stead of being buried with transgressors, He shall have His grave with the rich, it is assumed that His life shall descend through poverty, full of dishonour, persecution and scorn, to the lowest depth of a death which includes in it the pain of many deaths; but then shall take a turn towards glory.

We find Him

Truly He was poor. indeed as a guest in the house of Matthew in Galilee, and of Simon in Bethany, and elsewhere; and there He eats and drinks, as He also counsels His disciples, of that which is placed before Him. But what ate He at other times, when the pressure of the people allowed Him to eat, and when He did not purposely fast? Bread was His usual support, and besides at the most some fish. Even in the forty days between the resurrection and ascension this remained His custom. Broiled fish and bread make the breakfast that the Risen One prepared for the seven disciples on the sea of Tiberias, and a piece of broiled fish' and some 'honeycomb' is all that the disciples put before the Risen One in the house. (John xxi. 1-14, Luke xxiv. 42.) Thus fared it in Galilean poverty with this holy circle. The disciples, when they were hungry, fed on ears of corn they plucked, and subsequently, as at least is credibly reported of Peter, Matthew and James, abstaining from flesh, limited themselves to vegetable food. Poverty becomes the Jews, says an old Palestinian proverb, as a red thong, or, according to another reading, as a red rose becomes a white horse. In this also the disciples of Jesus were representatives of the genuine Israelitish nature, after the pattern of their Master.

And where and how did He dwell? An old Church-motto says, 'Bethlehem bore, Nazareth reared, Capernaum lodged Him.' If a house in Capernaum is mentioned as His

use, it is not meant that He pos

sessed it, but that it received Him as a guest. This highly-favoured house was, as it were, the fixed station from which He evangelized Galilee. He had no shelter of which He disposed as owner, not even in Nazareth, where the family-house, if it was Joseph's property at all, was shared among a number of brothers and sisters. He commanded not a foot'sbreadth of earth. He called nothing His own save the clothing of His person. He never had lodging for a night within four walls of His own. 'The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man-He says Himself,— 'hath not where to lay His head.'

Once, when weariness overcame Him on a voyage on the sea of Gennesareth, He did not indeed despise the pillow in the stern of the vessel; but often He slept on the hard soil of the desert. We read that, after heavy toil continued up to night, He did not lie down in the house, but withdrew far away to a lonely place; yet even there the people, who followed Him everywhere, knew where to find Him, even thence His seeking disciples drew Him back. Most gladly He passed the night on mountains, and often it is recorded that He spent the night there in prayer. The transfiguration on the mount, the Messiah's consecration to death, was such a night-scene. He prayed there without ceasing, whereas the disciples could not keep themselves from sleep -and in answer to His prayer was miraculously strengthened for the path of death that lay before Him.

And by what means did He supply the needs of His earthly life? What Peter said of himself, Silver and gold have I none,' held good also of his Master. When the temple-tax is demanded of Him, He finds himself compelled to obtain by a miracle the two double drachmæ for Himself and Peter. We nowhere read of a beggar asking alms of Him; they knew that

He had no outward means, but other means. But yet we do not read that He Himself received alms from the Tamchui, i.e. almsdish, or from the Kuppa, i.e. almsbox.* He was raised above poverty that lives on bread of charity and above dependence on the beneficence of the multitude. He was poor, but differed from the poor of this world in this, that He accepted no gifts of common human sympathy, but only the gifts of a serviceable love that did not on account of His lowliness fail to see His greatness. From the gifts that such love furnished were the wants of the sacred circle supplied. The money was kept in a Glossokomon, i.e. a bag or casket, of which Judas Iscariot had charge. When on the night of the farewellsupper he went forth at the saying of Jesus: "That thou doest, do quickly,' to carry out his deed of darkness, the disciples supposed, as he had the Glossokomon with him, Jesus said to him: 'Buy what we need for the feast,' or that he give something to the poor. For it was prescribed that even the poorest fail not in the minimum of almsgiving; namely, a yearly gift of a third of a shekel, and especially at the Easter-feast the poor needed help all the more, as even they, according to religious custom, must have in the Passover meal four cups of wine. This duty of alms Jesus also fulfilled, but indirectly; for to dispense alms directly was unworthy of Him. He gave better than copper and silver.

