more free. On the contrary, fresh chains might be easily forged for her. The Civil Courts might still claim to interpret her formularies, and the ruling power to exercise some influence over appointments to ecclesiastical offices. The confiscation of Church property, besides being an act of sacrilege, (almost as bad as the Reformation,) would throw the work of the National Church back for generations. New churches and parsonages would have to be built, or the old ones repurchased, and the incomes of the existing Clergy, calculated on an average of £200 a-year, and thus amounting to £4,000,000 a-year at least, would have to be provided annually. All the money thus spent would be withheld from missions and works of charity. Disestablishment and Disendowment would unquestionably involve the abolition of the parochial system. It would cease to be true, as it happily is now true, that every man, woman, and child in England has an appointed minister, whose duty and privilege it is to care, to the best of his ability, for his or her spiritual welfare. Parishes would be replaced by mere congregations of all sorts, phases, characteristics, and fancies; whilst in outlying country districts the people would in a very few years have no one to care for their souls, and probably relapse into that state of heathenish ignorance or indifference to all religion, which is 80 common and apparent already in the great majority of our largest towns and cities.

When Broad Churchmen are found to be successfully removing, or carefully watering down, the old principles and Ancient Faith, in order altogether to eliminate the supernatural element from it, they do not appear to realize the general deterioration and marked lack of intelligible interest which is slowly, but surely, taking place in the maintenance of the Established Church. Dr. Tait's ignoble policy "Throw anything, or everything, into the water, save the dignities which I and York bear, and the money which he and I handle, in order to save the ship "-is one that only brings contempt on its author, and disgrace upon the cause which so many of us have at heart. From Cambridge we learn that fewer men than ever before are preparing to take Holy Orders. "Recent Legislation in the interest of Indifferentism or Infidelity," writes a Cambridge Tutor of eminence, "is warning off the young and enthusiastic from the work of the ministry." "Our best men," writes the Vice-Head of an Oxford College, "show little inclination to undertake the pastoral office: and recent fundamental changes in the position of a beneficed Clergyman (now at the mercy of the ignorant and informers,) have much to do in altering the current of young men's lives." Archbishop Tait was warned of this two years ago, as well by the Oxford Professors as by a Petition from about five hundred Oxford Undergraduates: but he treated the warnings with superfine indifference and a lordly sneer: though he has, perhaps, found out his mistake by this time.

It is, of course, the duty of all (English Churchmen to defend the position to the uttermost, and to fight to the end. But the chances that English Churchmen will fight are greatly lessened. To fight for a position in which the drones and the unprincipled are placed in the forefront, while the Generals are in secret league with the enemy-for are not the Erastians practically unbelievers ?-is only to court defeat and bring about humiliation-a work which no one has more efficiently compassed than His Grace the Primate of all England.

TH

THE UNIVERSITY BILL.

HE questions dealt with by the Government University Bill are neither few nor unimportant. That reform of some kind is needed is beyond question; for to such a pass have the ancient Universities been brought by the mischievous meddling of the low Radical tinkers who, in spite of the opposition of the Universities themselves, contrived the legislation of 1854 and 1871, that something must be done to arrest the evil. The Pagan party succeeded in their attack on Clerical Fellowships, the conditions on which these were held being residence and poverty. The result is now seen in the outcry against "idle" Fellowships. Again, the Scholarships, which pious benefactors had founded for the help of the poor, having now been thrown open to unrestricted competition, are swallowed up by rich men

whose means have procured for them an expensive education. Archbishop Tait's remedy for this latter grievance is characteristic enough. He would alienate part of the College revenues to the assistance of unattached students. Now, apart from the intrinsic injustice of such a proposal, we have no hesitation in saying that we view the "Unattached" system with the greatest possible dislike. It is, moreover, an entire delusion to suppose that the cause of the non-collegiate system is the cause of the poor. A man can live quite as frugally at a College or Hall as he can when "Unattached," and it is simply notorious that to many men the system recommends itself simply on account of the laxity of its discipline. But there is, after all, nothing surprising in the circumstance that the great representative in England of German Erastianism and German Rationalism should endeavour to assimilate Oxford and Cambridge to the model of Heidelberg and Leipzig. This brings us to the question which lies at the root of the whole matter: namely, whether the Colleges shall be sacrificed to the University. In Germany this has been done effectively; and the result is that the Universities have lost their self-government, and are mere State departments under the entire control of the Minister of Public Instruction. That Lord Salisbury's Bill is a step in the direction of abolishing the Collegiate system would seem to us undoubted, in spite of Mr. Gathorne Hardy's assurances, and we cannot therefore wish it success. With the subject of the Endowment of Research we have dealt at length elsewhere, and we shall content ourselves with remarking here that such a scheme must obviously and inevitably lead to simple jobbery. As to the claims of Physical Science to a share in the spoils taken from the Colleges, we are perfectly sick of a proposal so utterly threadbare and discredited. So far as Oxford is concerned, Physical Science is over-endowed already. We could tell of a richly-paid scientific professor who spends his whole time in London, where he acts as the analyst of metropolitan gas companies, and who seems to imagine that his obligation of residence is satisfied if he sends his better half" to live in Oxford during a portion of each term. Nor have the tens of thousands of pounds which have been devoted to Physical Science during the last twenty years been very prolific in results, as anyone who chooses to look at the ClassLists may see for himself.

