the person of the Sovereign, as Dr. Pusey has often had occasion to feel); "that she is not more independent of Rome than Africa in the time of St. Augustine." We come next to an argument to which we have already alluded, which is meant to prove that, according to the theory maintained by Dr. Pusey, the "perpetual Divine Voice" of the Church is not therefore denied by those who agree with him, because there is at present no infallible authority to which they can submit their own opinions. This ends, in form, the defensive part of the volume. We next find Dr. Pusey entering on the subject of the Catholic system, with the professed object of pointing out what it is that "the English” object to. Here, again, we must incidentally remark that he speaks without any warrant in his own and his friends' name, as if in that of the Anglican Establishment itself. He distinctly says that the points of which he complains might be made the subject of explanation in the case of "corporate union," as in a treaty between one Church and another, but could not be made the matter of any stipulation in the case of individual submission. But by what right does Dr. Pusey speak in the name of the Anglican authorities? He has not only represented the Anglican doctrine in a way which they would disclaim, but he has very far understated the number of points as to which they would require "explanation." This flaw technically vitiates the whole of the second part of his argument. What would be the use of considering proposals which would be at once disavowed by those in whose name they are made? Unless Dr. Pusey thinks and speaks as the head of a party in the Establishment, which would act for itself, it is difficult to see how he can suppose it to be of any use to make such statements. In that case many parts of the book would be more intelligible. Dr. Pusey should tell us whether he contemplates it. It is more easy to explain what will strike the Catholic reader at every page; we mean Dr. Pusey's very deep ignorance of the system of which he is speaking, and his frequent inability to understand even the words he uses. The only wonder is that Dr. Pusey should think that he understands what Catholics mean-better, as it will appear, than they do themselves. But he cannot be ignorant of the "practical system" of Anglicanism as distinguished from its formal definitions and symbols; and therefore he is surely aware that he has no right whatever to say that "our Church must accept" this or that Catholic explanation of a doctrine or a practice attacked in the Thirty-nine Articles. His theory is, that "the English"-that is, himself and his friendsdo not object to any thing in Catholicism which is formally taught as a matter of faith. Here, of course, he separates himself from all those in his own communion who object to any thing which is laid

down by the Council of Trent. These, of course, are not "the English." But, he adds, there is a large, wide-spread, prevalent, quasi-authoritative system of Catholicism which he does object to; and this the Catholic Church is to surrender, or to explain. This brings him to what we venture to call the real matter of his book. For nearly a hundred pages. -the whole letter, exclusive of the postscript and notes, does not extend to three hundred-Dr. Pusey attacks the devotion to our Blessed Lady, such as he conceives it to be, among Catholics in the present day. Part of this attack deals with the recent definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception; part with other developments, as Dr. Pusey calls them, of the honour paid to and the language used with regard to the Mother of God. He seems to be quite unable to shake himself free from this subject, for he returns to it from time to time, after he has apparently gone on to other topics, such as Purgatory and Indulgences. Then we find ourselves in the midst of the Gallican writers, especially Du Pin and Fleury. Du Pin is invoked as having commenced a negotiation with Archbishop Wake, and his opinion as to the possibility of tolerating the Thirty-nine Articles is adduced. Fleury is called in to bear witness to the exaggeration of the Papal power in consequence of the "forged decretals." We then come to Dr. Pusey's views for the future. He seems to think that the Catholic Church is in the greatest danger from the widespread exaggeration, as he thinks it, of the honour due to our Blessed Lady. What if a time were to come when it should be discovered that "Antiquity" knew nothing about all this? He seems to suppose that there might be a collapse of faith, which it might be the "possible office" of the English Church to check. Then we have the wellknown passage of De Maistre, in which she is called "precious;" and the letter concludes with the expression of Dr. Pusey's hopes as to her recognition by the Eastern Church, and his sanguine view as to her present condition. The postscript which is subjoined, and which occupies about fifty pages, is chiefly devoted to an attempt to deduce absurd conclusions from the views as to the infallibility of the Pope which have lately been put forward in the Dublin Review. The notes are three in number. The first contains a set of passages from the Fathers, to the effect that "Holy Scripture contains the faith;" the second gives a number of passages from the answers of the Catholic Bishops to the present Holy Father when consulted as to the definition of the Immaculate Conception, in which passages doubts are expressed as to its expediency; the third is headed "The Greek Church believes the Blessed Virgin to have been conceived in original sin."

Our readers will at once be struck with the great variety of points raised by Dr. Pusey; and if we were to take into account insinuations and obiter dicta,-with which his pages abound,-it would be very difficult indeed to say which of the current charges against Catholicism he has omitted to repeat, and of which of the well-used arguments of former Protestant controversialists he has neglected to avail himself. But if we ask ourselves what is the pith of the book, and what is Dr. Pusey's special contribution to the armoury of antiCatholic writers, it is not so easy to find a satisfactory answer to the question. Let us begin by trying to knock off irrelevant matter. Here we shall find a good deal to do. It would be difficult to explain, for instance, the object of the long note filled with quotations from the Fathers about the faith being contained in the Scriptures, unless it be to give an impression that Dr. Pusey's adversaries— Catholics of course-differ from the Fathers on this point. It is quite as easy to prove from the Fathers-almost as easy from many of Dr. Pusey's own quotations-that they most fully recognised tradition, and the authority of the Church as the guardian of Scripture. Dr. Pusey knows, as well as he knows any thing, that the Fathers do not in the least support the notion that the "faith is contained in the Scriptures" in any sense in which Catholics deny it and Protestants maintain it. This note, therefore, is surely superfluous and illusory. We may almost say the same as to the other long note containing passages from the answers of Catholic bishops on the subject of the definition of the Immaculate Conception. These answers are, in many cases, not very fairly used by Dr. Pusey.* But granting his use of them as it stands, we are at a loss to see what they have to do in this book, as far as its argument is concerned. They may serve a purpose by creating an impression that the Catholic Episcopate was not unanimous in advising the definition, or they may show that he has had access to a copy of the Pareri. But his book ought to prove that the Anglican Establishment has valid orders; that her formularies are orthodox; that she is really within the pale of Catholic unity. These are the questions on which every thing is at stake; and his title conveys some promise

