made by our dear Lord, by His one oblation of Himself once offered for the sins of the whole world.' We both alike acknowledge our own unworthiness, that His merits alone can stand between us and our sins; both alike believe in the efficacy of His most precious blood,' wherewith He cleanseth us; both in His perpetual intercession for us at the right hand of God. We use the self-same prayers in Baptism, and thank God in the same words that He has been pleased to regenerate our children therein. We both confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. After confession, the Church directs the self-same words to be used in absolving from sin. I believe that we have the same doctrine of grace and of justification. There is not one statement in the elaborate chapters on justification in the Council of Trent which any of us could fail of receiving; nor is there one of their anathemas on the subject which in the least rejects any statement of the Church of England. As to all the heresies which distracted the early Church, whether in regard to the Person of our Lord or His kingdom, or the Person and Office of God the Holy Ghost, (those of Arius and his followers, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Marcellus,) or again the practical heresies in the West, (of Novatian, Pelagius, Donatus,) we reject alike the same errors."-(p. 18.)

Next he turns to the question-In what consists that indissoluble Unity of the Church, which Dr. Manning accuses us of denying?

"How it is one, the Church nowhere defines; but the faith is kept alive by prayer more than by definitions. Yet whatever duties may follow upon the Unity of the Church, it is plain that no harmony of men's wills can constitute a supernatural and Divine Unity. . .

"Our highest union with one another is an organic union with one another through union with Him. .

"This unity derived from our Blessed Lord as Head of the Church is imparted primarily through the sacraments. . . .

"But is all unity forfeited where the unity of intercommunion is suspended? No one in the face of Church history can or does maintain that all interruptions of intercommunion destroy unity. . . .

"Well then may we believe that the several Churches owning the same Lord, united to Him by the same sacraments, confessing the same faith, however their prayers may be hindered, are still one in His sight, Whom all desire to receive; Whom all confess; Whose passion all plead before the Father; in Whom alone all alike hope. And so as to ourselves, our divines maintained, (under apppeal to a free General Council of the whole East and West, while there was yet hope, and God's arm is not shortened, that He should not yet turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers,) that we

have done nothing to forfeit the communion of the rest of Christendom.

"But Dr. Manning says that we have denied the visible head' of the Church, i.e., we do not any more than the Eastern Church own the monarchy of the Bishop of Rome. In the time of Henry VIII. the English Church submitted to the abolition of appeals to Rome, and what it then submitted to it has since concurred in. But if anything is clear in Christian antiquity, it is that such appeals are not of Divine right. Africa was converted from Italy. Yet England is not at this moment more independent of any authority of the Bishop of Rome than Africa was in the time of S. Augustine." -(pp. 45-66.)

Next Dr. Pusey traverses again the well-trodden ground of Primitive Antiquity, and its conclusive evidence that neither the modern position of the Bishop of Rome, or anything approaching to that which the Ultramontanes claim for him, was recognized or even asserted in the early ages of the Church.

The accusation that we deny "the perpetual Divine voice of the Church" he meets by the statement showing that our view of the infallibility of the Church is, in all essentials, that of the Gallicans, only that we, recognizing the Eastern Church as equally part of the Church with the Roman, contend that a doctrine cannot be said to be universally received in the Catholic Church, unless she also accepts it.

"The question does not relate to that which has once been settled by the whole Church. Nothing of course can add to the authority of what has ever been ruled by an infallible authority. We ourselves have, equally with those in the Roman Church, infallible truth, as resting on infallible authority. We do not need the present agency of an infallible Church to assure us of the truth of what has been ruled infallibly. Nor in fact, have Roman Catholics any more infallible authority for what they hold than we, seeing that it was ruled by the Church in past ages, to whom, so far, the present Church submits. The later General Councils began by accepting what had been ruled before them. The second received, while it enlarged, the creed of the first; the third premised to its own acts the confession of the creeds of the two first; the fourth received the decree of Ephesus too, and accepted the wonderful clearness of the exposition of faith by S. Leo, as agreeing with those previous authorities. They accepted those creeds before them, not thereby adding to their authority, but as authenticating their own orthodoxy. The question then, is not whether the doctrine laid down in General Councils, and received by the whole Church, is certain truth, (on this both agree); nor whether the

whole doctrine of the Holy Trinity, of the Incarnation, of Grace, and whatsoever else has been received formally by the whole Church, is infallibly settled, (on this too both are as one); nor whether an Ecumenical Council, if such were now held and received by the whole Church, would, by that reception, have the seal of infallibility, (on this too, according to the principles of the Gallican Church and our own, there is no question); nor whether, in fact, if the same doctrines were enunciated at once by the whole Church, the East, West, our own, separately, but concordantly, (e.g., as to the character of the inspiration of Holy Scripture,) the doctrine, so simultaneously enunciated, would be infallibly certain, (which it would be); but whether what should be enacted, either by the Greek or Roman Church, would be infallible, unless received by the other. This, (granted that the Eastern Church is a part of the Church), it would not be according to the principles of the Gallican divines too, because there would not be universal reception."-(p. 96.)

