which established the hierarchy. To the inferior clergy it has, as yet, been no boon at all; the bishops having kept that plum in general for their own exclusive eating, and, as far as power goes, thriven on it immensely. Despotism and Ultramontanism have learnt to go hand in hand: they have come to understand each other, and one helps the other along. I do not say that Dr. Newman has to answer for the Ultramontanism imported into this country; but he has indirectly been a contributor to it, and had a hand, though not perhaps a willing one, in inviting it over here from the Continent. But for his act it would never have found standing room here any more than despotism. On the Continent it was the natural reaction from the Revolution of 1848 in Church, as despotism was in State. But there had been no revolution here in England, and we wanted neither. Then, again, Ultramontanism abroad had this excuse, that it is the natural consequence of dis-establishing and oppressing Roman Catholic Churches. Inevitably they are thrown back upon their common centre, away from home, for support, in proportion as they cease to be cherished and supported at home. Had they no centre at all to fall back upon, they would merely languish and die; having a centre, and that a still powerful one, they cling to it for life all the more tenaciously, as their means of existence, their local ties and attachments, are diminished in their own country. The vast possessions of the French clergy before the Revolution of 1789 made them intensely Gallican: the miserable dole meted out to them by governments of late years has made them intensely Ultramontane. Persecution made Roman Catholics in England Ultramontane, when in France they were Gallican. From the Relief Bill of 1791 our countrymen have been gradually unlearning their Ultramontanism in proportion as their local interests have grown and thriven, and they have been allowed freedom and protection of the law for their religious endowments and foundations. Ultramontanism is not a frame of mind that has ever been popular with Englishmen in their normal state. Come among us, however, it has undoubtedly to some extent, once more; and after many vicissitudes of prosperous or adverse fortune, it has found a wholesale votary, likely to be ruined by the retail trade notwithstanding, in the well-known author of the Ideal Church, and of the non-natural interpretation of formularies. Delighted he seems to have been to try his old art upon a new theme, and to transform Ultramontanism even into something beyond what it had ever been before, or Ultramontane rationalism. Ultramontanism in his hands I look upon as the Pope's Evil, just as the Gallicanism of the last century-which as much as anything else brought

Louis XVI. to the scaffold-may be fairly called the King's Evil. There is a rational Ultramontanism, and there is a rational Gallicanism, which are both historical, and in reality the same thing under different circumstances or from different points of view; but the Ultramontanism of the Dublin Review is that word non-naturalised, and the proper name for it can only be Ultramontane rationalism. Rationalism is, I suppose, in plain words, to dogmatise, without facts or against facts, from premises tested by the reason alone to conclusions logically deduced or deducible from them. The reason need not be unenlightened, nor the syllogism vicious in form, for the conclusion to be quite false. But I must not be led away into general subjects. The prophecies relating to our Lord, how do we discover their true fulfilment but in the facts of His life? Antecedently to His Incarnation, we might have argued -as in fact the Jews argued that they would have been fulfilled differently from what they have. We may not presume to do so now. Similarly, that promise, or that prophecy, made by our Lord to S. Peter, if it be asked what sense we are to attach to it, the answer is, that sense in which it has been fulfilled in history, and no other. Eighteen centuries have fixed its fulfilment, whatever else we may think it might, or should have been, beyond recall. The editor of the Dublin has dogmatised upon those words, as if he had never read a page in Church history. Galileo, forsooth! his the only or the most difficult case to get over? No Popes, in ordering or advising their subordinates, ever made worse mistakes, or more serious, than that Congregation? Is it dutiful, is it prudent, to direct attention to them perforce just now? Would the Dublin undertake to print, defend, or explain, all the instances that could be given? Hitherto its logic has been at feverheat, and its facts below zero! May we be spared the infliction of another ideal; or the imposition of infallibility in a nonnatural sense. That the theory should be now in such hands affords some hope that it may be on its last legs. It will take a better man than him to prove Gother, Milner, Challoner, Alban Butler, and all who have edited or appealed to "Roman Catholic principles in reference to God and the King," to have been of low or doubtful orthodoxy, or in error. As Dr. Gradwell said of Ventura and his principles: "There is at Rome and elsewhere, a faction of Catholic zealots, ultras in everything in divinity, in ethics, metaphysics, history, and law. They lay down abstract principles, and then draw from them extravagant conclusions. As Hutchinsonians lay it down that all wisdom is in the Bible, and hence expatiate into wild conclusions, so these lay it down as a maxim that Church autho

rity and Catholic truth are everything in science: all the rest is infidelity and atheism."*

