as such; it applies equally to the whole English people, whether Anglicans or dissenters. Indeed the author has on more than one occasion expressed his own greater sympathy with the piety of the latter as compared with the former class. (See, e. g. p. 101.) Nor, again, does it at all follow,-because you have received abundant grace whether in your position as an Anglican or as a dissenter,-that you are therefore permitted by God to remain in Anglicanism or in dissent (p. 103). On the contrary, grace is given to call you into the Church; and so soon as you have sufficient light, you forfeit your state of justification if you shrink from following that light.

Next as to the office of the Establishment in witnessing truth. It is a teacher of truths, says our author, but not of truth for to say the latter "would imply that it teaches the truth in all its circumference and in all its divine certainty (p. 104).

Still, every Catholic may well grieve-and the Archbishop has ever sincerely grieved at every successive step whereby those truths which the Church of England teaches have been lessened in number or weakened in emphasis.

Yet at last, how is it possible to suppose, as Dr. Pusey supposes, that the Church of England is the great bulwark against infidelity in this land? (p. 114). For an earnest repudiation of this statement Mgr. Manning here proceeds to give four separate reasons; on which Dr. Pusey afterwards rejoined in the Eirenicon. In our number for January, 1866 (pp. 233-236), will be found both a careful statement of our author's reasons, and a careful examination of Dr. Pusey's attempted replies.

Mgr. Manning concludes this essay with some very touching personal remarks. With great humour he refers to the accusation, which was commonly brought against him in his Anglican days, of being "slow to advance; somewhat tame; cautious to excess; morbidly moderate" (p. 123). "But now," he adds, "is there anything in the extreme opposite of this which I am not in the opinion of many? Ultramontane, violent, unreasoning, bitter, rejoicing in the miseries of my neighbours, destructive, a very Apollyon, and the like." Our own solution of this apparent paradox is extremely simple. Whether as an Anglican or a Catholic, our author has simply held the tenets legitimately appertaining to his position. When he was an Anglican, he guided himself by the Prayer-book and Articles; whereas many of his contemporaries revolted against so odious a yoke, even while not seeing their way to abandon the Establishment. In due time he submitted himself to that Church, which regards the Holy

Father as the divinely-appointed teacher of all Christians. his new position, as in his old, he has accepted the tenets of his creed in their obvious sense; and he has had therefore no other aim than to embrace that precise view of religion which the Holy See sets forth. When he was an Anglican, several Anglicans, who did not accept fully the Anglican position, " and now that thought him "behindhand and un-Catholic; he is a Catholic, those Catholics who do not fully accept the Catholic position think him bitter and violent. The simple truth is, that in each case he has accepted his position and his critics have not accepted theirs.

But I have written, some say, hard things of the Church of England. If they are hard epithets, show Are they hard truths or hard epithets ? them to me, and I will erase them with a prompt and public expression of regret; but if they be hard facts, I cannot change them. It is true, indeed, that I have for the last fourteen years incessantly and unchangingly, by word and by writing, borne my witness to the truths by which God has delivered me from the bondage of a human authority in matters of faith. I have borne my witness to the presence and voice of a Divine, and therefore infallible Teacher, guiding the Church with His perpetual assistance, and speaking through it as His organ. I have also borne witness that the Church through which He teaches is that which S. Augustine describes by the two incommunicable notes-that it is "spread throughout the world" and "united I know that the corollaries of these truths are to the chair of Peter." * If the Catholic faith be the perfect severe, peremptory, and inevitable. revelation of Christianity, the Anglican Reformation is a cloud of heresies; if the Catholic Church be the organ of the Holy Ghost, the Anglican Church is not only no part of the Church, but no Church of divine foundation. It is a human institution, sustained, as it was founded, by a human authority; without priesthood, without sacraments, without absolution, without the Real Presence of Jesus upon its altars. I know these truths are hard. It seems heartless, cruel, unfilial, unbrotherly, ungrateful, so to speak of all the beautiful fragments of Christianity which mark the face of England, from its thousand towns to its green villages, so dear even to us who believe it to be You must turn from both in heresy and in schism. You must feel it so. me and turn against me for saying it; but if I believe it, must I not say it? And if I say it, can I find words more weighed, measured, and deliberate If you can show them to me, and so that they than those I have used? are adequate, I will use them always hereafter. God knows I have never written a syllable with the intent to leave a wound. I have erased many, I have refrained from writing and speaking many, lest I should give more pain than duty commanded me to give (pp. 128, 9).