6

Yes, though He was rich, for our sakes He became poor, that we through His poverty, might be rich.' In a cave, which served as a stable, He greeted this earth. A manger was His cradle. His mother presented the dove-offering of the poor. It was the presents of visitors from far which made possible the hurried journey to Egypt. Returning thence, He grew

up in despised Nazareth, a small hilltown lying away from sea-route and high-road. With the poor equipage of a wandering teacher, who possessed nothing, He traversed the country. With the words: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit,' He began His teaching; and that 'to the poor the Gospel is preached' He described as the chief note of the new era that opened. In the third year of His work He was betrayed by one of His own disciples for a slave's price of thirty shekels. Roman soldiers rendered to the mock King of the Jews acts of homage, which they confirmed by blows on the cheek. With the cry, 'Behold the man!' Pilate led Him forth, scourged and arrayed in mock robes, before the people; but these, maddened by their rulers, shouted Crucify, crucify Him!' Thus He suffered the death, with which in the Roman comedy † slaves are threatened, and with which only the vilest criminals were punished. Cast out of the camp of Israel, delivered up to the Gentiles, He was nailed, a 'curse of God,' ‡ to the tree of shame. His clothes were torn from His body, and four Roman soldiers, under the eyes of the dying man, shared among themselves these spoils, and with His coat played a game of lots. He hung between heaven and earth, to His foes a shameful spectacle, but to all that love Him a spectacle drawing heavenward. The spiced wine, which the pitiful women of Jerusalem were wont to offer in cases of execution to render the criminal insensible, He refused, and contented Himself with vinegar. And having taken the vinegar, which again loosened His tongue that cleaved to the roof of His mouth, He cried : 'It is finished,' bowed His head, and departed. But even after He gave up His life, His self-surrender on

our behalf was not ended: His sacred body, pierced with a spear in the side, poured forth blood and water, fountains of life for His holy Church.

In this way then He took everything upon Himself for us, and for us sacrificed everything. 'Obedient unto death,' He accomplished the counsel of eternal mercy. His blood atoned for our sins, through 'His stripes we are healed,' His cross rivets together heaven and earth, His body is the seed-corn of a new sinless, happy humanity.

Brethren! Let us look with a full, fixed gaze into His fading eyes, until our selfishness dies too. Let us embrace His death-cold feet, until worldly lust in us is extinct. Let us learn love from the incarnate, crucified Love, that for us, who merited anything but love, bled and died.

It is not all love, still less Christian love, that is called love. To love those with whom we are linked by household ties, who bring us love in return, who are not less worthy of honour than of love, and to love whom gratifies our feelings-this is no love after the pattern of Jesus. Would you love as He loved, love those who because not worthy are the more in need of love; love even against the inclination of your nature, from pure spiritual impulse; love especially the poor and sinful, love them for their need and their ruin alone! The love that seeks its own pleasure is at bottom nothing but selfishness; and so far from render

ing us truly happy brings us only the pain of unrest, since it places us in slavish dependence on the creature. But blessed for its own sake, whether it meet with return or not, is the love that, instead of seeking its own pleasure, denies itself, making the inward and outward need of a neighbour part of its own life-the love of sympathy and compassion-the love that moved God to exchange His eternal throne in heaven for the abyss of our misery.

An Indian poet says of the Musapalm which, weak but flexile, bends under its vast burden of fruit, that it stoops in gratitude, as if to kiss the mother-earth that nourished it, bearing patiently the stroke of the axe. See there an image of Christian love! The love of Christ the Crucified is its source of life. To this source of life it bends down in gratitude its fruitladen branches. It loves Jesus above all; it loves all in Him; it loves Him in all, it loves Him above all, in the poor and destitute, His meanest brethren, in order one day to receive the blessing of the King Who shall judge the world: 'I was hungry, and ye gave Me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: naked, and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came unto Me.'

Even so, O Jesus! Thy love is our life, so let it be our pattern. We will love the poor, because, and as, Thou didst love us when poor. Amen.

WHAT do we mean by Jesuitizing the Church? Some would reply, 'Placing the Church under the control and management of the Jesuits;' others would reply, 'Infusing into the government of the Church the characteristics of the Jesuit order.' It is in the latter sense we use the expression. Mr. Arthur, who to his high honour can be named along with Mr. Gladstone as one of the very few Protestants who understand the specialties of the Papal system, and can speak of it with the calmness of the historian and the conscientiousness of the moralist, develops in his invaluable work, The Pope, the Kings and the People, the diplomatic process whereby has been effected that change so injurious to souls, so dangerous to the political integrity and rational liberties of the nations. Mr. Arthur does not express an opinion as to the question whether the Jesuits induced Pio Nono to imitate their system, or whether he utilized them for his previously conceived projects. As an historian he carefully abstains from the temptation so open to one addressing a public very ignorant on the subject of his work, and refuses to supplement facts by imagination. Possibly he may incline to the opinion that the Jesuits suggested to the Pope a modus operandi, and that the Pope adopting it, claimed the merit to himself. If we limited our view to the period embraced by Mr. Arthur, we should find much to confirm such an impression; but the writer of this review has been circumstanced so as to have been cognizant of previous events and ramifications, and we are thereby convinced that

VOL. II.-SIXTH SERIES.

the Pope reluctantly utilized the Jesuits when he had failed in his endeavour to obtain aid as subservient from the Dominicans.