Lord Francis Hervey's criticism of the manner in which University revenues are at present expended was amply justified; and both Mr. O. Morgan and Mr. Lowe, in spite of the vulgar and contemptible Radicalism of the former, and the captious personalities of the latter, did good service in pointing out such flaws in the Government Bill as the enormous and yet indefinite powers which it gives to the Commissioners, and the iniquitous treatment of the Colleges which it sanctions.

FOUR LETTERS TO A. P. DE LISLE, ESQ., ON THE FORMATION OF AN UNIAT CHURCH.

I

SIR,

LETTER THE THIRD.

NOW turn to the consideration of the form which we may suppose an English Uniat Church would take. In doing so I must guard against being misunderstood. Far be it from me to seem even to dictate the terms of so great and glorious a work. But, as the initiative must come from us, it must be ours to suggest. We must be prepared to lay our proposals before the Holy See, to be modified as the wisdom of that See may see fit.

Imprimis. There must be definite terms of Communion. Experience has shown that the possession of the three Creeds is sufficient neither to ensure unity nor to guard against heresy. I presume, then, that the summary of the Catholic Faith, known as "the Creed as Pope Pius IV.," would be taken as the basis of our operations. To this would be added a declaration of belief in the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady, as defined by the reigning Pontiff, and an acceptation of the Vatican Decrees. In a little work, "The Threshold of the Catholic Church," written by the Rev. J. B. Bagshawe, with a Preface by the Right Rev. Monsignor Capel, and bearing the imprimatur of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster-a book, therefore, by no means devoid of

authority-the Creed of Pope Pius is set forth at length with a short explanation of each article. I cannot think that the Creed, as so explained, could offer any difficulty to us. Indeed there are "concessions" in the explanations, which, however desirable a necessity for converts from Protestantism, would be wholly superfluous in our case. I shall have to speak more at length of this book. Suffice it now to say, that on the question of tradition, the Fathers, the number and nature of the Sacraments, the propitiatory and sacrificial character of the Mass, Ritualistic teaching tallies already with that of the Creed. In deference to an Anglican tradition, the name "Transubstantiation" is rejected, though the thing itself is virtually held. Its acceptance by Uniats would present no difficulty. Purgatory-especially that view of it propounded by St. Catherine of Genoa-is largely held among us. The Invocation of Saints, and the veneration of images is widely practised among us. The remaining clauses of the Creed which describe the Roman Church as "the Mother and Mistress of Churches," &c., would naturally follow from our acceptance of the Primacy of the Apostolic See.

Many Ritualists regard the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin as a logical outcome of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and as a safeguard of that doctrine. What they now hold on these lower grounds, Uniats would actually accept as de fide on the authority of the Pope, backed by the sense of the Western Church. Much of the opposition to this dogma rests on misapprehensions as to its real nature and limits. As these were explained and apprehended, difficulties would vanish. Many Anglicans in opposing the Immaculate Conception are merely opposing some creature of their own brain such as the purity of Her active conception: Her freedom from original sin, not by a special privilege of God, but as it were of her own nature and merits, &c. Some to whom I have explained the teaching of the Church have seen no difficulty in the dogma as thus explained.

With regard to the Vatican Decrees, no difficulty would be experienced except in the article of Papal Infallibility. Here, again, much of the opposition is due to all manner of misconceptions, which have been seduously propagated by the English press. To us, who believe in the Infallibility of the Church, the dogma itself, as explained by such writers as Archbishop Fessler and Dr. Newman, need present no obstacle to re-union. In returning to the Pope as the divinelyappointed Shepherd and Head of the Church, we should gladly submit our judgment to that of the Fathers of the Vatican, in recognising in him the divinely-assisted arbiter of the controversies of Christians-our Teacher not less than our Father.

