statement" put forward by Dr. Littledale about the origin of the first Rescript elicited from Rome concerning the Association in question, Bishop Ullathorne proceeds to speak of the double complaint of the Appellants-the one hundred and ninety-eight Anglican ministers who signed the Letter to Cardinal Patrizi, alleging that the Sacred Congregation had misconstrued both the assertions and the intentions of the Association. As to the first point these "Appellants" observe, that though in their Prospectus they asserted the fact that "the Roman, Greek, and Anglican communions each claimed for themselves the inheritance of the Priesthood and the name of Catholic," they never said any thing as to the rightfulness of such claim on the part of Anglicanism. They seem to have thought that Catholics might join with them on the ground of the mere fact of such a "claim," believing all the time that it was groundless and false. Such a compromise is more congenial to the atmosphere of Protestantism than to that of Catholicism. It cannot be denied that the "claim" of which the Association spoke was based on a certain theory as to Church Unity, entirely novel and un-Catholic, to which Catholics joining the Association would have given a virtual approbation. This theory is, of course, that on which Dr. Pusey has expended so much ingenuity in his Eirenicon.

Bishop Ullathorne very carefully examines this theory, and tests it by antiquity. He then proceeds to answer some arguments adduced in its defence from the valid administration of the Sacraments-especially Baptism-by schismatics and heretics. With regard to this, he puts forward very clearly St. Augustine's doctrine on the subject, which entirely confutes the arguments of Dr. Littledale and Dr. Pusey. St. Augustine "does not mean, nor does St. Thomas, as Dr. Pusey supposes, that the grace of the Sacrament is not conveyed in heresy or schism; but that the recipient remains in sin because of his sinful dispositions." He quotes St. Augustine's own words: "If then and there (outside the Church) the sins of the baptised are remitted through the sanctity of Baptism, they again return through the obstinacy of heresy and schism. Wherefore, such men as these are under the necessity of coming to Catholic peace, that they may cease to be heretics and schismatics, and may deserve to have purgation of the sins which have revived in them, through the operation of charity in the bond of unity." It is, in fact, difficult to see how any can mistake the doctrine of the Fathers on the subject.

As one of the notes of Catholicity claimed for the Anglican Church by the Association was that of the "inheritance of the priesthood," Bishop Ullathorne gives us some extremely interesting remarks on the question of Anglican Orders. He incidentally mentions that he has in his possession a letter of Dr. Lingard's on the subject, which quite clears him from the suspicion of having in any way defended those Orders. Lingard discarded the "Nag's Head" story, and that has been enough to make some sanguine Anglicans claim him as on their side of the question. But he also expressed

in the strongest words his conviction of the invalidity of Anglican Orders, and gave his reasons. Bishop Ullathorne's remarks bear mainly on the "intention" of Anglican "bishops" in conferring Orders. He waives the two preliminary questions of the reality of the Episcopal character claimed by them, and the validity of the form used by them; and he argues that, supposing these points to be granted, which they are not, still there will remain an insuperable difficulty as to the "intention," because the doctrine of the Establishment, as expressed in the Articles, entirely precludes the supposition that the "bishops" believed in or meant to confer the true priestly power, the power of "sacrificing," with respect to the Real Body and Blood of our Lord. On such a point as this it is idle to call as witnesses a few detached writers who may have maintained the doctrine of the Real Presence or that of the Sacrifice; the question is, what was the belief of the chain of "bishops" in the successive generations since Elizabeth? There can be no question that with whatever "succession," and using whatever "form" in ordination, the Anglican bishops have no more meant to confer the real Priestly power to offer up the Adorable Sacrifice, than they have meant to confer that of speaking with tongues or of raising the dead. There can be no question that, whatever may be the refined and subtle interpretation put by Dr. Pusey and his followers on the declaration in the Articles against the Holy Mass, to the Anglican bishops as a body, as to the great mass of Anglicans generally, the words of these formularies have conveyed nothing more than the plain, obvious, and heretical sense which requires no explanation to make it intelligible.