:

Pio Nono always disliked the Jesuits he distrusted them, was jealous of them, and feared the perilous rivalry of submissive enemies. He had frequently, in his joking and not always prudent way, made fun of their sanctimonious ambition. He said on one occasion to a very eminent Prelate, who at length sent back unopened a letter received from the then Provincial of the Society in his diocese: Their motto is A.M.D.G., but D will stand for Diaboli or Dei as occasion may serve best for the other letters.' The letters signify Ad majorem Dei gloriam, for the greater glory of God,' and it is a common saying amongst Roman Catholics: For Dei understand "our Society"; and, doubtless, God is necessary for the glory of our Society, and its aggrandizement is helped on by the conversion of souls. The end is our Society, God is one of the means thereto.' No ecclesiastic, of any experience, but knows and says. this when speaking in safe circles. It is questionable whether, with perhaps one single exception, all the English Bishops would not be heartily glad if the Jesuit Fathers could be cleared quietly out of England. Pio Nono was very willing for them to leave Rome, and would have given their great Church into the charge of the Rosminians, if only the illustrious founder of the latter Society had not proved himself unsound' as to the questions of Episcopal Election and Papal Sovereignty.

Pio Nono was always a believer

S

in his personal Infallibility, and the conviction strengthened with the tenure of office. When a man has been worshipped for a quarter of a century, and treated as never Jesus Christ Himself was treated, he cannot but regard himself as by divine right the Christian Llama. That he was no scholar, no theologian; was a wellmeining, credulous man; and had only mixed with believers-all tended to confirm him in a belief sufficiently gratifying to a ruler. But it does not follow that his rivals or his prime ministers had the same inducements to encourage them to such a belief. The Jesuits were theologians, and knew that a dogma so disputable as Infallibility could never be prudently raised into an Article of Faith until history had been garbled for a much longer period. Moreover, they could not but remember that Clement XIV. had suppressed their order by a Pontifical Brief, wherein he assigned reasons of a very damaging character, which, by the retrospective action of the dogma, would become divine truths. The Jesuits were in favour of any increase of Pontifical authority whereby the Bishops could be crushed; for it was easier to manage the Pope and through him to manage the Bishops, than to deal with each Bishop singly. Moreover, it was far easier for the Jesuits to disobey Papal orders promulgated in TransAlpine countries, than to escape the vigilance of a Bishop in his own limited diocese. Thus the Jesuits always pretended to ally themselves with the Pope against the national Bishops and parochial Clergy.

The Jesuits were doubtless pleased at the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, for that definition was a triumph to those who, like the Jesuits, had contended for new and popular dogmas and practices, which had been opposed by their rivals the Dominicans. But they did not regard

with equal satisfaction the preparations for the promulgation of the decree of personal Infallibility, and it must not be supposed that they would be at all influenced by any considerations as to what would gratify the Pope, benefit the people, or magnify the Church; except inasmuch as they must share the benefits or the evils entailed on others. Their one interest is their own Society, their one aim is its aggrandizement, their one idea is an intense corporate egotism; to that idea they sacrificed the conversion of England, of China, and of Japan. Guided by that one aim, they became alternately the enemies of the people, and of princes; they irritated, they conciliated, they informed, they yielded, they crushed; they wore sackcloth or they wore purple. 'Not once in their history have they sacrificed the power of their Society to the welfare of the Church, the security of the Pope, the protection of the feeble, or the elevation of the people.'

That intense selfishness, so diplomatically carried out, always modifies and often destroys amongst Roman Catholics the gratitude felt for the services they frequently render to their cause. If they had aimed at the propagation of a grand and ancient superstition, and for that endured their changeful lot, their history would possess a sort of worldly grandeur; but a protracted scheme for the obtaining of power and the amassing of wealth, screening both under the mantle of religion, can never be sublime. Such a Society is inconvenient as a foe; embarrassing as an ally. The Pope realized the difficulty. When he found no theologians or diplomatists of mark, secular or regular, to aid him in his schemes, he reluctantly had recourse to the Jesuits, and prevailed on some of their ablest men to act in concert with himself, their obedience to their