66

Having thus considered the foundation, I pass on to the superstructure. It may be said-and by persons on both sides "-"If you accept all this, what is there left for Roman Catholics to concede? Why stand out for Corporate Reunion,' when with these sentiments you have only to go to the nearest priest, and make your submission?" The advantages of Corporate Re-union will form the subject of my concluding letter. I must content myself here with asking you to take them for granted, in order that we may confine ourselves to the question now under consideration-the form a Uniat Church might be expected to take.

Certain concessions, then, are needed in order to substitute corporate re-union for individual secession. Those who secede must be in a position both to carry their people with them, and to retain a corporate existence. The first essential would be to secure and perpetuate the bond already existing between pastors and their flocks. I read in the "Life and Letters of Frederick W. Faber," p. 284, a remark of Cardinal Acton that "he thought it better, when practicable, for converted clergymen to become priests, because Englishmen have the idea of there being something indelible about orders, and do not like their passing away altogether." The wisdom of this advice no one will question who knows anything of English ecclesiastical affairs. In pleading (not for the recognition of our orders that we are content to leave, what it is now, an open question-but) for the conditional re-ordination of such of our Clergy as would submit to the Unia, we are only advancing it a step. Many of the Clergy, I know, are deterred from individual submission by the necessity which now exists either of retiring from the exercise of priestly functions, or of submitting to unconditional re-ordination. Again, take the case of the married Clergy. To them even

this alternative is denied. Moreover, in all cases of individual clerical secession, the bond between pastors and people_is necessarily severed. The convert has to begin de novo. He retires to go through his course; and owing to the paucity of the Anglo-Roman priesthood, is most probably placed on a station remote from his former work. Even when this is not the case, his former flock has been meanwhile subjected to other influences, and his power over them is impaired, if not entirely gone. No wonder then, that, as Monsignor Capel says, even when clergymen of undoubted learning and influence have joined the Church, few of those who hang upon them for spiritual manifestations have immediately followed their steps." If, as the Monsignor believes, "we are on the eve of a new phase in the progress of Catholicity in the country," and that "it is not unreasonable to hope that very soon, not only individuals, but whole families and congregations may submit to the See of St. Peter," how can this be better effected than by devising means for the reception of "whole congregations" not as a mere bundle of units, but as corporations with their pastors at their head?

Surely, Sir, this is a point as to which the Holy See may "stoop to conquer." About conditional ordination, as such, there could, I should suppose, be no difficulty, The conditional iteration of Sacraments in themselves unrepeatable, is fully recognised in theology in cases of doubt. Those who believe Anglican Orders invalid would regard their conditional iteration as the real Sacrament. Those who believe them to be valid-or even probably valid-would consider their conditional iteration a loving provision on the part of the Church for security as to a point which might otherwise be doubtful, and as to which theologians are divided. A greater difficulty would be the acceptance of Anglican Clergy so ordained as ipso facto fit ministers of the Sacraments, especially in regard to the Sacrament of Penance. I do not seek to disguise or palliate this difficulty. On the one hand, the continuity of the Clergy at the head of their flocks is a sine quá non of corporate submission: on the other, our Clergy, highly educated and intellectual as many of them are, are entirely self-trained in theology. The problem to be solved is this: How to continue them as ministers of their flocks, and yet to insure their efficiency as stewards of the mysteries of God. This, however, is a difficulty that must have been experienced more or less painfully, in the case of other Unias: and as it was not found insuperable then, neither, I suppose, would it be found now.

The case of the married Clergy presents another crux. Here we have a precedent, however. In the case of all the Eastern Unias the Greek rule, which permits the ordination of married men, while excluding marriage subsequent to ordination, has been allowed. An extension of this policy to ourselves would sufficiently meet the case. Let the conditional ordination of married men-converts from the ranks of the Anglican Clergy-be allowed: while marriage is forbidden subsequently to such conditional ordination. This, it will be seen, falls short of the concessions granted to the Easterns, by excluding from its provisions lay converts to the Unia who might take Orders. It would confine the ordination of married men to the clerical converts, while it would exclude as in the East-the marriage of persons in Holy Orders, it would be, not a standing provision, but an dîxovoμía "for the present distress." Another question is the Liturgical one. In all the precedents, the Unias have retained, wholly or in part, their national rites; but then these rites have been the growth of ages. We in England are differently situated. Our national rites are but 800 years old; and the old Catholic services less, a consideration of how far concessions could be here were violently extruded to make way for them. Neverthemade is important. As I have already spoken on this point* I will not go over old ground. Perhaps the closest approximation is the case of the Armenians, whose Liturgy, itself heretical, was examined and purged by a Commission of theologians. A Catholic version of the Book of Common Prayer, at the hands of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, would not be an impossibility-whether it would be deemed advisable or not is another matter. Anyhow, the monthly recitation of the Vernacular Psalter-the version to keep as

