large portions of this book as well as of the Eirenicon, namely, that individual Catholics, or Catholic Priests, or Catholic writers, or Catholic theologians, are not to be credited in the accounts which they give of their own belief, feelings, practices, and devotions, while on the other hand, an Anglican who knows nothing of their system, except from a hap-hazard acquaintance with books that may have come in his way, is to be taken as knowing their religion better than themselves. It is certainly not pleasant to have continually suggested to us the same sort of feeling as might arise in the mind of a person who had been invited to an amicable conference by some one with whom he had been at issue, and then found that his person was to be searched for fear of concealed arms, that all his statements were to be taken down in writing, and referred to some legal authority before their veracity was allowed, and that anything he might say as to his own feelings or history, both of these forming part of the discussion, was received with a glittering smile and a soft and affectionate assurance that he must be mistaken. We think that Dr. Newman has made it clear to his friend that there has at least been some fault on his own side, and we are happy to say that in the present volume the influence of his criticisms is clearly discernible. Giving Dr. Pusey all credit for sincerity, and allowing him, as we have before allowed him, the praise which Dr. Newman has given him, of having been bold enough to put before his countrymen the idea of union with the Catholic Church, we must still say that we cannot rate highly either the policy or the argumentative value of this addition to the Eirenicon. Dr. Pusey is sincerely desirous that his countrymen should receive Dr. Newman's explanation of original sin as a gleam of light-he calls it, however, "a gleam of hope," as if the only question were whether it could be the Catholic doctrine-by means of which they may see that the truth of our Lady's Immaculate Conception, which even Luther did not abandon, is not in itself either difficult or against the analogy of God's dealing in the Economy of the Incarnation. Many Anglicans have been candid enough to acknowledge that they did not before understand what they were talking about, and, to our mind, it is quite clear that Dr. Pusey might have made much the same confession without insincerity. But we cannot see how the acceptance of the doctrine can in any way be hastened, either by the tangled subtleties of Dr. Pusey's speculations about "active and passive conception," or by the use made by him of the

long-forgotten work of Cardinal Turrecremata; and, as the letter is dated 1866, it is clear that the presentation of this part of the work to the Bishops of the Council is only an after-thought. As to the argumentative value of the work, Dr. Pusey's own part seems to us very confused, and it has been disposed of by anticipation in Peace through the Truth. The passages quoted by Turrecremata and the analysis of his argument furnish, in reality, little that is new. The argument had long been exhausted before the Definition of 1854, and the citations, as far as they are new in controversy, are all classed under heads which have already been dealt with. Taking them as they stand, and all things fairly considered, they do not amount to a tradition, speaking positively on the side adverse to the Catholic doctrine, that is, distinctly affirming our Blessed Lady to have been conceived in original sin; taking the history of that doctrine as it appears in the light of the Definition, they may indeed make us thankful that the ever-living Church is with us to unfold, ever more and more clearly, in all its marvellous beauty and fruitfulness, the sacred deposit of doctrine confided to the Apostles, but they lose even the appearance of force against the manifold voices of authentic tradition sounding on the other side. And lastly, neither by this, nor by twenty more similar portions of an Eirenicon, will Dr. Pusey really promote the cause of union, as long as he avoids the great essential points of controversy between Rome and England, takes his own position for granted, and expects his opponents to take it for granted also.

Dur Library Table.

1. Dr. Gillow, one of the authorities at Ushaw College, has published in a separate form-and, we are sorry to see, without alteration-a letter addressed to the Dublin Review on the subject of "Higher Catholic Education," as to which we are not ourselves bound to say much more than has already been put before our readers in our last volume. We have already abundantly disposed of the attempt to fasten upon us the responsibility of a statement virtually contradicted in every page that we have published on the subject, namely, that "no system whatever of higher education is offered to English lay Catholics." We may, however, take the opportunity of the publication of Dr. Gillow's pamphlet to say a few words on certain points, as to which it is desirable that false impressions should not become prevalent.

Dr. Gillow's account of the course of studies pursued at the College with which he is himself connected will convey valuable information to many of his readers, though we can hardly suppose that what has been done for so many years at Stonyhurst and Oscott, as well at Ushaw, can be altogether unknown to the Catholic public. The most important point at present is, that the course of studies which is open to our young men should be made as perfect and also as attractive as possible, and should be as little as possible spoilt and shackled by the influence of un-Catholic bodies and systems of examination. There are certain fields of work which under the present condition of our Catholic community are comparatively thankless. Perhaps we might say that the field of Catholic literature is one of these; but at all events we may make the assertion as to the field of higher education. Every one who labours in such a field deserves, all the more, encouragement and sympathy from those who really recognise its importance, and for this reason, if for no other, it would be ungenerous, if it was not unjust, to cast a slur upon such exertions. As a fact, we believe that our Colleges do their work in the matter before us with great positive success, and to a degree far beyond what might be expected of them.

