30 JULY 1864, Page 16

To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."

Sin,—The few remarks which you have appended to my last letter make me still more anxious to draw out clearly the meaning which we attach to certain terms. As I understand you now, the basis of Ecclesiastical unity is to be found not in belief in a dogma of the Incarnation, but in such a belief as will warrant prayer to Christ. The terms of the argument are thus, as it seems to me, materially changed. As a matter of fact, the belief of Christen- dom generally identifies the Incarnation with the Immaculate Conception in such a sense that the rejection of the latter involves the overthrow of the former. It is not less a fact that many who do not accept the immaculate Conception yet may have such a belief as will warrant prayer to Christ. Mr. Hutton's tract, to which I have made frequent reference, and the letter of the " Yorkshire Incumbent," willfurnish evidence of this,—an evidence so strong that I am led the more earnestly to desire a thorough

discussion of the question. I have neither the right nor the wish to press this upon yourself ; but I must ask your permission to clear myself from an imputation which seems to be involved in your review of Mr. Hall's work on the "Law of Impersonation." Although I think that the Catholic theology of the Incarnation, varying as it does indefinitely from your ow-n, is rather a vague barrier to oppose to Mr. Hall's speculations, I must really with all earnestness disclaim any share in his theories. To take away the Divine Per- sonality is to reduce everything to a dismal and intolerable mockery. I have approached the subject of comparative mythology with no preconceived theories. I will not allow it to tempt me into fram- ing any. All that I wish to deal with is fact ; but facts will eventually lead us into regions which others approach by specula- tion. If two narratives, relating professedly to the same person at the same time, materially contradict each other, the law of historical evidence teaches us that one must and both may be false, while neither is necessarily true. If two narratives agreeing in essential points are found in different countries related of different persons (as with Cyrus, Romulus, Chandragupta, &c.,) the laws of mythological criticism teach us to refer them to a common source. If in Vedic tales we have Akshivan with his four-spoked wheel, and in Greek story Ixion with his non%os. rsrpaxval.cq, we discern the identity of name and incident, and refer both to a time when the ancestor of the Hindu and the Greek dwelt in the same home. Now in order to uphold the history of the Immaculate Conception, it must be proved not only that the opening chapters of St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gospels do not in leading incidents resemble stories in Vedic or other myths, but that the opening chapters of St. Matthew are in essential agreement with those of St. Luke. If they cannot successfully undergo this double test, there is absolutely no other evidence on which it can rest. St. Mark and St. John are both silent on the subject, and their silence sufficiently disproves the notion that a belief in it is necessary to make a man a Christian in the Apostolic sense, and therefore I suppose also in that sense in which you would claim that title. From this it follows, I think, that not even the willing- ness to use a common Liturgy, like that of the Church of England, settles the great question which we long to see set at rest.—I