The date of Frederick's death, 1243 (p. 104), is another slip of the pen, for it occurred the 13th of December, 1250. We think we have, in the preceding remarks, paid due attention to the work of our countryman, and shall proceed, as briefly as possible, to mention the second work at the head of our article; Prince Serradifalco (that is his usual name) has already acquired a great literary reputation, by his large work upon the monuments of antiquity in his country, of which three volumes are published. In the present work he has begun the examination of the principal monuments of the Norman epoch, as being the most illustrious period of the middle ages. He does not propose to give merely sketches, and general notions on the subject; but, on the contrary, to treat of it in its fullest extent, and to give to the world a standard work, of which the getting up should not be unworthy of the magnificent objects it undertakes to describe. The work contains, besides vignettes, twenty-seven folio engravings, and one lithographed design, of which fourteen are dedicated to the church of Monreale, three to the Capella Palatina, five to the Cathedral of Cefalù, four to the other Norman churches at Palermo, and two which contain small plans of all the old churches in Sicily, and of the principal churches of the Christian world, by which the Sicilian architecture can be illustrated. These engravings are accompanied and explained by two dissertations, with learned notes, in which are collected, from ancient authors, maps and inscriptions, whatever can throw light upon the objects in question.

The third dissertation treats upon the character of ecclesiastical architecture in Sicily. The learning of this first part of the work has left little to desire, of any consequence, and many documents and inscriptions, which, we believe, are, for the most part, very exact, are published here for the first time; the drawings are, in general, well done, although occasionally, as in the drawing of the gate of Monreale, or of the sectional plan (table iv. vii.), we think the style might have been more faithfully expressed. The drawings should have been coloured, to give any idea of the magnificence and splendour of the mosaics; for the brilliancy of the colours and gold, with which the walls are resplendent, is lost in black engravings. For want of colouring, the sixth engraving, of the interior of Monreale, gives us rather the idea of an old edifice almost in ruins, than of one of the finest churches in Europe. But we will not fall into the mistake pointed out by the old French proverb―"le mieux est l'ennemi du bien"-rather let us rejoice in the ac

quisition the lover of the arts will obtain in this publication. The author concludes, as the result of his third dissertation, that the Norman churches in Sicily were the first constructed in the form of the Latin cross, because, he says, the Byzantine architects were obliged to modify the Byzantine form of the Greek cross, so as to suit the Latin worship of their masters, who associated it with the form of the ancient basilicas. We shall not enquire whether the form of the Latin cross was adopted, from the union of the Greek cross with the ancient basilica, or whether, rather, the basilica did not develop itself into the form of the Latin cross: to which opinion we ourselves incline; but we must deny that this modification (if it is one) of the Greek cross, was first adopted in Sicily, or in the twelfth, or towards the end of the eleventh century; on the contrary, at the beginning of the eighth century, upon the borders of the Rhine at Cologne, we find the Latin cross exemplified in the superb church of S. Maria in Capitolio. And from that time to the commencement of the true Gothic style, there was, in those countries, a succession of churches in the form of the Latin cross of the truth of this every one may convince himself, who reads M. Boiserée's work upon the Churches of the Lower Rhine (Stuttgard and Tubingen, 1836). We could prove it also by some examples in France and Upper Italy; but this would lead us into a too detailed enquiry into the date of their construction; and, although the author is upon this point mistaken in his fact, the consequences he deduces from it appear to us correct, since it is certainly true that in Sicily the style of the Latin cross arose, as he has stated. To persons pursuing this sort of study, the work of the Sicilian Prince is indispensable, and they would find much valuable information upon the subject in the sketches of Mr. Gally Knight.

ART. VI.-Tracts for the Times. 4 vols. 8vo. London:

1833-38.

W E must refer our readers back to our tenth number for the commencement of the subject we are about to continue. In our former article we examined, by the light of antiquity, the claims advanced by the Oxford Divines in favour of apostolical succession in their Church. In order to simplify the controversy, we made concessions till we almost

* Vol. V.

feared we might have scandalized our brethren. We wished to take up the controversy upon the lowest imaginable grounds, and for this purpose we made the following liberal allowances.

First, we put aside all question respecting the validity or invalidity of ordination and consecration in the Anglican Church.

Secondly, we entirely considered the case of this Church as one to be investigated by canonical enactments, overlooking the great point of ecclesiastical and doctrinal union with the universal Church, which is essential, jure divino, for the legitimate existence and exercise of hierarchical authority.

Thirdly, we limited the rights of the holy see, to be a party to the lawful appointment of bishops in England, to those of the patriarchate, instead of considering those of its supremacy. Fourthly, we even imagined the hypothesis, that the rights exercised by the pope, as patriarch of England, had no better foundation than usurpation at the outset.

