portant canon, whereby to understand much that he has written. He says, He says, "Wherefore, to those who are convinced that the sacred books are not the utterances of man, but were written and made over to us by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, by the will of God the Father of all, through Jesus Christ, we will endeavour to point out how they are to read them, keeping the rules of the divine and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ." This is the key-note of all his exposition, and derives its significance from the state of opinions among those for whom he wrote; and a dispassionate application of it to such passages as seem questionable or gratuitous in his writings, will explain many a difficulty, and show how clearly he apprehended the work he had to do. If the Old Testament be really the word of the Holy Ghost, as, he says, all true Christians believe, then nothing in it can be trivial, nothing useless, nothing false. This he insists upon over and over again. And, descending more to particulars, he states these three celebrated rules of interpretation, which may be called, with their development, his contribution to Scripture-exposition. They are so plainly aimed at Ebionites and Gnostics, that we need merely state them to show the connection.

His first rule regards the old Law. The Law, he says, being abrogated by Jesus Christ, the precepts and ordinances that are purely legal are no longer to be taken and acted up to literally, but only in their mystical sense. This seems rudimentary and evident now-a-days; but at that period it greatly needed to be clearly stated and enforced.

His second rule is about the history and prophecy relating to Jew or Gentile that is found in the Old Testament. The Ebionite who kissed the Pentateuch, and the Gnostic who tore it up, were both foolish, because both ignorant. These historic and prophetic details were undoubtedly true in their letter; but their chief use to the Christian Church, and the main object the Holy Spirit had in giving them to us, was the mystical meaning that lies hidden under the letter. Thus the earthly Pharaoh, the earthly Jerusalem, Babylon, or Egypt, are chiefly of importance to the Church from the fact that they are the allegories of heavenly truths.

Origen's third canon of Scriptural exposition is this:"Whatever in holy Scripture seems trivial, useless, or false" (the Gnostics could not or would not see that parabolic narratives are most unjustly called false), " is by no means to be rejected, but its presence in the divine record is to be explained by the fact that the divine Author had a deeper and more important meaning in it than appears from the letter. Such portions, therefore, must be taken and applied in a

spiritual and mystical sense, in which sense chiefly they were dictated by Almighty God."

These three rules look simple now; they were all-important and not so simple then. It was by means of them, and in the spirit which they indicate, that the great catechist led his hearers by the hand through the flowery paths of God's word, and in his own, easy, simple, earnest style, so different from that of the rhetoricians, showed them the true use of the Old Testament. We hope it is not a fanciful idea, but it has struck us that, the difference of circumstances considered, there are few writers so like each other in their handling of holy Scripture as Origen and S. John of the Cross. Both treat of deep truths, and in a phraseology that sounds uncommon,-the one because his hearers were intellectual Greeks, the other because he is professedly treating of the very highest points of the spiritual life. Both use holy Scripture in a fashion that is absolutely startling to those who are accustomed to rationalistic Protestantism, or to what may be called the domestic wife-and-children interpretation of the Evangelicals. Both bring forward, in the most unhesitating manner, the mystic sense of the inspired words to prove or illustrate their point, and both mix up with their more abstruse disquisitions a large amount of practical matter in the very plainest words. From communion with both of them we rise full of a new sense of the presence and nearness of the Spirit of God, and of reverence for the minutest details of His Word. Finally, both the Greek father and the Spanish mystic interpret the ceremonial prescriptions, the history, the allusions to physical nature, and the incidents of domestic life that occur in the Old Testament, as if all these, however important in their letter, had a far deeper and more interesting signification addressed to the spiritual sense of the spiritual Christian.

To illustrate Origen's principles of Scripture interpretation by extracts from his works would exceed our present limits, however interesting and satisfactory the task might be. Neither have we space to notice his celebrated division of the meaning of the text into literal, mystical, and moral, a division he was the first to insist upon formally. To answer the objections of critics against both his principles and his alleged practice would also be a distinct task of great length. We must content ourselves with having briefly sketched and indicated his spirit. There are grave theological controversies too, as is well known, connected with his name; and on these we have had no thought of entering. The purpose of this and the preceding article has not been dogmatical, but rather biographical. We have attempted to set forth on the one hand the personal

character of this great man; on the other, the external circumstances by which that character was influenced, and through which it exercised influence on others.

ART. V.-DR. PUSEY'S PROJECT OF UNION.

The Reunion of Christendom. A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy. By HENRY EDWARD, Archbishop of Westminster. London: Longman.

An Eirenicon. By E. B. PUSEY, D.D. Oxford: Parker.

The Leading Topics of Dr. Pusey's recent Work, Reviewed in a Letter addressed (by permission) to the Most Rev. H. E. Manning, D.D. By the Very Rev. FREDERICK OAKELEY, M.A. London: Longmans.

Letter to the Weekly Register of Nov. 25, 1865, signed E. B. PUSEY.

OU

UR former article on Dr. Pusey was in type (as we there explained) before his various letters had appeared; and it conveyed therefore exclusively the impression made on our mind by the volume itself. That impression was very unfavourable. We never of course doubted, that the book had been intended as an Eirenicon; but we certainly thought that a far more prominent purpose in its author's mind, was to exhibit pointedly the "doctrinal corruptions" involved in Roman Catholic practice, and to warn individuals against joining her communion. Even F. Newman, who writes to him in the most friendly spirit, tells him that he has "discharged his olive branch as if from a catapult" (p. 9).