We wake up from Tract 90 discarded by its author, and find ourselves confronted by Dr. Pusey and Tract 90 in hand. We rub our eyes; for it is as though we had been asleep for twenty-five years, and only just restored to consciousness. What a grand apparition is that indefatigable, much-enduring, consistent man upon the stage again, earnest, affectionate, peace-loving as ever, calling him his "dear friend," who had set him wrong before the public, though not designedly, for twenty long years, taking up his position precisely where that friend had left him, and renewing the appeal for peace in his own discarded words. I question whether ecclesiastical history contains a more stedfast, truthful, or edifying picture than this? Who is there on our side of equal weight and dignity with its composer, that will be sponsor to that Letter of his late Eminence to Lord Shrewsbury, which greeted Tract 90 on its first appearance. What could not have been wrong then on our side must incomparably be more right now. For how immeasurably better circumstanced people are now on both sides for understanding each other than they were then, would they but avail themselves honestly of the means of doing so: what different issues have followed from that event which one side recoiled from with so much alarm, and the other built upon with so much confidence, from what were anticipated: how much more rational is the estimate which is gaining ground of that event in consequence: how rapidly prejudices are disappearing even in the popular mind before kindlier feelings, and how much more than ever each side has need of the other. For forty years the Emancipation Act hung in suspense, and was the object of hope or fear, for all that interval, to every reflecting mind on both sides till it passed in 1829. Tract 90, its ecclesiastical complement, has not been before the country much above half that time, yet there has not been half the storm in its case-though storm there has been-that was excited by its precursor. And now that it has appeared for the second time on the stage, it is received with widespread interest, and in deep silence, not with hisses. It cannot, of course, be expected to take effect without vigorous opposition in some form or other, for some time, and perhaps a violent coalition of malcontents on both sides against negotiating. But statesmen, if they are honest, will not shrink from affirm

• Note to Tierney's Memoir of Lingard prefixed to vol. x. of the Edition of 1854.

ing, that the Emancipation Act of 1829 has entailed no sinister consequences of any kind upon the nation; but that, on the contrary, loyalty and prosperity were never more rife than they have been from that time forth. And churchmen, of whatever belongings, cannot look around them, and ignore facts. The organisation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in this country is one fact; the active revival of Convocation in the Church of England is another fact. Both Communions have been gaining in strength side by side for the last twenty years; and if anything, the one whose loss in the commencement of that period was supposed irreparable has gained most. Neither can, however, afford to throw stones at the other: neither the prospects nor the actual position of either are contemptible. Members of both are drawn towards each other more than they have ever been before. Many belong to the same Association of Prayer now better than eight years old-and use the same prayers in private, for the Re-union of Christendom under the Pope. Members of both exchange sentiments in the same Review-the one in which I am now writing for mutual edification and enlightenment. I feel sure that there is no fact favourable to Papal claims in ecclesiastical history that I could not put forward and dilate upon in these columns with more freedom, with infinitely more effect, than could be done in the Dublin; and while I do not for a moment doubt the fidelity of the Editor to his own Communion, I believe him to be incapable of glossing over, or allowing others to gloss over, by any unworthy subterfuge, what are, and what always must be, the weak points of that system, as compared with our own, though we are by no means ourselves without our weak points too. Thus, as I began by saying, we are both free to make comparisons without compromising our loyalty, because we have become better friends. We are in the position, I conceive, towards each other that French and English were just before the conclusion of the late commercial treaty so beneficial to both, so much to be preferred to any revival of the siege of Orleans or the plains of Waterloo.

Some little has been already volunteered in that directionbut amid great sensitiveness-by those who have a reputation to lose or keep up; in fact, whose positions impose reserve upon them far more stringently than is the case with smaller men who are less bound. Dr. Newman, by a singular Providence, was brought into the field first: his eloquent explanations, better late than never, accounting for so much that had been inexplicable, set other tongues loose. Dr., now Archbishop, Manning, came next. They both spoke from official heights, and vied with each other in caution, as was natural.

To speak with authority, they could only speak from authority; they could not open their mouths and outpour their whole hearts, as individuals and wayfarers. Dr. Manning appealed to the rulings of De Lugo and Viva, Saurez and Perrone: but they had never studied the phenomena of lives like his.

Wayfaring men may tell their own unvarnished tale: being careful only to publish a true record of all that they have seen, heard, or experienced in the country from which they have come. They should not exaggerate, but they need not be otherwise than outspoken, leaving others to dogmatise upon their facts. Old Herodotus argued that there could be no hyperboreans, because, if so, it would follow that there were hyper-notians as well; men travelled, and found that there was actually both an Arctic and Antarctic sea. It is most true that "antiquarian arguments are altogether unequal to the urgency of visible facts:"* and therefore were the "antiquarian argument" of far less cogency than it is, on internal evidence alone, confirmed by personal experience, I should, for one, not hesitate for a moment about the entire validity of Anglican orders. How, indeed, could I hesitate, seeing the benefits which I am still, and have never ceased to be, conscious of having derived through their ministrations? I might as well say that England did not and could not grow wheat, because on visiting Algeria I found the wheat there superior in quality and abundance. I say unequivocally, that I know of no means of demonstrating that there is not in the Eucharist, as administered in the Church of England, all in kind that there is in the Eucharist, as administered where I now am. What we receive in either case is not cognisable by the senses; and for what we receive in either case to do us any good, we must have repented and receive in faith. Without faith what benefits should I derive now from communicating, notwithstanding the reality of what I receive? Had I communicated without faith in the Anglican Church, would my lack of faith have been any argument against the reality of what I received then? Dogmatise, as we may about it, the same dispositions are necessary in both cases for any appreciable benefits to be secured: in both cases what is received is concealed under veils, and reason and sense are no better judges of its integrity in one case than in the other. If people are inclined to jeer and be profane, neither side is exempted from insult or cavil. I fear there have beeh men before now who have derided the Host, trampled It under foot, or employed It as a means of conveying poison of committing murder! We must beware lest in arguing against the Church