctrine held concerning the symbolic nature of the bread and wine agrees with that of the Reformed Church; "but, when we come to the fourteenth century, we have quite a different thing." The depreciation of doctrine in that period is declared in one fact, that "in a collection of hymns of the middle ages, in three volumes, only one volume is filled with hymns to God and the Saviour, the other two being the hymns of later date to the Virgin Mary, the material cross, the Host, and the

Saints. We may here notice an error in the account which the Author offers of the word "Mariolatry." It is found in the following note :

"The idolatrous nature of the worship is indicated by the very etymology of this word, which comes from Mariola,' the word used by the historians for the image of the Virgin. Mariolas super altare positas,' is a frequent expression. Eicλa, the generic term. Είδωλα, which includes images of all kinds, involves in its meaning deception, false appearance, as opposed to 'Eriparea or manifestation of reality. The adoration of eiewλa is simply idolatry, and therefore the adorathe Mari-Aa is nothing more than the idolatry of Mary." (p. 367.)

The word "Mariola," we submit, does not essentially mean the "image" of the Virgin: it is the diminutive of "Maria," and signifies "a little Mary;" so that the expression quoted is to be rendered "little Maries placed on the altar;" figures of the Virgin so small that they could stand there. Alike in the word "mariolatry," and "idolatry," the second component part of the word, "latry," is from λarpevw, "to offer worship to"; "Mario-latry" is the "worship of Mary;"" "idolatry the "worship of images;" the termination "la," in the latter instance, giving way to the same letters accidentally forming the basis-portion of the word λarpeia. It will thus be seen that the idea of the element wλa, as signifying of itself "idolatry," is purely imaginative; and that the third syllable of the word is to be pronounced, not as the suggested derivation would make it, emphatically long, but short, as representing the quantity of the last letter in the word "Maria." And does not the writer misuse the word "catastrophe," when, in the following passage, (which we quote for the almost astounding fact it reveals,) he speaks of the highest point of the 'climax' (this, we presume, he meant both here and when in a later chapter he speaks of the "catastrophe of Transubstantiation") to which the worship of the Virgin had risen?

"There was a still higher Babel of Mariolatry to be erected in the Church, and it may be said to have reached its catastrophe, when psalms and hymns which had been written, and for centuries had been used, in honour of God and Christ, were actually parodied to her glory." (p. 369.)

This almost incredible composition is given in Mone's Collection, and is called the Marian Te Deum. Painfully true is the Author's remark :—

"The theology of our Roman Catholic brethren has what may be termed an deoç tendency-a departure from God; not God's word, but the Father's; not God, but the Saints; not Christ, but the Mother of Christ; an interpolation of many objects between man and the blessed invitation, Come unto me.” (p. 369.)

Great is our regret that, like the Author, we find ourselves "subject to the limitations of space," and must wholly pass over the contents of a subsequent chapter, "The Wiclif Period," which, with that last noticed, may, without depreciation of any other portions of the work, be regarded as the core of the whole investigation.

In concluding our notice of this Volume, without any mention of the chapters which treat of Dunstan, The Saxons, The Anglo-Norman Church, Missal Painting, St. Francis and the Franciscans in England, and the Fall of the Monasteries, we would express a hope that Mr. Hill's volume may find a place in the libraries of institutions and other great collections of books for the use of the public. We think it entitled to become

a standard work, as being a successful "endeavour to investigate the intellectual state of a system hitherto carelessly characterized as the fosterer of dense ignorance and gross superstition," without any redeeming features or counterbalancing qualities. In the words which conclude the account of the fall of monasticism in England, "It was healthy, active, and vigorous; it became idle, listless, and extravagant; it engendered its own corruption, and out of that corruption came death," the Author discovers a moderation which marks the work throughout, but the whole system is unscriptural. God hath said "it is not good for man to be alone;" and if not good for man, it is far worse for woman; all that can be said in its favour amounts to this: that diligent monks are less pernicious than lazy ones.

Five Appendices are followed by a well-prepared Index: to which we may add, that the material and typography of the volume are of the best kind.

IS SCEPTICISM DESIRABLE?

ONE of the leading London periodicals entered into a serious discussion, two or three years ago, concerning the question, Whether Alcohol was Food or Poison? We do not remember, nor do we greatly care, what the conclusion was which the disputants finally reached. We only notice the fact, because it seems to us to have a considerable resemblance to a question which we desire to consider, namely, Whether Scepticism, or a state of Doubt, is a safe and comfortable condition or abode; or whether it is a disease, a calamity, a terrible privation?

