balance between what seemed conflicting claims of duty, was thought on the whole less likely to edify than to startle. The object of the work not being historical nor literary, but immediately practical; not to record facts, which are as they are, and which it may be a duty to exhibit in their true colours, however unacceptable, nor to discharge an office of editorial fidelity, (what is given being intended, not to suggest certain conclusions only indirectly practical, but to supply a manual for devotional use,) it was felt right to introduce nothing which the Editor could not recommend to all others, as well as receive himself. The consequence has been, that passages have been here and there omitted, not on doctrinal grounds, (which do not come into question in this particular work,) but as somewhat more extreme instances of the principle, now sought to be vindicated, than, it was felt, would carry their own justification with them, at least till the principle itself be more generally understood and recognised. And perhaps it may without presumption be hoped that the blessed Saint with whose work these liberties have been unwillingly taken, will acquit, at least of all intentional irreverence towards himself, this seeming act of it: hazarded, as it is, at all events in that spirit of charity which he illustrated, and with the hope of furthering those sacred ends of unity and peace, to which, as we cannot doubt, he would desire to contribute."-p. xxxi.

To one who recollects the liberties which this Life of Christ takes with the word of God-and in this extract Mr. Oakeley has fully and deliberately committed himself to them all-this last sentence will appear so extraordinary as to make one question whether the writer can be sane. For how any Christian of sound understanding could write so concerning such a work, is wholly inexplicable. However, Mr. Oakeley has spoken candidly; and whatever may be the opinion which other Christians shall entertain of the book, in the translation he has introduced nothing which he "could not recommend to all others, as well as receive himself." What he has left out, it seems, has not been omitted "on doctrinal grounds... but, as somewhat more extreme instances of the principle [of meditation] now sought to be vindicated, than, it is felt, would carry their own justification with them, at least till the principle itself be more generally understood and recognised"-which it is sincerely hoped it never may. But what must Mr. Oakeley have omitted, if he has left out things more improper and shocking than what he has retained? And, what is not a little remarkable, there is another passage in this introduction which looks as if he were not quite satisfied with resting the defence of everything in this book on the theory of meditation. The passage is well worth transcribing as an illustration of the manner in which this school misapply the promises of Holy Scripture to suit their present purpose:

་

"Why should it seem a thing incredible' to us, who know that the Holy Spirit is straitened in His communications of Divine Truth by nothing but our want of faith and holiness, that, in ages of greater faith than our own, points other than those expressly recorded in Scripture, though illustrative of them, should have been even supernaturally imparted to men of mortified lives, such as our author, giving themselves up wholly to prayer? But if this appear to some too hard a saying, then let us consider whether we have any settled confidence in such promises as ' If any man will do My will, he shall know of the doctrine ;' or, ' Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God;' or,' God will reveal even this unto you.' Or, to take the lowest ground, and treat the question as one of mere secondary causes and effects, I suppose that habitual and reverential study of Holy Scripture, such as we know that men like St. Bernard, or St. Bonaventure, practised, will be allowed to give them, and such as they, a strong claim upon our respectful and attentive hearing in any views

which they may have propounded upon the hidden meanings of the inspired text, or the probable, though unrecorded, words and actions of Him, who, as we know, both said and did more than the very world itself would contain, besides all which we have been expressly told in Scripture concerning Him."

Now really it would be very sad to think that many persons could be imposed on by such wretched sophistry. If there be such thing in the world as truth, and if falsehood be wrong and criminal-to alter any historical document, to invent facts and supply words and actions at the caprice of one's own imagination, is a violation of truth and a sin. And to speak plainly, without saying or thinking uncharitably, it does look but too like the way a man goes on when he is endeavouring to argue with his conscience, this attempt of Mr. Oakeley's to mystify his reader and himself by saying-how do we know that these things were not supernaturally imparted to St. Bonaventure ?—and why are we not to attend to such men as Bonaventure and Bernard, when they propounded views on the hidden meanings of the inspired text, and "probable though unrecorded words and actions"? Now, to all this the answer is plain, that their "unrecorded words and actions" are not propounded as views or as supernatural discoveries, but as meditations and flights of imagination; and to adopt such explanation in this apologetic tone seems to betray a secret consciousness that these arts of meditation are not quite so laudable, or even so easily justi. fied, as their advocate would fain persuade himself. As to the application of such promises as "If any man will do my will, he shall know of the doctrine;""Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; "and "God shall reveal this to you"-it is such a palpable and gross perversion of Holy Scripture that it cannot be considered as anything short of great irreverence and a very flagrant violation of truth, even if it had not been resorted to merely to serve a turn, and justify conduct which common sense and conscience must condemn.