*In my Letter to a Clergyman-"The Discipline of Christ, or the Discipline of Devils," p. 26.

near as might be to our present liturgical version-might well be granted and, possibly, the Ordinary of the Mass, and the parts in which the people might be expected to join, might be in English.

We do not plead, Sir, for these—or the like concessionsmerely to gratify our own predilections, or as in any way contravening the Canon of the Council of Trent (Sess. 22 c. 9), which forbids any to affirm that Mass ought only to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, or that the opposite practice is contrary to Christ's institution. We only ask for concessions which we feel convinced would facilitate the work of corporate re-union among our own people, who have grown up under the use of vernacular services. It is difficult for those who have used the fuller forms of the Roman Liturgy to understand the spell exercised over the English mind by the vernacular service, poor and meagre as it is with its absence of antiphons, &c. Father Faber has pointed this out in a striking passage in his "Essays on the Interests and Characteristics of the Lives of the Saints." (He is speaking of the Anglican version of the Scriptures, but his argument would equally apply to the Prayer Book which is so largely made up of excerpts from the Bible.)

"If the Arian heresy," he says, was propagated and rooted by means of beautiful vernacular hymns, so who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvellous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country? It lives on the ear like a music that never can be forgotten, like the sound of church bells which the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities seem often to be almost things rather than mere words. It is a part of the national mind, and the anchor of the national seriousness. Nay, it is worshipped with a positive idolatry, in extenuation of whose grotesque fanaticism its intrinsic beauty pleads availingly with the man of letters and the scholar. The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of a man is hidden beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft, and gentle, and pure, and penitent, and good, speaks to him for ever out of his English Bible. It is his sacred thing, which doubt has never dimmed, and controversy never soiled. It has been to him all along as the silent, but O! how intelligible, voice of his guardian angel and in the length and breadth of the land there is not a Protestant, with one spark of righteousness about him, whose spiritual biography is not in his Saxon Bible. And all this is an unballowed power! The extinction of the Establishment would be a less step towards the conquest of the national mind, than, if it were possible, (but we are speaking humanly, and in our own ignorance), to adopt that Bible and correct it by the Vulgate. As it is, there is no blessing of the Church along with it, and who would dream that beauty was better than a blessing?'

:

A vernacular Liturgy, retaining all that is good in the Anglican Service-wherever possible in the ipsissima verba so endeared to our people from childhood-but supplemented and enriched with additions from the Liturgical books of the Roman Church: and the "Saxon Bible," so dear to our people, "adopted and corrected by the Vulgate:" both blessed by the Church, and so becoming a "hallowed power: these would indeed go a great way towards the conversion of England.

With regard to Communion in one kind-this is admittedly a question of discipline. The doctrine it was intended to guard-the individuality of Christ, so that where His Body is there must be His Blood, His Soul, His Divinity, His Entire Self-is not likely to be called in question by any of us. Communion in the chalice was granted by the Holy See to the Eastern Uniat Churches: and Pope Clement VI., in the 14th century, is recorded to have granted the cup to a king of France "ad majorem gratiæ augmentum." (See Lugo, "De Sacr. Euch. Disp. 12, s. 3," and Vasquez, "In 3 Disp. 215.") If a like indulgence could be extended to us, it would, I am convinced, increase widely the area of conversions. The doctrine of the Council of Trent, (Sess. 21, c. 3) that " as pertains to the fruit they are deprived of no grace necessary to salvation who receive one kind only" might be fully enforced and recognition of the fact that Communion in one kind is sufficient and valid might be required from us,