Those Articles among the Thirty-nine which are generally supposed to militate against the Roman Communion Dr. Pusey holds to have reference, not to the dogmatic teaching of Rome, but to the "practical system" not yet declared to be de fide, and to the errors which were popularly prevalent at the time the Articles were drawn up. He shows in what way they may be explained and were explained by Du Pin in his negotiations with Wake, and also that the decrees of Trent are perfectly capable of an interpretation quite consistent with the statements of our own Communion. But while finding no difficulty in the doctrine of Invocation of Saints as there laid down, he enters at length into the modern additions of development of it with respect to the personal adoration of Our Lady, which make him, and we should think, all thoughtful Catholics, doubt "whereunto this will grow," and to which the Roman Church is not as yet formally committed. A large space is dedicated to an examination of the present practical state of the Roman Communion with respect to this subject, from the cvidence afforded by the letters of various Roman Bishops to the Pope, before the declaration of the Immaculate Conception. Dr. Pusey considers that the Roman Church is divided in its practice, and that in those countries where the Anglican faith or even Protestantism has acted as a check, these extreme developments have not shown themselves.

"I have often myself had to try to remove the rooted convictions that Roman Catholics are actual 'idolaters.' Since then the lawfulness or usefulness of asking the saints to pray for us is alone laid down as ' of faith,' there is a large scope for providing that, in case of a Re-union, our people should not be flooded with these devotions, which to us are most alien.

Nothing which seems to interfere with exclusive trust and reliance on Jesus will, without some great revolution, gain hold of the hearts of the English people."—(p. 111.)

If the veneration that should be given to the Blessed Mother of God has been thus painfully exaggerated by "the practical system" of Rome, it has been so reduced to a nonentity by "the practical system" prevailing among ourselves, that we need to take care lest our utter neglect of her should help to drive others into greater extremes. We must not persist in withholding from her due honour, because others have given her that which is undue. Probably in this as on other points the practice of the unchanging East will be found wiser and truer than our own, as it is in reality more in accordance with the decree of Trent relating to the doctrine than is the modern Roman practice.

If the personal infallibility of the Pope should ever become part of the dogmatic teaching of the Roman Church, Dr. Pusey points out that grave difficulties would arise, from the strange and even heretical statements made by some of the Popes in times past, and also from the fact that the declarations of one Pope are more than once contradicted by those of another.

"I have set down no difficulty which I do not myself think insurmountable. I see absolutely no way in which, upon the forbidden decrees (of marriage) "Alexander VI. can be reconciled with Gregory I., or how the acceptance of the sixth General Council, which anathematized Honorius as a heretic, by Leo II., and his own individual condemnation of him, are reconcilable with the doctrine of the infallibility of both, in all which they pronounce; or how the rejection of the position of Constantinople, on the ground of the immutable decrees of Nice, by Leo I., is consistent with the statement of Adrian, that that see owed its position to Rome; or how S. Gregory's denunciation, not only of the title Universal Bishop,' but of what the title contained, and that, in any sense in which it could be supposed to be taken by the Patriarch of Constantinople, not as taken by that Patriarch only but as unbecoming himself also, is compatible with the Ultramontane theories about the Pope. It is a characteristic of the word of God, that it abideth for ever. Pius IX. could not, I should think, adopt the language. of Gregory I., as to the marriage of those near of kin, or in denying his own right to be called Universal Bishop,' or to what the Patriarch of Constantinople meant to assume by that name; nor could he, I conceive, use the language of S. Leo or Gelasius, of Christ alone being born innocent,' or having alone had absolutely no sin; still less that of Innocent III., that 'she was produced in fault; producta in culpa,' or that she was sanctified from original sin in her mother's womb.'”

We fear that Dr. Pusey has not made sufficient allowance for Italian ingenuity. Doubtless the difficulties will be got over, either by bold assertion, like that which has lately declared the Gunpowder Plot never to have had any existence at all, or by special pleading, such as that with which Galileo's case has recently been treated. There is always a way, as every lawyer knows, of getting out of everything, and twisting adverse decisions and contrary statements into the completest harmony. And so we see how it might easily be in these cases.

Gregory the First's decrees will perhaps be said only to bear reference to his particular time, and S. Leo the First's was a temporary decision also, and besides, was not really contradicted by Pope Adrian. S. Gregory's sayings about the Universal Episcopate were merely expressions of humility, while Innocent the Third's apparent contradiction of the Immaculate Conception will be taken to mean that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin as far as her parents were concerned, although the guilt was never transmitted to her. Christ alone being born innocent, may fairly be taken to include all that which was essential to His being born innocent, and that her birth is therefore necessarily involved in the phrase. Honorius, if all other reasoning fails, can easily be shown to have had something informal in his admission to the Pontificate, so that he was never Pope at all in reality. Perhaps a yet greater difficulty-the rebuke of S. Peter by S. Paul, will no doubt be considered as a merely personal matter, and if a question of "morals" at all, only referring to S. Peter's own practice. The morals of the Popes are not, it is to be supposed, thought infallibly correct, but, although it sounds satirical to say so now, yet even this might come in time.

The expressions of past Popes, like those of the sacred writers, can, it may be argued, have meanings which they themselves never thought of, and if anything could be found too glaringly contrary to this explanation, the parallel can be boldly drawn between the old and the new dispensations, in which many directions given by Divine and therefore infallible dictation were repealed and superseded in later times. If they do not perceive the greater difficulty attending any man's declaring himself infallible without miracles to prove his words, they will not find it hard to overcome any of these lesser ones. If I bear witness of Myself My witness is not true." "If another shall come in his own name, him 'ye will receive." We cannot forget these sayings. Yet to this decision Dr. Pusey fears that the course of events is tending, unless those who respect the voice of Antiquity will stand firm.

66

The sketch he gives us of the progress of the Church