After making all these abatements in our just assumptions, we proved that the advocates of the Anglican Church could not sustain any claim on her part to a share in apostolical suecession. But it was not by any means our intention to leave the investigation there. On the contrary, we promised to raise the question to a higher level, and discuss our adversaries' pretensions, or rather repel them, upon considerations involving more serious consequences. The following extract from our former article will at once explain our actual position, and define the point from which the present starts:

"After our clear exposition of our motives, we shall not, of course, be suspected of having yielded too much, or placed the rights of the Holy See upon too low a ground. We have certainly given up much. We have discussed the matter as one of ecclesiastical right, rather than of divine; and have shown, that, even thus, the jurisdiction and succession claimed by the Tracts for their Church, is null. But, in fact, it would be in our power to show, that such rights as the Apostolical See held, and yet does hold, over the episcopacy of the Church, are not of ecclesiastical origin, but belong essentially to the Chair of Peter, as granted to it by Our Lord himself. This leads us to another and a much higher ground, on which to base any resistance to the pretensions of the English Church and its upholders to be an ecclesiastical establishment, or a branch,' as they choose to call it, of the Catholic Church,'-a ground, too, which still dispenses with all enquiry into the validity of Anglican ordination. We mean THE STATE OF SCHISM into which it put itself at the Reformation, and which at once acted as a blight upon all its ecclesiastical powers,-withering them, and rendering them incapable of any act of valid jurisdiction,

or any place in the apostolical succession. This portion of our argument, with many other matters connected with this subject, we reserve for our third article upon the Tracts. We shall treat it by the light of ecclesiastical antiquity, and exhibit instances curiously parallel with that of the Anglo-Hibernian establishment.”—vol. v. p. 306.

We hardly consider it necessary, for the adversaries whom we are combating, to prove that a Church, placed in a state of schism, at once forfeits all right to the lawful exercise of its hierarchical functions. All the examples quoted in our former article, and the abundant testimonies which we shall give in this, will sufficiently prove that, according to the principles of the ancient Church, a state of schism is a state of sin, of outlawry, and deprivation; and that, even where ecclesiastical functions might be validly exercised, they cannot be so, either lawfully or salutarily. The bishops of a schismatical Church could not be admitted to vote or deliberate at a general council, nor be present, save as an accused or an accusing party; they could not be allowed to communicate with other bishops, without first retracting their schismatical principles; and upon returning to the unity of the Church, they would require to be formally reinstated into their sees, or would be removed to others, or remain suspended. In fine, it is only in the true Church of God that apostolical succession can be had; and any one, who, even maintaining the integrity of faith, held not to unity of communion, was anciently reckoned to be out of that Church. "Nobiscum estis," writes St. Augustine," in baptismo, in symbolo, in cæteris Dominicis sacramentis: in spiritu autem unitatis, et in vinculo pacis, in ipsa denique Catholica Ecclesia nobiscum non estis.'

*

The paragraph we have extracted from our former article. pledges us to the painful duty of proving that the Anglican Church is fundamentally and essentially a schismatical Church, and, as such, has no right to a place in the apostolical succession. Now, though we thus advance to a closer position with our adversaries, than in our last argument, yet we are aware that we are by no means going to the extent to which we have a right. Is the English Church only schismatical? Is it not as truly heretical? We unhesitatingly reply, Yes. The one state cannot easily exist without the other. St. Jerome clearly distinguishes the two, but at the same time draws this conclusion, of how naturally one runs into the other.

"You are with us in baptism, in the creed, in the other sacraments of the Lord; but in the spirit of unity, in the bond of peace,-in fine, in the Catholic Church itself you are not with us."-Ad Vincent. Rogat. Ep. xciii. ol. xlviii.

"Inter hæresim et schisma," he observes, "hoc esse arbitrantur, quod hæresim perversum dogma habet; schisma, propter episcopalem discessionem, ab ecclesia separatur. Ceterum nullum schisma non sibi aliquam confingit hæresim, ut recte ab ecclesia recessisse videatur."* And so, likewise, St. Augustine Schisma [est] recens congregationis ex aliqua sententiarum diversitate dissensio; hæresis autem schisma inveteratum." That is to say, seldom will schism fail to justify its separation from the Church by departing from its doctrine, and so insisting that the supposed errors, which it abandoned, obliged it to separation. In this way does the Anglican Church plead doctrinal necessities for its schism,—and that very plea proves heresy. But in our argument on the subject of apostolical succession we are willing to consider the separation as simply schismatical, in the same manner as we speak of the Greek Church, which is, in truth, heretical. The fact is, that we can fully attain our purpose with the more lenient charge for our basis, and therefore prefer it. The case of heresy in the Church of England, can, indeed, be summarily made out on the simple ground of its having rejected the decrees of an œcumenical council. Still it might be considered necessary to go into details of doctrines, to establish the point to full satisfaction. At the same time the Fathers make no distinction between heresy and schism, as a ground of forfeiture of the rights belonging to the true Church, of which jurisdiction is one. Once more let us hear the great Doctor of the Western Church:"Credimus et sanctam ecclesiam, utique Catholicam. Nam et hæretici et schismatici congregationes suas ecclesias vocant: sed hæretici de Deo falsa pronunciando, ipsam fidem violant; schismatici autem dissensionibus iniquis a fraterna charitate dissiliunt, quamvis ea credant quæ credimus. Quapropter nec hæretici pertinent ad Ecclesiam Catholicam quæ diligit Deum; nec schismatici, quoniam diligit proximum." ‡

In Epist. ad Tit. c. iii. "This they suppose to distinguish heresy from schism, that erroneous doctrine constitutes heresy, while schism is a separation from the Church, by the secession of bishops. However, no schism fails to frame some heresy to justify its departure from the Church."

The same saint, writing against Gaudentius, says: "Cum schismaticus sis sacrilega discessione, et hæreticus sacrilego dogmate.”—Lib. ii. c. ix.

S. Aug. De Fide et Symb. c. x. tom. vi. p. 161. "We believe the holy, yea, the Catholic Church. For heretics likewise and schismatics call their congregations Churches; but heretics, by speaking falsely of God, violate faith; and schismatics, by wicked dissensions, depart from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe. Wherefore neither heretics belong to the Catholic Church, which loves God, nor schismatics, because she loves her neighbour."