In the interval which elapsed between the publication of the third and fourth treatises, the author became Archbishop.

which

rians merge all religion in Naturalism; the Unitarians in Christian morality; the Latitudinarians in the residuum of Christianity, which survives the elimination of differences among Protestants; the Anglicans in an imaginary faith of the undivided Church; the Unionists in an agreement of the universal Church, whic hshall neither be the Thirty-nine Articles, as they are understood by Englishmen, nor the Council of Trent, as understood by Catholics, but the text of both, understood in a sense known neither to the Church of England nor to the Church of Rome-a doctrine wider than either, compared with which the faith and theology of the Church is denounced as narrow and sectarian (pp. 155, 6).

There is no unity possible except by the way of truth. Truth first, unity afterwards; truth the cause, unity the effect. To invert this order is to overthrow the Divine procedure. The unity of Babel ended in confusion ; the union of Pentecost fused all nations in one body by the one dogma of faith. To unite the Anglican, the Greek, and the Catholic Church in any conceivable way could only end in a Babel of tongues, intellects, and wills. The intrinsic repulsions of the three are irresistible. Union is not unity. Heterogeneous and repugnant things may be arbitrarily tied together, but this is not unity. Union has in itself no assimilating power. Closer contact elicits the repugnances which rend all external bonds asunder. Truth alone generates unity. It was the dogma of faith which united the intellects of men as one intelligence. The unity of truth generated its universality. The faith is Catholic, not only because it is spread throughout the world, but because throughout the world it is one and the same. The unity of the faith signifies that it is the same in every place. If it were not the same, it would not be universal. Identity is the condition both of unity and of universality. From this springs the supernatural harmony of the human intelligence, spreading throughout the Church, and reaching throughout all its ages. The dogma of faith has made it one by the assimilating power of the one science of God. From this unity of intellects has sprung the unity of wills. The unity of the Church is created by the submission of all wills to one Divine Teacher through the pastors of the Church, especially the one who is supreme on earth. Submission to one authority by an inevitable consequence draws after it unity of communion (pp. 160, 161).

It is indeed true, that the highest authority on earth has been compelled to check all hope of reunion between the Anglican and the Catholic Church, founded on mutual concessions, reciprocal interpretations, much more, on compromises or concordats. To do so, would be to bind up a broken limb without setting it, or to tie a graft against the bark of a tree, instead of inserting it into the symmetry and the sap of its vital structure. For the sake of truth, and for the salvation of souls, and in obedience to the divine authority of the Church, and in conformity to the light of the Spirit of Truth Who guides its judgments, we are compelled to decline all overtures as of contracting parties. The Commission of the Church is to "make disciples of all nations." A disciple recognises and submits to his teacher. The disciple who argues with his teacher is a judge, not a learner. To treat with the Church of God is to deny its divine authority; but its divine authority is a primary article of revelation, and runs through every other article of faith. If a man

believe the whole faith, and yet offend in this one point, he is incapable of admission to the unity of the Church (pp. x. xi.).

This last quotation brings us to the Archbishop's introductory essay. He has given it no name; but it might be called with sufficient accuracy "the History of Religion in England since the Reformation, with Consideration of its Present Condition and Prospects." Its general argument may be briefly stated as follows. We begin with the author's very words.

The three theological loci, Tradition, Scripture, and Reason, are to be found nowhere in full application and in full harmony except under the supreme guidance of the living mind and living voice of the Catholic Church. They co-exist in it at this hour, as every student of S. Thomas knows, in every article of his Summa. They co-existed in England before the schism of the sixteenth century. But when the divine bond of unity and authority was broken, they parted asunder into three conflicting tendencies of thought, the sources of perpetual controversy. And these three methods of religious thought mark the three progressive phases of decline from faith to unbelief, through which the intelligence of England is passing (pp. xvii. xviii.).

Of these three loci, proceeds the Archbishop, Tradition has been represented among English Protestants by the High Churchmen; Scripture by the Evangelicals; and Reason by the Latitudinarians and Rationalists. These three schools have co-existed in the Establishment from the first; but with varying mutual relations. Down to the Puritan movement, under Charles I., the High Church party was constantly increasing in power; much of Catholic Tradition remained in the body of the people; and there was a degree of approximation to Catholicism, which even in these Ritualistic days it is difficult to imagine. Then came in with violence the Puritan flood; and "after the twelve years of the Commonwealth the Anglican Church was raised again, like a ship which had been for a time under water. All but its lines were washed away" (p. xx.).

In this state of things came the collision with Catholicism under James II. Thanks to that monarch's unwise and unscrupulous conduct-against which the Holy See was ever protesting the whole nation became far more profoundly imbued even than before, both with hatred and with dread of the Catholic Church; and from that time the rationalistic party remained for many years in the ascendant. The reasonableness of revealed doctrine-the argumentative evidence for the truth of Revelation-these two theses were the sum and substance of speculative theology, with the great mass of Churchmen; while a moral depravity prevailed which seems