The greatest of the apostles speaks of some, in his day, "whose word will eat as doth a canker" (or gangrene).

Many such words have been uttered since St. Paul's time, and some of them by men who had no evil purpose. A single passing thought of the greatest of our living poets is of this class. Very seldom, we believe, has one brief sentence proved so poisonous, as have those well-known words :

"There lives more faith in honest doubt,

Believe me, than in half the creeds.'

The thought will bear no examination, inasmuch as "faith" and "doubt" are opposites. The one destroys and expels the other. Just in proportion as a man harbours doubt, does he lose faith; and, when doubt takes full possession of him, faith is driven out and vanishes. The idea conveyed, therefore, of "faith" and "doubt" dwelling together, is opposed to fact, to reason, and to common sense; but this does not deprive the suggestion of its power. There is a musical attractiveness in the lines, and there is also an adaptation to the secret desire of many hearts, which is in itself seductive. The poet only threw into pleasing words what many were thinking or desiring. He expressed a preference for doubt, as sometimes, or often, better than "creeds." He thus commended scepticism as something good-something to be preferred to belief. Multitudes have eagerly caught at his words; and from the publication of these lamentable lines we may date the open commencement of an age of scepticism, the termination of which no man can foretel; and of the fearful results of which no imagination can form any adequate conception.

Now there are two very different views of a state of doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism; which two views require to be considered apart. Sometimes such a state of mind is represented as inevitable;-a thing which an inquiring and investigating mind cannot possibly avoid; a moral necessity, rather than a fault. That view of the case we do not mean to evade or gloss over. We hope, before quitting the subject, to devote to it a serious investigation. But our present inquiry concerns the other view of scepticism, that which the above lines suggest; namely, that such a state of mind is to be preferred; to be chosen; to be looked upon as a good rather than an evil. This is the question which we wish now to take into consideration. At the present moment, we fear there are thousands of educated men in England, between the ages of twenty and forty,-men who have grown up admiring and almost idolizing Tennyson and Carlyle who have chosen scepticism as their abiding place; who have taken up, if we may so speak, their abode, their rest (!) in doubt. To them, and to that still younger class who are preparing to tread in their footsteps, we propose the serious inquiry-Is Scepticism a good, or an evil? Is it a state

of mind into which a man may, with rationality and an unshrinking heart, cast himself? Or is it not, rather, a fearful evil-a lamentable disease of the mind-a mental condition which demands our pity; and the more so, that from it, as from insanity, there is seen but seldom a thorough return to a state of sound health.

Between these two branches of the subject, the impossibility of not doubting, and the desirableness of a state of doubt, there is one important difference. The necessity of Scepticism, and our inability to escape from it, is a question to be dealt with by argument; but the happiness and comfort of a sceptical state of mind is a subject on which testimony may be received. Undoubtedly a great number of persons, since the first appearance of In Memoriam, have taken up their abode in the regions of Scepticism, willingly and of free choice, as a highly-commended dwelling-place. To all such we may propose the question, as to reasonable men :-" Have you good ground for thinking Scepticism a pleasant and healthy abiding place; or have you hastily and foolishly taken up the idea, because you found it in a stanza of your favourite poem? Was there not testimony to be had-is there not testimony to be obtained now-of those who have given a fair trial to Doubting-land, and whose evidence is free from all suspicion? And, going a step further, may you not extend the inquiry by asking, Have there not been many peaceful and contented people in the world? and, By what means, or in what course, did they find this rest, this happiness?"

Such, in short, is the inquiry into which we wish now, for a short time, to enter. We say that it is abundantly evident, to all who move in general society, that of late years Scepticism has been largely embraced, especially by the young, not as an inevitable evil, but as a positive good ;-as a thing to be chosen, to be taken up willingly, to be regarded as a right, proper, and desirable thing. Now on this point we appeal to Testimony. We say that if this be really so, there must be evidence of the fact within reach. But where shall we seek it? We cannot compile a laborious collection of "Confessions" from all ranks and kinds of sceptics;-to do so would fatigue both ourselves and our readers. We must take the usual, the natural course, of applying to the great leaders and doctors of the sceptical philosophy; and asking them, or some of them, what has been their experience of the uses and enjoyments of Scepticism. If we do not gather an insight into the matter from their testimony, where else shall we seek it?

No name more naturally occurs to the mind, when looking back on the history of Scepticism, than that of David Hume. And what evidence does he offer on the single point respecting which we turn to him?