In the latter part of this most important and authoritative pamphlet our readers will find a conclusive statement of the whole case of the African Church in its relations with the Holy See, on which Dr. Pusey has founded one of the most extravagant assertions in the whole of the Eirenicon. The case of Apiarius, on which the assertion that "England is not at this moment more independent of any authority of the Bishop of Rome than Africa was in the days of St. Augustine" is mainly based, is one of those many points raised by Dr. Pusey which required a clear and comprehensive narrative of known facts in order to set Anglicans right. Dr. Pusey has lately asked his critics to "have patience" with him. They will have to wait a long time before he adduces any thing that can show that a statement such as that which we have just quoted can be reasonably maintained by any one who possesses even a moderate acquaintance with the times and the writings of St. Augustine.

Lastly, Bishop Ullathorne devotes a few pages to proving that the Holy See has not misconstrued the intentions and aim of the Association. It professes to seek the restoration of that Unity which existed before the Photian schism; but it is that Unity according to the Anglican idea; an unity which never existed in history, according to which the Pope would be a simple patriarch, having, as Dr. Pusey puts it, "a precedence of dignity, not of power."

3. Among the many remains of ancient institutions which are still to be found in Germany, not the least remarkable is that part of the old system of trade-guilds and corporations which maintains intact, at least by custom-for it does not appear that law still sanctions it the distinction between the apprentices (Lehrlinge), the "companions" (Gesellen), and the masters (Meister) in the various trades. The system in question seems to press rather hardly on the Gesellen. They are young men in the intermediate stage between apprenticeship and mastership; and they have to pass from one place to another, changing masters constantly, and thus acquiring perfection in their craft. In a great number of towns the happy institution called the Gesellen Verein exists, and it has no doubt saved many a young artisan from vice and moral misery, as well as provided him with a home and employer and a circle of willing friends and brethren on his arrival in some strange city.

These institutions consist, first of all, of a hall or room open every evening on common days, and all day long on Sundays and festivals. Any artisan after the age of eighteen may be admitted on the payment of a small monthly subscription; but the president of the Verein, who is always a priest, has a veto on his admission. This president interferes very little with the ordinary management of the institution; he confines himself to the most important matters, such as the examination of books for the library, the choice of persons who are to give lectures or instructions from time to time to the members, and the general observance of the rules of the Verein. He has under him other officials, whose duty it is to maintain order, to keep the accounts and present them every six months to a general meeting, to receive subscriptions, and keep the hall and other apartments clean and tidy. These other officials are all artisans; and the president himself is elected, as they are, by the members in general. The hall contains books and papers of all sorts, with provision for games. There are "courses of arithmetic, drawing, singing, and so on, the lectures being given at certain fixed intervals. The stranger that arrives from a distance, belonging himself to a Verein in his own town, has but to present his card of admission and he is at once welcomed as a brother. Moreover, there is, if possible, near at hand, a house with rooms suitably furnished that may be rented for some days by the new comers, till they have found a temporary home for themselves. If this cannot be done, then arrangements are made with some decent inn or public-house to receive the associates. There is also a hospital ready for the sick: a part of some public hospital is taken up, or some rooms, as before, are hired for the purpose, and certain members are deputed by lot every week to visit their inmates. Lastly, the stranger finds in the hall a list of employers of different kinds who are in need of workmen, and of workmen in need of employment. The "circle" at Cologne is the head of all, though the institution was originally begun at Elberfeld. It appears that altogether there are more than 400 of these associations, all united to one another, and having their names and devices hung up in the hall at Cologne. Although they flourish chiefly in

the Rhine provinces, they have spread themselves over the whole of Germany, and are even to be found in America, which receives from Germany a tide of immigrants not much less copious than that which flows from Ireland and England. The number of associates is reckoned at eighty thousand.