I will conclude this letter with a few proofs that concessions which do not affect the Faith are fully recognized by the Church in her dealings with individuals and nations. St. Augustine, long ago, laid down the Canon that "in all such things whereabout the Holy Scripture has given no positive determination, the custom of the people of God, or the rules of our forefathers, are to be taken for laws. For if we dispute about such matters, and condemn the custom of one Church by the custom of another, there will be an eternal occasion of strife and contention, which will be always diligent enough to find out plausible reasons, when there are no certain arguments to show the truth. All the beauty of the King's daughter is within, and those observations which are differently celebrated are understood only to be in her outward clothing. Whence she is said to be clothed in golden fringes wrought about with divers colours." And Azevedo, whose witness as that of the intimate friend of the reviser of the Roman Ceremonial, Pope Benedict XIV., is the more unimpeachable, writes to the same effect: "Tantum abest, ut veteri assentiamur quærelæ, in Ecclesia, quæ unicam fidem profitetur, tot officii recitandi institutiones nequaquam esse ferendas, ut ipsam iis varietatibus, tanquam variis gemmis, et monilibus exornatam, variaque supellectili divitem confidenter prædicemus. Christi sponsa est, adeoque pretiosum exposcit indumentum multiformi colorum nitore distinctum. autem vestes multicolores nisi varietas sacrorum rituum quibus ecclesiastici viri Deo laudes persolvunt? Unam quidem Ecclesiam universalem et orthodoxam confitemur; sed unius corporis plura membra diversa obire munia in unum finem tendentia quis nescit? Præterea, uti gentium ac nationum mores diversi sunt, ita ad actus religionis, cultumque Divinum diversis utuntur institutis, quæ, salva Christianæ fidei integritate, vix possent ab eis vel omitti, vel auferri." (De Divin. Offic., t. i. Exercit. x.)

Quid

True, the Church (for good and sufficient reasons) sees fit from time to time to curb this diversity: but in all such actions, as a wise and discreet mother, she has regard to circumstances and the needs of her children. Here, as in her dealings with the Eastern Churches, she admits rites widely differing from her own. Here, as in the 16th century, she propagates the Roman Liturgy, yet with a saving clause in favour of local Breviaries and Missals which could plead a prescription of 200 years. Here again, as in recent times, she abrogates the Gallican service-books of the 17th century, while yet she permits local peculiarities of ritual to remain intact. Everyone knows that many of the Religious Orders enjoy, by favour of the Holy See, their own peculiar officebooks and their own proper Rite," differing in many respects as well from each other as from the ordinary parochial rite of Rome. What is possible in the case of the Benedictines or the Dominicans cannot, surely, be impossible in ours.

I turn now to a book from which I have already quoted, "The Threshold of the Catholic Church," a manual of plain instructions for converts. What do I find there? All manner of "concessions" to individual converts; some of which go a great deal further than anything I am pleading for. On p. 238 (I quote from the Third Edition: Washbourne, 1874,) I find the following: "In Catholic countries, therefore, certain restrictions are placed on reading the Scriptures in the vernacular. In England it is not so. The condition of the country seems to make such restrictions undesirable, and therefore, in practice, each one is allowed to use his own discretion, remembering always, however, the principles on which restrictions are founded."

So again, on p. 106, we are told that "the rules of fasting vary in different countries." Both of these are instances of general rules, altered, modified or suspended, in the Church's wisdom and discretion, according to the circumstances and needs of different people. This covers the entire principle for which I am contending. On p. 253, speaking of Prayers for the Dead, and the duty of honouring and invocating the Saints, we are told "It does not, however, necessarily follow that all Catholics are individually bound to practise these devotions. Every Catholic is bound to believe and profess that such prayers are both lawful and beneficial, but is left at liberty to use them or not at his own discretion, although it would be almost or quite impossible for anyone to be a good Catholic without following in some degree or other the usage of the Church in these matters."

In the next paragraph this principle is extended to the use of images. "We are not compelled to make use of holy images, &c., but are bound to admit the principle of using them" (p. 254). Still more fully, p. 224, is the "conceding' principle extended to all such matters as images, crucifixes, relics, holy water, &c. "Now what has been said of all these external pieties' may be summed up in this: Many people are undoubtedly greatly assisted by them in real devotion and holiness: therefore you must accustom yourself to use them, as far as you can, with advantage to yourself: but, as they are not essential, you must not be troubled if you find a difficulty in doing so. You have only to remember that if you cannot, it is your misfortune, and not because you are wiser than your neighbours."

