The Archbishop's third argument was this:

If the Church of England be a barrier to infidelity by the truths which yet remain in it, I must submit that it is a source of unbelief by all the denials of other truths which it has rejected. If it sustains a belief in two sacraments, it formally propagates unbelief in five; if it recognizes an undefined presence of Christ in the sacrament, it formally imposes on its people a disbelief in transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the altar; if it teaches that there is a Church upon earth, it formally denies its indissoluble unity, its visible Head, and its perpetual Divine voice.

It is not easy to see how a system can be a barrier against unbelief, when by its Thirty-nine Articles it rejects, and binds its teachers to propagate the rejection, of so many revealed truths (pp. 33, 34).

Here again we cannot but think, with all deference, that he has stated the case far too favourably for the Church of England, when he ascribes to her any doctrinal teaching. But there is a most certain and palpable fact, which neither Dr. Pusey nor any one else can attempt to deny. The incalculably preponderant majority of English churchmen, high and low, rich and poor, have been trained by the practical system under which they find themselves, to disbelieve five out of the seven sacraments; the doctrine of transubstantiation; the sacrifice of the Mass; the Church's hierarchical unity; the Papal supremacy. "Marriage," says Dr. Pusey forsooth, "is called a sacrament in the Homilies" (p. 21); and so, as we have seen, the Homilies declare Divine faith to be a man's belief in his own forgiveness. Is this, then, an authorised Anglican tenet?

A still more striking fact than any which the Archbishop has happened to mention, and one which should never be forgotten, is, the most deep and pervasive influence exercised by the Establishment, in fostering the bitterest and most violent antipathy to Rome and to the Pope. F. Newman says somewhere that if there is any one tenet common to Anglican theologians of every school, it is that the Pope is Antichrist. Differing in all else, they agree in abhorrence of the Holy See.

Lastly and chiefly, the Archbishop argued :

It is not only by the rejection of particular doctrines that the Church of England propagates unbelief. It does so by principle, and in the essence of its whole system. What is the ultimate guarantee of the Divine Revelation but the Divine authority of the Church? Deny this, and we descend at once to human teachers. But it is this that the Church of England formally and expressly denies. The perpetual and ever-present assistance of the Holy Spirit, whereby the Church in every age is not only preserved from error, but enabled at all times to declare the truth, that is the infallibility of the

living Church at this hour-this it is that the Anglican Church in terms denies. But this is the formal antagonist of infidelity, because it is the evidence on which God wills that we should believe that which His veracity reveals-(p. 34).

This is that fundamental doctrine, which it has been the main object of our article to maintain against Dr. Pusey. God has willed that Divine Truth should be taught, through the organs and instruments of a living infallible society; organs and instruments who have been so trained by her, that they shall faithfully deliver to all the message with which she has been entrusted. So only can Divine faith be secured; so only can activity of religious thought be harmonised with religious unity. This dispensation of God, the Establishment, by its very constitution, despises and sets at nought. The question is not, as Dr. Pusey thinks (p. 83), of "an ever-present power to declare new truth;" but of an ever-present power to declare everywhere faithfully and consistently that one Truth which has been once delivered.

Apart from his reply to the Archbishop-and apart, moreover, from those dreams of corporate union on which we are to speak in our next number-there are two questions on which our author prominently enlarges; viz., Papal supremacy and Marian devotion. We intend, therefore, at a very early period, to treat both these questions, with a careful reference to his course of remark. On the former, indeed, Mr. Allies, in our present number, publishes some most forcible comments, which will receive every reader's earnest attention; and the publication of Dr. Murray's "De Summo Pontifice," which may now soon be expected, will give us the desired opportunity of encountering Dr. Pusey in detail on that truly critical controversy. On the Catholic's worship of Mary, again, our readers will have seen with extreme pleasure that the Archbishop promises a volume, which will in due course fall under our review.* Here we will but state the evidence by which

"The Doctrine and Practice of the Catholic Church in respect to the Worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary." By Henry Edward, Archbishop of Westminster. Since this article was in type a volume has been advertised with the excellent title of "Peace through the Truth," being a collection of Essays on various subjects, suggested by Dr. Pusey's Eirenicon," by the Professors of a Catholic College. Here is a fresh instance of the benefits which will accrue to Catholicism from Dr. Pusey's book.

Since the above note was written, two further works have been advertised: : a pamphlet by Canon Oakeley, and a letter to Dr. Pusey from F. Newman. The latter, no doubt, will have immeasurably more personal effect on Dr. Pusey, than all the rest put together.

the Church's doctrine on both these particulars is substantiated and brought home.

