the UNION REVIEW, have been severely censured by Anglican writers for having boldly advocated this most necessary_policy. Henceforth we shall be able to shelter ourselves under Dr. Pusey's authority. Nothing that has ever appeared in this REVIEW could be stronger or more definite than the following peace-breathing epistle. May Almighty God long preserve its venerated writer to labour for so blessed a consummation! "Christ Church, Oxford, November 22, 1865. "Sir,-I thank you with all my heart for your kindhearted and appreciative view of my Eirenicon.' I am thankful that you have brought out the main drift and objects of it, what, in my mind, underlies the whole, to show that, in my conviction, there is no insurmountable obstacle to the union of (you will forgive the terms, though you must reject them) the Roman, Greek and Anglican communions. I have long been convinced that there is nothing in the Council of Trent which could not be explained satisfactorily to us if it were explained authoritatively, i.e., by the Romish Church itself, not by individual theologians only. This involves the conviction, on my side, that there is nothing in our Articles which cannot be explained rightly, as not contradicting any things held to be de fide in the Roman Church. The great body of the faith is held alike by both; on those subjects referred to in our Article XXII. I believe (to use the language of a very eminent Italian nobleman), your [our] maximum and our [your] minimum might be found to harmonise.' "In regard to details of explanation, it was not my office, as being a priest only, invested with no authority, to draw them out. But I wished to indicate their possibility. You are relatively under the same circumstances. But I believe that the hope which you have held out, that the authorities in the Roman Communion might hold that a Re-union on the principles of Bossuet would be better than a perpetual schism,' will unlock many a pent-up longing, pent up on the ground of the apparent hopelessness that Rome would accord to the English Church any terms which it could accept. 6 "May I add, that nothing was further from my wish, than to write anything which should be painful to those in your Communion. A defence, indeed, of necessity involves some blame; since, in a quarrel, the blame must be wholly on the one side or on the other, or divided; and a defence implies that it is not wholly on the side defended. But having smoothed down, as I believe, honestly, every difficulty I could, to my own people, I thought that it would not be right towards them, not to state where I conceive the real difficulty to lie. Nor could your authorities meet our difficulties, unless they knew them. You will think it superfluous that I desired that none of this system, which is now matter of pious opinion,' should, like the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, be made de fide. But in the view of a hoped for Re-union, every thing which you do affects us. Let me say, too, that I did not write as a reformer, but on the defensive. It is not for us to prescribe to Italians or Spaniards what they shall hold, or how they shall express their pious opinions. All which we wish, is to have it made certain by authority, that we should not, in case of Re-union, be obliged to hold them ourselves. Least of all did I think of imputing to any of the writers whom I have quoted, that they 'took from our Lord any of the love which they gave to His Mother.' I was intent only on describing the system which I believe is the great obstacle to Re-union. I had not the least thought of criticising holy men who hold it. "As it is of moment that I should not be misunderstood by my own people, let me add, that I have not intended to express any opinion about a visible head of the Church. We readily recognise the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome; the bearings of that Primacy upon other local Churches we believe to be matter of ecclesiastical, not of Divine law; but neither is there anything in the Supremacy in itself to which we should object. Our only fear is, that it should, through the appointment of one Bishop, involve the reception of that practical quasi-authoritative system, which is, I believe, alike the cause, and (forgive me) the justification in our eyes of our remaining apart. But although I intended to be on the defensive, I thank you most warmly for that tenderness which enabled you to see my aim and objects throughout a long and necessarily miscellaneous work. And I believe that the way in which you have treated this our bona fide endeavour to find a basis for Re-union on the principle debated between Archbishop Wake and the Gallican Divines two centuries ago will, by re-kindling hope, give a strong impulse towards that Re-union. Despair is still. If hope is revived in the English mind, that Christendom may again be united, rekindled hope will ascend in the more fervent prayer to Him Who 'maketh men to be of one mind in an house, and our prayers will not return unheard for want of love. "Your obedient servant, ་ No. III.-DR. NEWMAN ON THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. The following Letter, addressed to the Weekly Register having reference to the Eirenicon of Dr. Pusey, deserves to be put on record here :— "Sir, I beg leave to call your attention to a passage in your admirable review last week of Dr. Pusey's recent work. It is there asserted by implication that the statement that the Church of England is, in God's hands, the great bulwark against infidelity in this land,' was 'originally enunciated by Dr. Newman.' "I have written in my lifetime a great deal more than I can remember, but I neither know where I have made this particu lar statement, nor can I conceive I ever made it, whether in print, in private letter, or in conversation. And I am sure I should not have made it deliberately. Certainly, it does not express my real judgment concerning the Church of England. Nor have I any reason to think that Dr. Pusey ascribes it to me. "What I said in my Apologia was this:- Doubtless the National Church has hitherto been a serviceable breakwater against doctrinal errors more fundamental than its own.' “The words 'serviceable' and breakwater' both convey the idea of something accidental and de facto; whereas a bulwark is an essential part of a thing defended. Moreover, in saying ' against doctrinal errors more fundamental than its own,' I imply that, while it happens to serve Catholic truth in one respect nevertheless, in another, it has doctrinal errors, those fundamental. "I am, sir, your obedient servant, "JOHN H. NEWMAN. "The Oratory, Birmingham, November 19, 1865." and ORIGINAL POETRY. OSCULO ORIS SUI OSCULETUR ME. CHRIST, for whose only love I keep me clean I would not Thou shouldst reckon me with them, Who having touched and tasted, heard and seen, Half drunken yet from earthly revelries, Would wipe with flower-wreathed hair thy bleeding feet, Jostling about Thee, but to stay the heat Of pale parched lips in Thy cool chalices. "Our cups are emptiness-how long, how long? Where God is Sun, and Saints a starry throng." But I, how little profit were to me Though mine the twelve foundations of the skies, And o'er the perfect passionless minstrelsy A voice would sound the decachords above, My Christ remember that betrothal day. O'er hearts thick strewn as palms they passed along, Soon hearts and eyes were lifted up to Thee, Through incense hazes that encompassed Thee, Heaven sank to earth, earth leapt to heaven for me. Rise, Peter rise, He standeth on the shore, Lovest Thou? My beloved, answer me, Of Thine all knowledge show me only this- DOMINIC, O. S. B. II. CAROL FOR THE MIDNIGHT MASS. Gold for the King of kings, A Monarch come to birth! Whose flesh redeems the earth, Thus came both sage and King; Thou liest here, dear Child, For Whom was found no room, To give Thee fitting place, The fullness of Thy grace. Yet surely Thou art here, O cold our faithless hearts, The flesh, the blood are thine! Sweet Babe whom Mary kiss'd In this High Eucharist! W. C. D. |