expressed by the word to. Indeed, we know not what made to an image or likeness means. The phrase has for us no meaning. The Douay translators seem to have been better acquainted with Latin than with English, and to have supposed that to preserve the literal sense they must transfer instead of translating the Latin idioms.

The Critical and Explanatory Notes of each successive volume appear to us to increase in value and importance. Though brief, and presented without any parade of learning, they really serve to elucidate the text, and actually aid us in understanding especially the literal sense of the Sacred Writings. They embody the essence of whole libraries on Biblical criticism, and give the reader the earliest as well as the latest fruits of Biblical studies. Any one who really examines them will be struck with the variety, extent, and thoroughness of the author's erudition, which, as far as we are competent to judge, is very nearly exhaustive. We have heard objections to many of the Notes that they are taken from Protestant authors. The Notes taken from Protestant authors are not doctrinal; they relate neither to dogma nor to morals, but to the literal sense of the words and phrases, and are simply critical and historical. Cicero was a heathen, but Cicero was a tolerable master of Latin. It is not easy for us to understand why a Protestant may not be as good a grammarian, and as good a philologist as a Catholic, or why their heresy need hinder them from learning the geography, the natural and civil history, or the natural productions of the Holy Land. Indeed being less engrossed with the doctrines, the morals, the great truths of religion contained in the Holy Scriptures, they may in regard to the external facts which elucidate their literal sense be even superior to Catholics, because free to pay more attention to them. In the doctrinal interpretation of the Scriptures we place of course, no confidence in Protestant writers, but in purely literary criticism there is no reason that we can understand why a Protestant should be inferior to a Catholic, or his authority be less. In what relates to the text and the elucidation of its literal sense the Protestant may stand to the Bible as to Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, or Horace. Protestants have even stronger motives than we to the study of Biblical criticism; for to a great extent their belief or no-belief depends on it, as the Bible is their rule of faith, while we have our rule of faith in the teachings of the Church, and should have the whole faith, the whole word of God, and the infallible means of knowing it, even if the Scriptures were totally lost; and it cannot be denied that Protestants in modern times have taken the lead in those historical, geographical, philological, and other researches which have contributed so much to the elucidation of the Sacred Text. Even in our own history, especially of the Middle Ages, in the

elucidation and defence of the medieval Church, Protestant writers have preceded us and opened the way to Catholic historians. Catholics in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries were as severe against the Middle Ages as non-Catholics; and it was not till Protestant writers published their elucidations of those ages, that Catholics found that it was no dishonor to own them; and even among Catholics, laymen have preceded the clergy in vindicating the memory of our ancesters. Honor to whom honor is due. Where Protestant authors have really contributed towards elucidating the Sacred Text and its literal sense, let us not hesitate to avail ourselves of their labors. The Israelites, under the direction of Moses, bore away with them the spoils of the Egyptians, and the early Fathers drew largely from Gentile learning and philosophy. We think the complaints we have heard against the Archbishop for his free use of Protestant authorities in his Notes is unjust, and the result of a false or narrow view of the question.

The fear, if we cite those authors, we shall induce our own people to study their works, we think is groundless, but even if it should have that effect, it would not in our judgment be productive of any mighty harm. The day has gone by, if it ever existed, when we can keep people wedded to the truth by keeping them in ignorance of what is said against it by those who have separated from it. Our own people in this country read more Protestant than Catholic works, and even the yellow covered literature, and the "Sensation Novels," find relatively as many readers among Catholics as Protestants, just as the Catholic population furnishes its full share of the rowdyism of our larger cities. Let us not "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel," devour what is most corrupt in Protestant literature, and be scandalized at the use a Biblical scholar may make of philological, historical, and other elucidations of the Sacred Text offered by grave and learned Protestant authors. Then, it is possible that the Most Reverend Archbishop is as good a judge of the danger or no danger of citing Protestant authors in his Notes, as those who complain of him. We should be intolerant of error, but never bigoted or narrow minded. We should be earnest and fearless in defence of the faith once delivered to the saints, but it is not necessary that we should deny all common sense and common honesty, in the natural order, to those who remain out of the Church. We owe no mean portion of the best part of our intellectual culture to the study of the Greek and Roman classics, and one of the common-place arguments in defence of the Church against our age is, that she preserved the chief elements of the Græco-Roman civilzation. And yet, if we are not out in our history, the Greeks and Romans were not Catholics, but pagans and idolators.

Catholics of to-day are obliged, more than ever, to enter on the

study of Biblical criticism, and master the science of Hermeneutics. To the Biblical scholar, then, you must allow full liberty to borrow light, and take facts wherever he finds them. On this point some among us are, in plain English, a little hidebound, or rather, very much hide-bound; and to the natural difficulties in the way of the Biblical scholar, add those of narrowminded fears and prejudices of his own friends. There are men whose whole souls are incrusted all over with Protestantism, who hardly speak or write without showing themselves steeped in the materialism of the age, who yet are shocked when a Catholic cites on a purely literary question a Protestant author. They are afraid that if such an author is named without an anathama being hurled at him, it will be all over with orthodoxy. We have no patience with these people. They will neither enter into the truth themselves, nor suffer those that would to enter.