It is, however, very desirable that we should not measure ourselves by a false standard, and that, as far as competition with others is open to us, we should compete with the best scholars in those departments of knowledge which we pursue. This is the simple We say, "as far as competition

common-sense view of the matter.

is open to us." As long as this field is so limited as it is, it is

perhaps hardly practical to inquire into the relative value of different standards and the relative proficiency of different competitors, with some of whom we are not at present able to measure ourselves. We have, however, certainly taken it for granted that the standard of the elder Universities is higher and better in certain respects than that of the University of London, and as this assumption has been questioned, we may as well give some of the many reasons on which our conviction rests. We must premise that the comparison is not very easy, both on account of the difference of principle which lies at the root of the contrast between London and the Universities, strictly so called, and also on account of the fewness of the persons who are fairly able to judge of the examination in both cases. The Oxford and Cambridge course has hardly yet been greatly changed in its principle from a course of training into a course of special studies, but the London course is to a very great extent of this last character. The wider range of "attainments" required at London is therefore no argument at all, unless we first concede the question of principle. As to the second point just mentioned, the only persons with whom we are acquainted who can give a judgment on the comparative excellence in scholarship-of which we have mainly spoken of the candidates in the two cases, unhesitatingly confirm the opinion expressed by us. Indeed, as we are informed, the later examinations at the Universities in classics, including philology, range so high, at Cambridge in particular, as to be almost beyond the aim of students who do not desire to make teaching or writing on the classical languages the business of their life.

There must, however, at all events be a clear understanding as to the terms of comparison. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are encumbered, as Dr. Gillow must have abundantly learnt from the work of Mr. Pattison on which he remarks, by a host of merely nominal students, who hold to the really "reading" men much about the relation which the camp-followers hold to the soldiers in an army. English society chooses to consider a residence at the Universities as a stage, more or less necessary, in the career of young men who are never meant to work, or who, at all events, neither have had the previous school education to fit them for University studies, nor any ambition of becoming more learned than is necessary, perhaps, to discharge with respectability the duties of a country parson. These form the bulk of the "pass men" of whom Mr. Pattison, like every keen lover of real intellectual work, would get rid if he could. They have really no business in a University, properly so called, though we are far from thinking that many of them do not derive great benefit from their residence there. Their characters, at least, are formed, though their minds are not cultivated. But there they are, and the requirements of the pass schools must be kept down to the level which it is possible for them to attain, with the assistance of great and most painful labour on the part of their College tutors. No one can deny that the standard which admits them at last to the Bachelor's degree

must be low, and if this be all that Dr. Gillow means, no one will feel inclined to dispute his assertion that a good number who pass in this way at Oxford might not pass at London.

But this class of so-called students does not exist, as Dr. Gillow rightly observes, in the case of a University which is simply an examining board, and to which no one thinks of resorting who does not also think of working. When we speak of our Catholic students competing with the best scholars of their age in the country, we mean to measure them either as boys in scholarship examinations with boys of their own age from Eton, Rugby, Winchester, or Harrow, or as young men with other young men at Oxford or Cambridge in examinations which range over a somewhat higher class of subjects. If, therefore, we are to seek a standard at the elder Universities which is to be compared with that of London for the purpose with which we are engaged, we must take that of the honour schools exclusively, or of the University and College scholarships. To use our former illustration, we must not compare the camp-followers of the one army with the soldiers of the other, but we must pit one against another the soldiers and the regular discipline of both. We are not going to say a word in disparagement of the Catholic schools or Colleges. But we are prepared to maintain, as a matter almost too notorious and self-evident to be stated, if it had not been implicitly questioned, that if the best boys in our schools could contend for the Balliol or Trinity scholarships at Oxford, or could sit for the Ireland or Hertford, or write for the Latin Verse at Oxford, or enter into similar contests at Cambridge, they would find themselves confronted by antagonists far more worthy of their steel, and measured by a far higher standard, than any they have ever met at Burlington House; and that, to take the latter stage of contrast, and not to speak even of the Final schools at the old Universities, the same would be the case if at a later age they were to present themselves for honours either at the Moderations at Oxford or the "General" (or second) Examination at Cambridge. In doing this we are not speaking of the highest honours or the hardest examinations at the elder Universities, we are taking their students at the end of their second year, not at the end of their third. This alone is the really fair comparison, and as to the result of this, we can hardly imagine any one acquainted with the subject entertaining a moment's doubt. It is not often, of course, that an actual measure can be taken of man against man under the circumstances of the case; but we believe that it has not very unfrequently happened that men of no wonderfully high distinction at Cambridge have presented themselves for examination at London, and have been found the most formidable of all opponents to the best students of the younger University. As to scholarship, a certain number of men of average attainments from Oxford and Cambridge have from time to time become Catholics, and have been led by circumstances to engage in teaching in our schools, and we have never yet heard that they were