Yet, although the words last cited would look, as if Mr. Oakeley was not altogether satisfied with his theory of meditation, a subsequent passage written, seems as if he had succeeded in persuading himself into a belief of the lawfulness of the pursuit. It is deserving of quotation, as showing the extraordinary methods by which these people contrive to impose on themselves.

"How often do the inspired writers, or rather He who speaks in and through them, strike as it were some two or three chords of a sacred theme, and then leave to the spiritual student the delightful task of framing the entire harmony for himself, at once guiding and guarding his devout invention, without forcing and ruling it! Why in such cases does Scripture go so far in its disclosures without going farther? Why so far, if it be not to prompt holy musings? why no farther, except there be some especial value in the freedom and spontaneousness of those musings? It is the very method of Scripture to teach by hints, which are lost upon the thoughtless, but eloquent to the wise; which they therefore are pretty sure to turn to a good account, who turn them to any; the devotion which is real enough to use them at all, being for the most part instructed enough to use them aright. This, however, does not make guidance in so delicate a process the less acceptable to humble and serious Christians, who naturally desire to perform so solemn an exercise, not only well, but in the most perfect manner which their circumstances admit."

One might have thought that any one who cared to ask-" why in

such cases does scripture go so far in its disclosures without going farther?"-might have discovered a more satisfactory answer to his question. Mr. Oakeley's illustrations of his meaning, however, do not give much reason to suppose that he was likely to prefer the true to the ingenious.

"One or two instances will serve to clear our meaning. The holy Evangelist relates, that the Blessed Virgin, when she went to visit her cousin St. Elizabeth, travelled with haste.' Why was this? It was out of keeping with her usual calm deportment and orderly movements. St. Bonaventure offers a reason, which, whether the true one or not, supplies a very beautiful and appropriate ground of meditation: 'She was loth,' he supposes, in her great modesty and love of retirement, to be seen long abroad.""

Just so. Very beautiful and appropriate, whether it be true or not! Yet, if truth is the only source of comfort to a soul really desirous of salvation, and hungering and thirsting for righteousness, such an one could see little beauty in that of which it knows not whether it be true or not. And certainly the text of the Evangelist would seem to suggest a reason fully as beautiful, though not quite so far-fetched. It is proper, however, to lay before the reader the passage in The Life of Christ to which Mr. Oakeley here refers.

"She went with haste, not wishing to appear long in public. Nor was she, like other women in her condition, in the least encumbered by the Divine Infant she bore within her; for the Lord Jesus was no burden to His Mother."-p. 16.

Of course, if Mr. Oakeley thought this less likely to edify than to startle, he would not have retained it, but left it out, and trusted to the blessed saint to forgive the liberty he had taken with his writing, which, considering the liberties the saint himself was in the habit of taking with the Bible, seems not a very unreasonable expectation. But will Mr. Oakeley and his admirers please to consider what effects such fancies and meditations are likely to have on the faith of their disciples touching the verity of the Lord's human nature? A little farther on, Bonaventure describes the birth of St. John.

"When Elizabeth's full time was come, she was happily delivered of a son, which our Lady received in her arms, and swaddled with becoming care. The infant, as if conscious of the majesty of his nurse, fixed his eyes stedfastly on her, so taken with her beauty, that, when she delivered him again to his mother, he still looked towards her as if he could take delight in none but her; while she, on the other hand, continued graciously playing with him, embracing him, and cherishing him with her heavenly lips. What excess of honour was this for St. John! What pure mortal, besides himself, was ever blessed with such a nurse! Yet this is not the only great privilege he enjoyed. Many others might be named, were they not foreign to our present purpose.