We frankly avow, however, that Dr. Pusey's subsequent letters, and indeed his whole subsequent course, have convinced us we were mistaken. We see now clearly that the aim at Christian unity, by means too of union with the Holy See, had a far stronger hold on his mind than we at all suspected. Nor should we do justice to our own feelings, if we did not express our testimony to the consistent and touching gentleness of his demeanour, in regard to the various comments which his volume has elicited. That God may complete the good work which He has begun in him, is among our sincerest and most fervent prayers.

Three important publications on Dr. Pusey have already appeared on the Catholic side. Of these, F. Newman's and F. Gallwey's shall be separately noticed; as their pamphlets do

not bear on that question of corporate union, which is our present theme. Canon Oakeley has produced what to our mind is about the best thing (in prose) which he has ever done; and this is saying a great deal. His pamphlet is a model of the true controversial spirit; gentle and kindly, yet uncompromising while his argument is throughout effective, and on one or two critical points triumphant. We shall be glad to relieve the heaviness of our matter, by several quotations from so graceful and flowing a pen.

It has happened at this eventful controversial period, that it became the Archbishop's duty to promulgate Cardinal Patrizi's new response on the Union question. This has naturally issued in his addressing a Pastoral Letter to his clergy, on the general subject of Christian reunion. A bishop's pastoral address cannot, we imagine, under any circumstances, be a legitimate object of public criticism; but in the present instance adverse criticism would be impossible. The Archbishop has uttered, in his characteristically impressive, distinct, and weighty manner, certain great doctrines, which are at the root of every Catholic's belief; but which Unionists in general-Catholic, alas! no less than Protestant-in some strange way manage to ignore and pass over. This address is in fact an authoritative exposition of principles, absolutely certain, inappreciably momentous, yet constantly put out of sight. It will be our own guide throughout. We shall but aim at illustrating, in this article by theological argument, and in our final article by ecclesiastical history, those foundations of Catholic Truth, which have been authoritatively laid down for us by the most exalted member of our English hierarchy.

Nor can we more appropriately commence, than by his Grace's language on the unspeakable importance of religious unity; a truth which he, and those who most closely follow his guidance, have been most strangely suspected of undervaluing.*

For my own part, if I may speak of myself, it is more than a quarter of a century since the thought and name of unity so filled my whole mind, that it has been often turned to my reproach. In all these years it has been my heart's desire and prayer, not only to see the members of the Anglican body gathered into Catholic unity, but the millions of Dissenters, that is, the whole English people, especially the multitude of its noble-hearted poor, united

Here is a fact, incredible à priori, but true. The Union Review of last September (p. 499), asserts that that union of Christians, for which Our Lord prayed, "is the subject of the DUBLIN's most bitter and continuous execration."

once more in the bond of peace and truth. We believe union to be a very precious gift, and only less precious than truth. There is nothing we would not do or suffer, by the grace of God, to effect or to promote the reunion of all, or of any who are out of the fold, to the unity of the Church. We heartily pray, therefore, that He who has inspired and nurtured this desire of union may mature and perfect it; that He will remove all that hinders its accomplishment, purifying the hearts of men from all attachment to their errors and their separations, and cleansing their intelligence to see the immutable faith and sole unity of the Catholic and Roman Church. On our part, all that can cherish and foster these yearnings shall be done. The vision of England Catholic once more; its true and energetic people once more elevated by faith to the higher instincts of the Catholic Church; our domestic schisms healed, our bitter controversies ended, and all our powers turned from mutual conflict, upon the subjugation of the sin and unbelief which, day and night, devour souls on every side all this is as beautiful and fascinating as the image of the Heavenly Jerusalem which the Apostle saw coming down from heaven. There is only one thing more beautiful and more commanding, and that is the Heavenly Jerusalem itself, not in image, but in reality; the Holy Church throughout the world in all the perfect symmetry of unity and truth, indefectible and infallible, incorruptible and changeless, the mother of us all, the kingdom of God on earth (pp. 15, 16).

These expressions will find an echo in every Catholic heart. That there is to be a life-long conflict between the principles of good and evil-this is an inevitable dispensation; but that those who love their God and their Saviour, should dissipate their energies in contending against each other, rather than combine them in contending against the world,—this is a matter for keenest grief. And in these days particularly, when the whole mass of European society is animated by principles profoundly anti-Catholic, "the reunion of Christendom" is the only adequate remedy (if indeed it be adequate) to cope with so fatal a disease.

But on what basis shall we labour to establish this reunion? on a latitudinarian or a dogmatic? The popular specific at this day is of course the former. "Let all religionists continue to think as they do in other respects; but let them cease to think that these points of difference are important." Such at one time was Constantine's view, as it has been of many another secular potentate.* "Why should Catholics and Arians," he asked in effect, "disturb the world by their contentions? Why should they not agree to differ? Why should not those who adore our Lord as the Creator, and those who reverence him as the highest of creatures, remain contentedly united in the same Church?" One or two writers in the

* See the passage in F. Newman's "Anglican Difficulties," p. 312.