The Apostolic Church, as we have so often urged, was constituted by Christ as one hierarchical society: claiming to teach with infallible authority the truths committed by Him to her charge; and inculcating them on all her members, through her various living organs and representatives. It is most certain, moreover, that the Apostles' death was not, by God's appointment, to make any change whatever in her organisation; while Christ and his Apostles had expressly declared, that she was to remain on earth until His second coming. Correlatively with this broad fact on the one hand, there stands forth in history a broad fact on the other hand. From that time to the present, there has always been one, and (speaking generally) there has never been more than one society, precisely answering to the description which we have given; this society, therefore, in every age has been the One Catholic Apostolic Church. There have been rare and exceptional periods, we admit—specially the period of that schism which terminated at the Council of Constance-when there were two rival claimants of Apostolic privilege. But the fact that at rare intervals there have been rival claims, does not tend ever so remotely to cause doubt in ordinary times, when there is no such rivalry. The Apostolic Church, such as we have described it, was to last till the end of the world. In the time of S. Ireneus there was one, and one only, such society. In the time of Constantine there was one, and one only, such society. In the time of S. Gregory-in the Middle Ages at the time of the Reformation-there was one, and one only, such society. At the present moment there is one, and one only, such society. Hence she is the One Catholic Apostolic Church; and her teaching (whatever it may be) on Papal supremacy and on Marian devotion, is infallibly true; simply because it is her teaching.

Dr. Pusey, indeed, adduces arguments to show that this teaching is repugnant to Apostolic doctrine; and the Catholic controversialist is bound, of course, to consider those arguments. Only we beg our readers clearly to understand the real

* It can hardly be necessary to point out that the "Greek Church," as it is called, does not even profess infallibility. Ask any Russian why he believes any doctrine, will he say, because the Church in communion with the See of Moscow cannot err? or the Church in communion with some patriarch he will name, or some specified body of bishops, or the majority of them? No such thing is even alleged. He must give you, as his own opinion, that his Church was right in her quarrel with Rome several centuries back; but he will not say that she had any divine promise of being right.

state of the case. Let us suppose, for argument's sake, that Dr. Pusey proved his thesis with evidence absolutely irresistible; what would be the legitimate inference? His thesis would not have the faintest tendency to show that the Anglican Society is a portion of the Catholic Church; it would show, on the contrary, that the Catholic Church has ceased to be. And further, since Christ and his Apostles have emphatically declared that she will never on earth cease to be, Dr. Pusey's reasoning would also evince that Christianity is not from God. This is the genuine conclusion, towards which he is so energetically labouring; and if he could but see the real bearing of his argument, he would be the first to rejoice that it is so conspicuously weak and ineffective. On future occasions it will be our easy task to show, that there is absolutely no force in that train of reasoning, which our author has so sedulously urged against the divine origin of Christianity.

To conclude. We feel quite as keen a grief as he can feel, that in these days, when the hosts of open rationalism and infidelity are so vast and so aggressive, those who would gladly do them battle are not all united in one close phalanx. Yet he cannot surely mean, what his words here and there seem to imply; he cannot surely mean, that for such a reason as this the authorities of our Church are called on to make doctrinal concessions. At the same time he seems at this moment never to have apprehended one simple fact; the fact, namely, that all Roman Catholics regard the doctrine of Papal supremacy, and again, of the Immaculate Conception, as having been no less simply and directly revealed by God, than those of the Trinity and the Incarnation. How could any motives of expediency, were they ten thousand times stronger than even he can think them, justify the Church in compromising that Truth, which God has committed to her care? Would Dr. Pusey, then, himself cultivate ecclesiastical union with Arians, that he might the better repel Jowett and Colenso? Heathenism in the first three centuries was to the full as formidable an enemy to Catholicism, as rationalism can now be considered; yet the presence of a common foe in no way deterred the Church from promptly anathematizing each successive heresy.

But, in fact, any such monstrous attempt at coalition and compromise would be as inexpedient as it would be flagitious. The one secret of intellectual strength is intellectual consistency. Roman Catholics, and they only, are able consistently to contend against the foe, because they only have consistently contended against the foe's fundamental maxims. It is the unhappiness of Dr. Pusey's position, that he is

compelled to join issue with rationalism in detail rather than on principle; that he is precluded from assailing it at its starting point; that he cannot impugn its first principles, without condemning that whole ecclesiastical position, which he is still so resolute to uphold and vindicate.*

LETTER TO DR. PUSEY BY MR. ALLIES.

DEAR

EAR DR. PUSEY,-In a book lately published by you, entitled "The Truth and Office of the English Church," you do me the honour to make frequent citations from a work of mine, published when I was a clergyman of the Church of England; and in a note at page 237 you remark, "In quoting this book (Allies' Church of England Cleared from Schism') I would say that his second work, after that, in despair of the English Church on the Gorham judgment, he left the Church of England, is no real answer to this, which he wrote not as a partisan, but as the fruit of investigations, as to whose issue he was indifferent." Here are statements, both of fact and of opinion, which it seems to me challenge a reply, and which I do not feel inclined to pass over without one.

And first, there is an error of fact, on which a statement of opinion is grounded. Not the first book only, but both the works in question, "The Church of England Cleared from Schism," and "The See of S. Peter the Rock of the Church, the Source of Jurisdiction, and the Centre of Unity," were written and published by me as a clergyman of the Church of England. The preface of the second closes with the words,

My last act as an Anglican, and my last duty to Anglicanism, is to set forth, as I do in the following pamphlet, what has induced me to leave it." The conclusions to which I came, as the result of five years' study and prayer, in the second book, were so powerful as to force me to give up my living, to leave the communion in which I had been born and bred, and in which all my hopes of prosperity in this world lay, to become a layman in the Catholic Church, and in middle years to begin life anew. This work you describe as the work of a partisan. Of the former work, the result of two years and

* In the preceding article we have incorporated several paragraphs from a long-forgotten pamphlet, published many years ago, by the present writer.