On these passages, Sir, my one comment shall be this: If, the integrity of the Faith being guarded, concessions such as these can be made to individual converts, is it altogether impossible that concessions such as I have been contending for, could be made to "whole congregations," who, weary with the controversies and contradictions of Anglicanism, are turning wistful eyes to the Holy See, desiring, while accepting all that is de fide, to obtain from it a modus vivendi which shall enable them to maintain their corporate entity, and to retain, and use in the service of Holy Church, that influence which God has given them over so many of their fellowcountrymen?

T is little more than twenty years since Dr. Hefele completed the first of the seven volumes which comprise his great work, the Conciliengeschichte-a work which has already, and most deservedly so, become classic. seventh volume, published in Germany about twelve months ago, brings the history down to the period of the Councils of Basle and Florence: the materials for a complete history of Trent being, in Dr. Hefele's opinion, still wanting.

The

The greater portion of this learned and masterly history has already been rendered into French, and we understand that an Italian version is in course of preparation. thoroughly good and carefully edited translation before uswhich we owe to the unflagging enterprise of Messrs. Clarkappears in two handsome octavo volumes of some 500 pages apiece; and the translators certainly deserve the hearty thanks of every English theological student for the fidelity and grace with which they have accomplished their work.

The present instalment could hardly have made its appearance at a more opportune season, when the minds of the really earnest amongst the Clergy and the more far-seeing of our laity are-thanks to the Erastianising spirit of the powers that be so completely thrown back upon the first principles of the doctrine of Christ and the constitution of His Church; when it is becoming more distinctly felt every day, that a choice must be made between that ecclesiastical antichristianism which is born of the vox populi and fondled and nourished in the breast of a Tait, and the Ecclesiastical Discipline, Worship and Morals which are inspired by the Holy Ghost and delivered to us by the Church of God. The History of the Councils is the bistory of anti-Erastianism. This gives it a special value at the present moment.

Of the thoroughness of Bishop Hefele's learning and eminent fairness as an historian it is needless to speak. He is acknowledged to be unrivalled in his own country as a scholar and a profound theologian. In the latter aspect he is barely second to the master-mind of England-our own Newman; whilst as an ecclesiastical student, the peculiar advantages of his early training entitle him to be considered as probably Dr. Newman's equal, if not his superior. Not alone to the tyro who has heretofore been content with his Denzinger or his Caranza, but to deeply-read students, who

are familiar with the Collections of Labbe and Cossart, of Hardouin and Mansi, will Dr. Hefele's work be full of interest; for he has brought to bear upon his subject an amount of information and criticism which is to be found only in part in the works of these great Editors. But the Bishop shall speak for himself:—

No portion of Church history has been so much neglected in recent times as the history of Councils. With the exception of a few monographs on particular Synods, nothing of importance has appeared on be altered, and altered not by a mere adaptation of old materials, but this subject in our days. It is high time that this state of things should by a treatment of the subject suited to the wants of the present day. It has become less difficult, inasmuch as new documents have been brought to light, and we live in an age when many errors have been abandoned, many prejudices have been put on one side, great progress has been made in critical studies, and a deeper insight into the develop ment of the Christian Church has, undoubtedly, been gained. I have been employed for a good many years in the composition of a History of the Councils of the Church, which should be of a comprehensive have spared no pains to secure accuracy, and have done my best to character, and founded upon original documents. I may affirm that I consult all the literature which bears upon the subject. -Preface, p. 5.

the close of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), and the Second The first volume brings the History of the Church down to carries it on until the period immediately anterior to that of Ephesus (A.D. 429). We can do no more, within the limits of two columns, than give a mere indication of the subjects of which the author so ably treats: they comprise the Origin, Authority and the Presidency of Councils; the Confirmation of their Decrees; the relation of the Holy See to Ecumenical Synods; the customs observed with respect to Signatures, Precedence and Manner of Voting; the History and Canons of Synods relating to Montanism, the Feast of Easter, Novatianism, the Baptism of Heretics, Paul of Samosata, the Schism of the Donatists-"the first who called for the intervention of the Civil Power in a purely ecclesiastical case (vol I. p. 178),—the Synods of Arles, Ancyra, and Neocæsarea. Then follows a most important introduction to the history and acts of the first Ecumenical Council, in which the doctrine of the Logos prior to the rise of Arianism, Arius and his Thalia, are treated of with a power and interest second only to Dr. Newman's great work on the same subject. This Nicæa," which we commend to our readers as a most thorough the way prepares for a chapter entitled "The Discussions at and interesting treatise on the intrigues, the sophistries and the intense Broadchurchism "-which is ever struggling after that ignis fatuus an "undogmatic Christianity "-of the arch-heretic Arius and his party. This section closes with an account of the decision in the Easter Question, and a running opens with an account of the period between the Nicene commentary on the Nicene Canons. The Second Volume Council and the Synod of Sardica, and deals with the accusations against, and the exiles of S. Athanasius, the transactions at Sardica (with remarks of special interest on the character Pope), Laodicea, Gangra, and the Second General Council at of the prerogative which the Sardican Canons ascribe to the Constantinople. The volume closes with Book VIII., which is chiefly occupied with a detailed account of the persecutions of S. Chrysostom-whose contest with heresy, backed up as it those of us who-as is already the case in Catholic Germany was by the secular power, should be read again and again by the freedom of the Church. -may be called to endure trials of a similar character for

Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, and its central feature will The third volume will introduce us to the period of the be the great Council of Ephesus. We shall anxiously await its appearance. With the following striking remarks on the relation of the Pope to a General Council, in which the Bishop balances with a steady hand the rival theories of

Ultramontanists and Gallicans, we take our leave of this most

important work, which the ecclesiastical student who wishes to be au fait with modern criticism and research, will find an absolutely indispensable addition to his library. At pages 50 -51 of volume the first, Dr. Hefele writes:

In confining themselves to this question, is the Pope superior or inferior to a general Council? the Gallicans and the Ultramontanes did not understand that they were keeping on the surface of a very deep question, that of the position of the Holy See in the economy of the Catholic Church. A much clearer and deeper insight into the question has more recently been shown, and the real question may be summed up in the following propositions:-An Ecumenical Council represents the Pope and the Church. whole Church; there must, therefore, be the same relation between the Now, is the Pope above or below the Church? Neither the one nor the other. The Pope is in the Church; he neces

sarily belongs to it; he is its head and its centre. The Church, like the human body, is an organized whole, and just as the head is not superior of inferior to the body; but forms a part of it, and is the principal part

of it, so the Pope, who is the head of the Church, is not superior or inferior to it: he is therefore neither above nor below the General Council. The human organisation is no longer a true body, but a lifeless trunk, when the head is cut off; so an assembly of Bishops is no longer an Ecumerical Council when it is separated from the Pope. It is therefore a false statement of the question, to ask whether the Pope is above or below the General Council.

As regards the respective translations we can say of each that they are exceeding well done. But there is a ruggedness, and occasionally an awkward idiomatic phraseology in that by Prebendary Clark, which are altogether wanting in the second volume. Mr. Oxenham's translation reads exactly like an original English treatise-vigorous, smooth, and yet withal nervous-thus rendering that portion of the treatise most agreeable to read and eminently attractive in its English form. The Publishers deserve all credit for their spirit and energy.

A

1876.

[FIRST NOTICE.]

S we have already remarked, this is a very important volume. We commend it earnestly to all Ritualists and Gladstonians. It serves to represent calmly and with exactness the remarkable progress which has been made in the public mind with regard to the important subject of which it treats. It points out with unerring precision the leading fact staring us all in the face that, if the English Church is to remain "Established" (whatever that may mean), it will remain so on a purely Erastian basis and on no other. We may perfectly agree with Mr. E. A. Freeman's reasonable theory about the identity of the Post- and PreReformation National Church in England; and yet see with the instinct of faith that ancient theories have now crumbled to pieces before our eyes; that the new wine of the developed Oxford movement so energetically put into the old bottles is effectively bursting them; that the old Tudor and Caroline notions are gone to the dogs; and that the only theory which now lives-and its life is galvanized and artificial is that which Erastus invented, which William the Dutchman espoused, which Tillotson taught, and which Tait fondles. Instead of an amorous woman of questionable morals and doubtful virginity, or a priggish youth of fifteen, being "the Head of the Church," we now have a new Court, with a new Judge a little soiled by past labours, and a national jurisdiction, not representing Her Most gracious and religious Majesty's elastic geographical conscience (which might be a perplexing task), but merely the floating and fluctuating opinions of a British Public, which proudly regards itself as both immaculate and infallible.

Mr. George Harwood divides his able and comprehensive treatise of 400 pages into eight readable chapters, of which the fifth, sixth, and seventh are the most important. The early portions of the book, which, by the way, contains no original research, follows mainly the common-place and ordinary traditions of English historians; though there are several categorical assertions and random statements disereetly enough put-the truth and value of which we could seriously question had we space at our command. He admits, on p. 20, that the pallium of the Anglo-Saxon primates represented, even then, the legitimate jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West a point which ought not to be forgotten by the Ritualists, in what a witty on-looker has termed their "present pickle and pleasant plight." The sketch of the Reformation, on pp. 66, 67, is meant to be fair; and from the pen of one steeped to the very eyelids in a revolting and hateful Erastianism, it is fair.