As far as we are competent to form an opinion on the subject, the Archbishop has in no instance abused his liberty as a scholar, and we for one are most grateful to him for his revision of the Douay version, especially for the learned and instructive Notes he has added. We have no doubt that, unless prevented by the interests of booksellers who have already no small capital invested in editions of the Common Douay Bible, his revised version will soon become the one in general use among English-speaking Catholics. We at least hope such will be the case, for, although not quite satisfactory to us, it is by all odds the best and most authentic representation of the original written word of God to be found in our language. The work deserves every encouragement the public can give it, especially since the much-talked-of new version, under the auspices of Cardinal Wiseman and Dr. Newman, seems likely to be indefinitely postponed.

14. The War in Nicaragua. Written by WILLIAM WALKER, with a colored Map of Nicaragua. Mobile: GOETZEL & Co. 1860. 12m. pp. 431.

THE papers reported sometime prior to the publication of this volume, that its author, with every mark of piety and sincerity, had been received into the Catholic Church. We think their report must have been unfounded, for we have seldom read a volume so steeped in heathenism, or in which there was such a total abstinence of all recognition of the most common and rudimentary principles of religion and morality. Its impudence and moral obtuseness, are sublime. The unprovoked invasion of a state for the avowed purpose of plundering its inhabitants and reducing them to slavery, cold-blooded murder, robbery, pillage, and the reduction of a free people to slavery in the view of William Walker, are virtues which entitle one to the favor of Heaven and the grati

tude of mankind. But after all, William Walker only impersonates the doctrines sanctioned by a considerable portion of the Democratic, and perhaps in principle by the Republican party. The New York Tribune, the leader of the Republican party, approves the filibustering operations of Garibaldi in Sicily, and Lord John Russell, her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs, compared a few days since in Parliament, Walker to his favorite hero, William, the Dutch king of England.

Indeed, the world seems to have reversed the laws of morality. Filibusterism is the order of the day. To invade with a lawless band of freebooters and ragamuffins a weak state, and stir up. the disaffected to rebellion, pillage, and murder, is in our modern vocabulary noble, virtuous, patriotic, heroic, divine; while for lawful authority to resist them, and to do its best to defeat them and defend the sacredness of territory, and the rights of order is tyranny, downright, blood-thirsty cruelty, calling for the intervention of foreign nations to avenge it. Filibusterism is seated at Paris on an imperial throne, on a royal throne at Turin, and is applauded in the British Parliament, and glorified by almost the unanimous voice of the British and American press. The Emperor Napoleon's war in Italy, was in principle, a filibuster operation, and avowedly in aid of that royal filibuster, Victor Emmanuel. Garibaldi's filibuster operations in Sicily, have the sympathy of the so-called liberals throughout the world. Walker is no worse, only less powerful, than my Lord John, and we cannot single him out for blame. Democracy has degenerated into filibusterism. Parliamentarism is rapidly becoming, under the influence of the press, that curse of modern society, filibusterism; royalism and cæsarism are steeped in it, and yet we pretend the age is advancing in intelligence, civilization, virtue, humanity. But it is idle to declaim. The world is in a drunken fit, and Satan is busy to prevent it from becoming sober. Perhaps he will succeed, perhaps not. There is little we can do, for the voice of reason cannot be heard amid the bacchanalian yells that deafen us.

15. The Life of Cardinal Ximines. By the REV. DR. VON HEFELE, of Tübingen. Translated from the German, by the REV. CANON DALTON. Baltimore: Murphy & Co. London: Catholic Publishing Company. 1860. 8vo. pp. 581.

We welcome most heartily this work in an English dress. It is a work of high merit, of rare learning and great ability, worthy alike of its distinguished author, and of its illustrious subject, the great Cardinal of Spain. But we received it at too late a day to be able to do more at present than simply to announce it. We shall speak of it at length and of some of the important topics it presents in our Review for October next.

BROWNSON'S

QUARTERLY

REVIEW.

OCTOBER, 1860.

ART. I.—Annales de Philosophie Chrétienne. Dirigé, par A. BONNETTY. Paris. Monthly. 8vo. March, 1860.

NOTHING is more certain, as Gioberti has observed, than that there is, and has been for the last two hundred years, in Catholic as in non-Catholic schools, no philosophy properly so called. True, there is something taught in our colleges and universities under the name of philosophy, but it is for the most part, as an eminent American prelate remarked to us one day in conversation, simply "some fragments of Catholic theology badly proved." Our Catholic professors generally profess to follow St. Thomas, whom some of them may have really read, at least in part, but there are hardly any two of them who agree in giving the same interpretation to his language. Padre Ventura makes him a decided Traditionalist; Mr. Bonnetty insists that he was an out-and-out Rationalist; Père Gratry finds that he was an Inductivist; the Abbé Maret suspects that he was a Sensist; one holds that he was a Conceptualist, another that he was a Nominalist, and still another that he was virtually a Realist; this commentator makes him an Ontologist, and that, with equal reason at least, makes him a Psychologist. In fact, we are very much in the position as VOL. I.-No. IV.

28