This most useful institution was the work of a single priest, who died only a few months ago, at the age of fifty-two-Adolphe Kolping, the native of a village near Cologne. This remarkable man, whose name is perhaps hardly known out of his own country, was himself a peasant, and worked for many years as apprentice to a shoemaker. From his earliest years he showed a great fondness for reading of all sorts, in which he used to spend all the time that he could steal from his daily work. As he grew up, and was visited by family afflictions, his desire turned towards the priestly vocation, and he got hold of a Latin grammar, over which he used to pore at every leisure moment. He made himself ill by his application to this study; but an old priest in the neighbourhood interested himself in him, took charge of him, and, on his recovery, taught him Latin. At the age of twenty-four, he thus became able to attend some of the lower classes in the Jesuit College at Cologne. The instruction he received was, of course, gratuitous; and he managed to get a scanty living by teaching children. After three or four years thus spent, he was able to pass on to the University of Munich, where he made the acquaintance and enjoyed the assistance of Görres and Döllinger. We find him at last ordained priest, in 1845, by the Archbishop of Cologne, who immediately posted him at Elberfeld, a busy town of his diocese. He was then thirty-two.

It was here that the needs of the Gesellen,-the class to which he himself had belonged,-attracted the charitable attention of the young priest. This work came to his hand, as it were, of itself. He had not been long at Elberfeld before a number of young Gesellen came to ask him to organise for them some kind of society, -a place of meeting where they might find company, instruction, and amusement free from the dangerous contact of vice. He began at once with a schoolroom; and the work developed by degrees into the great proportions which we have already mentioned. As long as he lived, Kolping was the head and the life of the whole. He advocated and propagated it by means of the press; and although his first appeal to the public was made in the midst of the excitement of 1849, he soon obtained a respectful hearing. Afterwards he published a weekly journal, dedicated to the objects of the work, by the sale of which he defrayed the expenses which fell upon him personally in his labours for the cause of the Unions. The expenses of the establishment of the Circles or Halls of Union in the various towns were generally defrayed by benefactions obtained by M. Kolping. When once established, they seem to have been ordinarily self-supporting.

4. A Review has lately been started in France for the express purpose of the exposure of historical fallacies-problèmes, erreurs,

VOL. V.

Y

préjugés, et mensonges, as the prospectus has it. No one acquainted with the present state of modern history can deny that the writers in such a periodical have a wide and important field open to their labours; indeed, the task before them is little less than herculean. It is, however, one which is best discharged by a division of labour. A student who devotes himself to a particular branch of history or antiquities in an impartial and industrious spirit is sure to come upon a number of mistakes and falsehoods which have perhaps been long current and even unsuspected. A combination of the resources of such critical historians is sure to produce a constant supply of interesting disclosures, many of which might be long kept back in the portfolio of the student but for the establishment of an organ specially devoted to such subjects.

We have now before us an admirable exposure of one of the current "fallacies" of our own history, which might very well claim a place in a Review such as that of which we have been speaking, did such a periodical exist on our own side of the Channel. As the history and characteristics of the Irish Establishment are now becoming matters of unusual interest, in consequence of the numerous signs of the times which seem to portend its coming overthrow, Dr. Brady has done good and opportune service to the cause of truth and justice by demolishing the current assertions as to the Irish Episcopate in the time of Elizabeth. It has been frequently and triumphantly claimed as a distinction for that Establishment,—a distinction enabling it to look down with somewhat of conscious superiority on the sister institution in England,-that the Irish Bishops whom Elizabeth found in possession of their sees conformed to the State religion. Thus the present possessors of the Protestant sees in Ireland have had the claim made for them that they are the legitimate heirs of the succession founded by St. Patrick; and in a late number of the English Church-Union Kalendar, which contained "tables" setting forth the Apostolical Succession, the line of the Irish Bishops was traced up from Dr. Beresford to St. Patrick without a break, with the statement subjoined that "the Irish Church is derived direct from Rome, Palladius, the first Archbishop of Armagh, having been consecrated by Pope Coelestinus."

The assertion, therefore, about the Irish Establishment is twofold. It relates to the supposed "conversion" of the Catholic Bishops in Elizabeth's time to the religion of the Queen; and also to the alleged fact that these Bishops-as it has been said by Dr. Alfred Lee "handed on the succession to Protestant Bishops, whom they consecrated as vacancies occurred in the Episcopate." If this were so, it is needless for us to point out how little would be really gained for the Irish Establishment as to its controversial position. The question as to its "orders" might be limited to the discussion as to the validity of its forms for the Consecration of bishops and the Ordaining of priests, and as to the intention of the bishops who used those forms. This would put that Establishment on a vantage ground in comparison with that of England, as to which the question concerning the existence of any episcopal character at