* In April, 1866 (pp. 504-537), we showed how extremely strong is the Florentine doctrine on Papal prerogatives.

+ See the passage quoted from Bossuet, in our number for last October, p. 537.

It may be worth while to quote a few words from Pius VII.'s Apostolic Letter on the occasion :-"Derogamus expressè cuicunque assensui legiti morum archiepiscoporum, episcoporum et capitulorum respectivarum ecclesiarum ac aliorum quorumlibet ordinariorum et perpetuò interdicimus iisdem quodcunque exercitium cujuscunque ecclesiastica jurisdictionis; nullius roboris

is infallible. Dr. Pusey professes to establish a further conclusion; viz. that this very Church has in late centuries fallen into error. If, then, you unite that proposition which he labours to establish, with that other proposition which he does not attempt to controvert, you are landed in the conclusion that Christianity did not come from God. We are therefore occupied in defending the Divine origin of Christianity against Dr. Pusey's earnest (though most unintentional) assault.

Before entering on our reply to Dr. Pusey's various objections, we must begin with an introductory remark. On many matters Dr. Pusey makes more or less approach to the doctrine of Scripture and Antiquity: on some it may even be said that he coincides with that doctrine. But on the Church's office (1) in teaching, and (2) in governing, not even Mr. Martineau or Mr. Spurgeon is more widely at variance than he, from that standard to which he appeals. We insisted on this in Jauuary; and we will here briefly refer to what we there established.

Let us first then consider the Church of the Apostles: let us inquire what were the means appointed by God at that time, for a Christian to learn the doctrines of his religion. He obtained this important knowledge by repeated acts of intellectual captivity; by humbly submitting his intellect to the doctrinal instruction given by the authorized superiors of his local Church; by regulating his interior life according to the rules and counsels placed before him; by uniting himself heartily with the spirit of that large practical and devotional system which surrounded him; in one word, by unreservedly surrendering himself to the new moral and spiritual atmosphere which he had begun to breathe. And his security against being led astray by all this, was the gift of infallibility which the Apostles had received, and by the light of which they directed their various local Churches. All this is so very obvious on the surface of the New Testament, that we believe no Scripture-reading Protestant will dream of denying it. He will say indeed that, when the Apostles died and inspiration ceased, the Rule of Faith by necessity was essentially and fundamentally changed; and to this allegation we replied in January. But Dr. Pusey himself will be foremost in maintaining, that the death of the Apostles made no change in the Rule of Faith.

In fact, on passing to the post-Apostolic period we find the same Rule universally prevailing. Individuals still learned the Faith in the old way and in no other; viz. by submitting themselves with simplest docility to the instruction of their

again, just as in the Apostolic, their security against being led into error by such unquestioning submission, was the infallibility,-not_indeed now of the Apostles-but of the existing Ecclesia Docens. Of course this Rule of Faith, like every other earthly thing, had its disadvantages; the Antiochenes e.g., under Paul Samosatene and under Nestorius, were exposed to much doctrinal peril; though far less than might at first sight appear.* But the most orthodox and clear-sighted among them knew only of two securities for protection against this peril on the one hand, they adhered most firmly to those lessons which they had been taught from their childhood upwards; on the other hand, they earnestly invoked the Church's supreme authority, for aid against the corrupting influence of their local superior. But would they pursue such a course as Dr. Pusey recommends? would they think of deserting their traditional doctrine-of opposing the prescription of supreme ecclesiastical authority-in deference to their own private interpretation of the Nicene or the Constantinopolitan decrees? They would have regarded such a course as being purely and simply rebellion against God, apostasy from Christ. The one authority to which they looked was the Church's practical teaching. Such was the principle accepted by all, and blended with their very first springs of thought.

Now we say that Mr. Martineau or Mr. Spurgeon does not differ more widely from this Rule of Faith, than does Dr. Pusey. Consider, e.g., his demeanour to Roman Catholics; whom he considers to be as truly members of the Church, as were the Antiochenes of the fifth century. In effect he addresses them thus: "You have been trained from childhood by your teachers, you have been earnestly encouraged by your highest eccle"siastical authorities, in a certain most mischievous system; "which I beseech you to abandon. Appeal, I entreat you, "from the practical teaching of Pope and bishops, to your "Church's definitions of faith, and especially to the decrees of "Trent. In those decrees you will find no kind of sanction for "that system, which your authorities have taught you, and "which has been, in truth, the mere invention of indivi

"Far less than might at first sight appear;" because ordinary Catholics imbibe their Faith much more from the circumambient doctrinal atmosphere, than from direct doctrinal statements. A succession of Pauls or Nestoriuses would doubtless have rendered that atmosphere pestilential; but is is precisely this, against which the Church's infallible intervention securely guards her children. And so say the very Oxford Tracts. Vincent Lirinensis siders the Church to possess within it that principle of health and vigour which expels heresies out of its system." See the words quoted by us in January 1866, p. 209.

con

"duals.

This practical system - especially in what concerns its one most prominent feature - overthrows your "trust in Christ; ruins true spirituality; and verges closely "on idolatry." Now let us suppose that some individual had addressed such language as this, to any section whatever of the early Catholics. It is very certain that they would have regarded their self-elected monitor with disgust and horror, as soliciting them to heresy and apostasy.

No one can wonder that, so long as Dr. Pusey's opinions on the very foundation of Church-doctrine are thus violently anti-scriptural, thus violently anti-patristic, he should be stone-blind to the historical evidence for Papal prerogatives. In our own argument we shall of course assume, that God appointed that Rule of Faith, which both Scripture and Tradition on their very surface so unanimously, so prominently, so emphatically testify.

It is most certain then, that when Nestorius or any other bishop fell into heresy, some divinely appointed authority was at hand promptly to redress the evil. And we use this word "promptly" for a special reason. In some places Dr. Pusey seems to hold that each bishop is by divine right supreme in his own diocese, and subjected by God to no higher tribunal on earth; whercas elsewhere he speaks as though a bishop were placed by God under the jurisdiction of an Ecumenical Council. Here, of course, is but one of the strange mutual contradictions which abound in the Eirenicon. Yet we will do Dr. Pusey the justice to admit, that this particular contradiction is by no means as great as at first sight appears; for such an authority over bishops as he recognizes, has long been practically equivalent to none at all. An Ecumenical Council is supreme over bishops." Yes: but on Dr. Pusey's view, God has made no provision whatever for the summoning of such a Council, or of otherwise collecting episcopal suffrages; however frightful the dangers with which dogma is threatened. For more than eleven centuries, according to him, the Church's supreme authority has been in abeyance; and during this abeyance what provision has God made for purity of doctrine? One "branch" of the Church has been permitted to inculcate most earnestly a devotion closely verging on the idolatrous; nay, to enforce as actually of faith a tenet directly contradictory to God's Revelation: while another "branch" has permitted errors to prevail most widely within her bosom, which are worse than Mahometanism itself. And

*See Dr. Pusey's letter quoted in our last number, p. 523.