The History of Dissentno very savoury subject-sketched in those pages lying between page 92 and page 140, is written generally with good sense, discretion, impartiality, and just judgment; but the author's conception of schism, and the measure of evils arising from it, are totally inadequate to the abject-matter, A Catholic Churchman, in studying Mr. Harwood's volume, finds that there is so little in common between himself and the author as regards principle, that the discussion of details is rendered practically useless. Mr. Harwood thus writes on p. 145-"A War department independent of the State is only another name for Rebellion."

He had previously pointed out the important difference between the Telegraph department before the Government purchased it and the War department, and then adds :—“ If the Church be like the Telegraph department, then Disestablishment merely means the annulling of a bargain; and the Church would continue to be the Church after it was separated from the State, just as it had been the Church before it was connected with it; whereas if it is like the War department, Disestablishment means the abandonment by the State of a duty which has hitherto been always an essential part of its functions, and it means also the annihilation of the Church." (P. 145.) Later on, after telling us that "every organization must have a supreme Authority lodged somewhere "-a point which the Ritualists and their Hibernian leaders do not think fit to allow, and the ignoring of which elementary principle has so damaged them in public estimation,-Mr. Harwood maintains, most untruly and inaccurately, that this "Supreme authority for the Church of England has always been lodged in the State." (P. 147.) "A State Church means simply a Church under the control of the State." (P. 157.) The State has the supreme Power, and is the ultimate Authority to appeal to." (P. 158.) That this is only true, and has only been true, since the Reformation, is most evident.

"

Mr. Harwood deplores the fact that "People will persist in talking as if the State and the Church are each something distinct from the nation, as well as from each other, whereas in reality they are only two different aspects of the same object. The State means the Nation as a political organization; the Church means the Nation as a religious organization." (P. 151.) Further on, the very principle of our present difficulty is touched upon. We, old-fashioned Churchmen of the school of Laud and Sancroft, complain that Lord Penzance is a new Institution, unknown to the Church of England; and that the principle of Jews, Infidels, and Heretics legislating for us is novel, fatal to the Church's Catholicity, and, ought to be wholly repudiated. We complain bitterly and deeply that such a novel innovation is unjust to those already in Holy Orders, ordained as they were on certain conditions, because, by and through the P.W.R. Act, the whole of the ancient foundations are gone. The compact and contract are broken by the State. To this objection Mr. Harwood replies:- Of course the Nation has the right to alter its conditions, and the clergyman, when he enters its service, knows that this is a right which the State retains over all its departments. [So that the Church, like the Board of Works, is a mere department of the State.] If those conditions are altered unjustly, then the clergy man may justly complain; but he has no right to accept the advantages of being in the service of the State and then to refuse to abide by the conditions of that Service." (P. 153.) Again:-"There is no doubt that the Clergy, considered as servants of the State, ought to be judged precisely by the same rules as are applied to all other servants of the State ;"-a proposition which, had it been accepted by Dr. Tait and Mr. Disraeli, would have enabled all doctrinal and ritual disputes to have been easily and finally settled either at a Magistrates' meeting, or by a County-court judge, and saved all the trouble of passing the P.W.R. Act, and the considerable cost of an ex-Divorce Judge, and his expensive organization and fees.

F

the Church Association had a few remaining grains of IF wisdom it would instruct its representatives to be careful how they fall foul of Catholic theologians. They would do well to be quite sure of their ground before venturing upon the publication of sermons on subjects about which they are intensely ignorant. The letter by Dr. Sanderson; of Lancing, entitled The Church Association and the Rector of Broadwater (Brighton Treacher), must have done the Association no inconsiderable amount of injury in the minds of all thinking men. Mr. Elliott, the Rector of Broadwater, ventured upon the assertion "You may go into churches, í.e., of the Ritualists,' where you will hear Transubstantiation unequivocally taught;" whereupon Dr. Sanderson "took leave to deny that assertion," and has most convincingly refuted each and every particle of the evidence which Mr. Elliott brought forward in defence of it. Dr. Sanderson's pamphlet is a capital specimen of calm, incisive argument on-considering the inadequacy of human language to express so Divine a Mystery-a somewhat difficult position, viz., that "the