"On the eighth day the child was circumcised, and called John. Then was the mouth of Zacharias opened, and he prophesied, saying, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,' and the rest. Thus were the Magnificat and Benedictus, those two canticles of matchless beauty, composed in this house. In the mean time, while the latter was singing, our blessed Lady, virgin-like, to avoid being gazed on by the men who were present, on account of the ceremony, kept apart in a secret recess of the chamber, where, unseen, she could hear what passed, and there devoutly listened to the prophecies uttered concerning her Divine Son: carefully and wisely depositing the whole in her heart."-pp. 17, 18.

This may be very beautiful and very appropriate. The writer ventures no opinion on such a question. But though Mr. Oakeley

or not.

So.

scorns such considerations, he cannot help asking, whether it be true St. Luke certainly gives no countenance to the idea that the Virgin remained with Elizabeth till John was born. But how do we know that Bonaventure was not inspired to correct St. Luke? Just How do we know? And so, in a short time, we may expect to be uncertain whether we know anything. Indeed, Bonaventure himself sometimes gives authorities for his meditations. In the foregoing number, we have seen that he attributes his disgusting fable of the circumstances of the Lord's nativity to a brother of his order, who, he says, he believes to have been supernaturally inspired; and, in a subsequent chapter, he says:—

"We have already seen how many were the afflictions He suffered, together with the great poverty, privation, and distress He underwent at the time of His sacred birth. But among other things was this, which has not hitherto been mentioned, His blessed Mother, when she had laid him in the manger, having no pillow with which to raise His head, made use for that purpose of a stone, which it is not unlikely she might have covered with hay. This I had from a devout brother, who saw it in spirit; and to this day the same stone appears, a visible memorial of the fact. A cushion or a pillow, we may piously imagine, would much rather have been her choice, had she possessed one; but, having nothing more proper to answer the end, to the great affliction of her tender heart, she was compelled to make use of a stone."pp. 31, 32.

So that the process of Meditation seems sometimes to require some adventitious aid. But does Mr. Oakeley really wish it to be believed that this stone is still to be seen? But to return to the passage in Mr. Oakeley's introduction, where we left off.

"Again, we read, that the wise men offered our Lord in His infancy 'gold' among other produce of their country; and we gather from intimations that it was very considerable. May we not innocently and profitably reflect upon the use to which these treasures were applied? What became of all this gold? For we cannot suppose that what was offered in such sort was thanklessly cast aside. Yet there are, as we know, but two sacred uses to which such gifts of Divine bounty are applicable; the service of the Sanctuary, and the benefit of the poor. But when the Lord of the Temple was in the holy tabernacle of his flesh, there was no need of 'temples made with hands' to enshrine His glory, nor of the gold which those Temples sanctify, to symbolize the riches of His mercy. Our Saint then devoutly imagines that these consecrated treasures supplied to the Blessed Mother of our Lord the means of discharging that one duty from which the estate of poverty is precludedbountiful almsgiving."-p. xiv.

Now, as the virgin was poor, if gold in any quantity was given, it might not be unreasonable to suppose (if one must suppose anything) that it served to support her in her necessities during her flight into Egypt. Bonaventure, however, (could Mr. Oakeley be ignorant of this?) adapts the story, as he has done elsewhere, to suit the notions of voluntary poverty adopted by his order. This is his account of the transaction :