* Dr. Pusey gives wrong numbers; we give the correct statement as put forth in the official document. Dr. Pusey says, "the whole number" (of answers) was about 490. The fact is, that 546 bishops not only declared their devotion and that of their people to the Immaculate Conception, but earnestly begged for the definition. Fifty-six others differed in various ways. Four or five were against the definition in itself; the others were for the definition, but held various opinions either as to its opportuneness at that time, or as to the way in which it should be made. The answers of eight archbishops and nineteen bishops came too late for insertion in the Pareri

of dealing with them. At all events, he ought to tell us whether the Immaculate Conception is a part of that formally defined Catholic faith to which he does not object, or of that "vast practical system" to which he does. In the former case he is inconsistent in attacking it; but how can he maintain the latter alternative? Even on Gallican grounds, and granting, to save time, that some bishops demurred to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as such, and not merely to the opportuneness of its definition, how does the matter stand? Eleven years have passed since the solemn definition by the Pope, in the presence of, and after careful consultation with, as many bishops of different parts of the world as have been present at several Councils of the Church; the decree has been accepted universally with joy and enthusiasm; nor can Dr. Pusey adduce a single Catholic bishop who has expressed his dissent from it. That long note, therefore, with the passages in the text to which it is appended, forms another portion of his volume which contains no argument whatever to his point. We may say the same of the many pages in which the name of Du Pin is conspicuous. It is one of the arts of controversy to select authorities craftily; to pass off upon the reader some name as of weight and moment which is in reality of no value at all. Du Pin was a man of learning, but so were Jansenius and Quesnel; and to know that any one of them was connected with an attempt to bring about a reconciliation between the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church would have been quite enough to stamp such an attempt, from the Catholic point of view, with the character of treachery and double-dealing. Du Pin was always being condemned, and then retracting in order to retain his posts. The Pope called him a man "of very bad doctrine;" and when at last his papers were seized, it was found that he was ready not only to concede the interpretations of the articles on which Dr. Pusey builds, but to go beyond, probably, what his modern admirer would like; for he would have surrendered auricular confession, transsubstantiation, fasting and abstinence, religious vows, Papal supremacy, and the celibacy of the clergy,-which latter he was supposed, in his own person, to have violated secretly. Surely Dr. Pusey's readers might have been told that the man whose "largehearted statements" were contrasted with the opinions of Dr. Manning, was a person of no sort of weight or character among Catholics. This part, therefore, of the volume is also illusory. We may say much the same about a number of pages that are occupied with quotations from Fleury about the false decretals. We have little doubt that the effect intended to be produced by these passages is an impression that the decretals were forged by Roman hands

to increase the authority of the Pope; that a new system of Church government was introduced by them, which remains to this day; and that it is this system which prevents the union of the Greek and Anglican Churches with the Holy See. Unless these things are true, Fleury is quoted to little purpose, save that of exciting prejudice by the damaging charge of forgery. What are the facts, according to modern criticism, even among Protestants? The decretals were not forged at Rome, or by Roman hands: they are of German-French origin, and what was new in them seems to have been forged mainly with a view to make appeals in episcopal causes difficult; and, as some say, with a view to raise Mayence to the rank of a patriarchal see. Forgery is an ugly name; but, after all, no one forges what is not current coin. The great mass of spurious matter which was passed off as the letters, &c. of Popes obtained credit for the very reason that spurious coin obtains credit: because it was not unlike what was the current belief and prevailing practice. The idea of a sudden revolution in Church discipline brought about by forgeries is too absurd for any but a controversialist blinded by prejudice. Few people ever wrote more against the false decretals than the Protestant Blondel. He says, that almost all the decretals were composed out of the acknowledged authors of the time, and the genuine works of contemporary or ancient writers, and that the deception consisted in attributing words to the Popes which they had not used, and the more modern discipline to ancient times. Nor, finally, if the false decretals had never existed, would the case of the Anglican Establishment be one atom more tolerable than it is on the principles of Catholic unity. That part of Dr. Pusey's volume, therefore, is in reality nothing to the point.*

In fact, as far as the body of the work is concerned, if we except

* Dr. Pusey is rather too fond of the words "forgery" and "spurious;" and we take this opportunity of dealing with another instance in which he has made a perfectly unfair deduction, from the fact that, in uncritical times, certain writings were attributed to certain authors which are now acknowledged to have been the works of later writers. He quotes (p. 113) a passage from a preface of his own to an 'adapted' translation of a Catholic book of devotion published many years ago. The passage is very instructive, as showing how entirely his own reading is to him the standard by which he decides what is Catholic, what not. He speaks in it of "passages as to St. Mary once attributed to St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem, St. Chrysostom, under the shadow of whose great names this system grew up," which are now acknowledged to be spurious. In another place (p. 186) he actually ventures to assert, without the slightest shadow of proof, that the glowing passages in St. Bernard about our Blessed Lady are to be accounted for in this way: that St. Bernard thought by mistake that the Fathers had written what they had not. "St. Bernard," he says, "has strong passages, grounded on what the