"The three kings, therefore, being come to Bethlehem, with a great multitude of people, and a noble retinue, stopped, as the star directed them, at the little shed in which our Lord Jesus was born. The blessed Virgin hears a confused noise of people at the door, and snatches up her Divine Child. At the same instant the three kings enter the little dwelling, fall on their knees, and worship the Child Jesus, their Lord, with all reverence. They honour Him as their King, and worship him as their God. Reflect how great must have been their faith! What was

there, as far as appearances went, which could have moved them to believe that this little Infant, whom they found in the arms of a mother as poor as Himself, so meanly clad, so miserably housed, without company, attendants, or other signs of dignity, could be in truth a King, and Very God? Yet they believed both. Such are our guides to the feet of Christ, such the great originals it befits us to copy. Behold them still on their knees before Him. And now they begin to converse with the holy Virgin, and ask many questions concerning her beloved Son, which they might do, either by the help of an interpreter, or of themselves, since they were men of great learning, and perhaps versed in the Hebrew language. They inquire of her the parti cular circumstances relating to the wondrous Infant. Our Lady tells them all, and they readily believe all she tells them. Consider them well, how reverently they speak and listen, as if in the presence of royalty. Consider our Lady, too, how she shrinks from conversing; and how she speaks and hears what is necessary, with a blush on her cheek, and her eyes fixed on the ground. Yet the Lord gave her more than usual strength on this great occasion, and enabled her TO SUPPORT HER DIGNITY BEFORE THESE PRINCELY WORSHIPPERS, WHO REPRESENTED THE WHOLE FUTURE CHURCH. Consider, once more, the Child Jesus, who, though not as yet pleased to speak, comports Himself with a sweet gravity beyond his years, as gifted with Divine intelligence, and gently smiles as He looks on them; the while they are wondrously delighted with Him, and gaze upon Him not only with their bodily eyes, but, as it were, with the eyes of the mind, as catching somewhat of His illumination, and being drawn towards Him, who was fairer than all the children of men. At length, full of joy and consolation, they open their coffers, and spreading a carpet at the feet of our Lord Jesus, kneel down before Him, and devoutly offer Him gold, frankincense, and myrrh, of which the gold far exceeded the rest in abundance. For had their offerings been but small, and of little value, they need not have opened their treasures,' as the Gospel says they did, since more scanty and insignificant gifts might have been easily conveyed by the hands of their attendants. "Then they reverently cast themselves on the ground, and devoutly kissed His sacred feet. And why may not we piously imagine, that the blessed Infant, full of Divine wisdom, the more to comfort them, and settle their affections on Him, stretched out His little hand for them to kiss, and blessed them with it? After this, they bowed themselves once more, and, taking their leave, retired with joyous and peaceful hearts, and returned by another way into their own country.

"But what, think you, did the blessed Virgin do with all this quantity of valuable gold? Did she, think you, hoard it up for her own or her Divine Son's use, or put it out to usury? Did she lay it out in the purchase of houses, lands, or vineyards? No, she was too great a lover of poverty for that. In her zeal for that blessed estate, and with her intimate knowledge of her Son's will, both revealed to her within, and exhibited by infallible tokens without, (since, perhaps, He turned away His eyes from the gold as if with aversion,) she expended the whole, as I judge, in the course of a few days, for the use of the poor. For it was distressing to her to have such a sum in her possession, or to devise means for laying it out upon herself. How, indeed, could any such private use have been found for it by her, who, when she went into the temple at her Purification, had not so much as a single lamb to offer for her Son, but was forced to buy turtle-doves or pigeons? It is reasonable, then, to suppose both that the offering of the wise men was costly, and that our Lady, studious of poverty, and full of charity, bestowed it upon the poor.

"You have here, gentle reader, before your eyes, the truest and best encomium of poverty: observe, then, the two following points. First, the Child Jesus, and His holy Mother, the blessed Virgin, disdained not to receive alms like needy persons. Secondly, they were so far from being anxious to obtain riches, or hoard them, that they would not so much as keep what was liberally bestowed upon them, increasing daily in the love and desire of poverty."-pp. 37-40.

Is there any error, any heresy, any superstition, which cannot be extorted out of the word of God by a process like this? And is it not evident, from this and other passages, that these writers, in their licentious abuse of their imaginations, are reducing the incarnation to the level of a myth, and fable, and a poet's dream?

A similar observation will apply to the account given of the Puri