their own, and, as formerly with Dissent, so now in that communion which embraces the largest portion of Christendom, and which, in relationship. as well as place, is, nearest to us. This longing must be directed; it cannot, ought not to be quenched; yet while it is active (not to speak of other agents), it were idle to think that any censure or silencing of men or books can stay what is the result of implanted sympathies, at the very centre of Christian life and love."-p. 30.

Dr. Pusey combats the statement that the Tracts have produced conversions to the Catholic Chureh, and mentions " as a fact, that both such as have actually gone over to Rome, and such as have been endangered yet retained, and those for whom one has immediate fears, have not been for the most part persons" formed by any of the Tractarians, or by their writings. Those, he says, who have come over to us, "have been mostly persons not at all instructed in the character" of the Anglican Church; " or they have been hurried by a violent reaction through finding the common-place statements as to Romanism [Catholicism] so untrue; or disgusted by the vague charges and harsh or revolting language too often used; or (from whatever cause) mostly out of ultra-Protestantism." We are too grateful to the Great Giver of all good,—we rejoice too much at the blessing vouchsafed by Him to many of our brethren lately in error, in bringing them to a knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus, to enter into any discussion with Dr. Pusey as to the proximate causes which have produced, and are daily producing, the glorious results which it is our happiness to witness. We give Dr. P. the full benefit of the following defence, and shall only say of it-valeat quantum, &c.

"And surely now, my Lord, when the very atmosphere is full of controverted doctrine, when the very periodical or daily press teems with discussions on the Church, unity, apostolical succession, and, alas! on our holy mysteries themselves, discussing all the details of doctrine or discipline wherein we are at issue with Rome; when people are taught by those most opposed to Catholic teaching to decide upon these points for themselves, and it is taken for granted that any one who has access to Holy Scripture is competent to decide upon them—it is too much to visit upon us any defections which there may be. Persons need not have recourse to the writings of any of us (the tract-writers), to become familiar with these topics: I trust that if they did, they would treat them with a more reverent spirit, and do more to satisfy themselves than is now too often done. It is not by us, that the young men in this place [Oxford] have now, for some months, had the subject of Romanism [Catholicism] brought before them, or been taught to identify it with some whom they respect or love. The very clamour against

Popery,' within or without

the Church, is everywhere tempting persons' curiosity, and enlisting their sympathies; they who know nothing about the 'tracts,' have their thoughts turned to Rome, and are interested in her, and study the works of Roman controversialists; if they become bewildered, who should bear the blame,— they who inculcate the use of private judgment, or they who would restrain it? they who enjoin obedience to the Church, which has the succession from the Apostles, or they who set the individual's judgment, as to Holy Scripture, above the authority of the Church?

66

It is not, as I said, my lord, to excuse ourselves, that I wish to impress upon the mind of your Grace, and your Grace's brethren, a deeper view of the tendencies to Romanism [Catholicism] than some of them seem to have taken; we have little to look for, except to finish our course in sorrow or in joy, or in joy amid sorrow, as our Master wills; whether we have honour or dishonour,' will soon be no matter to us, save that we know that dishonour was the portion of our Master and His apostles, and is the safer for those who would be His disciples. It is not for ourselves, at all, that I write; it is for our Church, lest she hereafter lose some of the flower of her sons; it is for them lest they be lost to the office which God had assigned them, aad be betrayed into what would be undutifulness and sin. Unless our bishops know the extent and character of our dangers, they cannot know how to guard against them; the very remedies they adopt may aggravate the disease which they know not of. They may be applying stimulants, when they would, if they knew it, use lenitives." -pp. 37-39.

This, Dr. Pusey in continuation says, is the result of the late charges of some of the bishops; and by way of hint, we presume, to such of the clergy who adopt his views, and whose bishops have not yet spoken, he observes, that "much confusion has arisen from people's forgetting that it is to our cwn diocesan, not to other bishops, that we owe obedience. All, we should respect for their office sake, but it is to our own that we are to listen." He remarks that "it is of course a sad state of things in any Church, that they who should be overseers should need remonstrance from those in inferior office;" and shrewdly reminds the primate, that one of the most important controversies in his Church was carried on by a presbyter against a bishop, and that succeeding bishops could but approve of the strong vindications of the principles of the Church, by Law against Hoadley. While some of these charges contain "a very inadequate statement" of Catholic truth, and "at first seem to involve a denial" thereof, as Dr. Pusey says, he certainly cannot be blamed as the reputed head of what he himself must consider the Catholic party, for coming forward to denounce those charges. Happily, however, after a commentary of upwards of forty

pages upon the charges, Dr. Pusey makes the wonderful discovery, that even in these anti-Catholic charges, "it is mostly not our doctrine (i. e. that of the Tract writers) which is condemned," but "something which we should equally condemn ourselves!" After this satisfactory denouement of some at least of the episcopal charges, Dr. Pusey alludes to "the relative position of the two great sections" of the Established Church.

"Two schemes of doctrine, the Genevan and the Catholic, are, probably for the last time, struggling within our Church; the contest which has been carried on ever since the Reformation between the Church and those who parted from her, has now been permitted to be transferred to the Church herself; on the issue hangs the destiny of our Church..... I do not wish to call the attention of your Grace, or any other of your Grace's brethren to any defects on the other side. But if everything is said on the side of supposed excess, nothing of defect; if they are blamed who interpret our Eucharistic service in its fullest sense by the liturgies from which it is derived, they are not blamed who explain away it or our Baptismal service by the Zuinglian school, or even omit baptismal prayers, whose plain meaning condemns their system; they censured who bring up the meaning of our Articles when indefinite to our liturgy, they uncensured who bring down the definite meaning of our liturgy to the lowest interpretation which can be affixed to the Articles; must it not be thought that the sympathies of our bishops are with those who are treated thus leniently against those whom they censure? This has been already felt. In one diocese, which was becoming more tranquil, and there seemed hopes of a better mutual understanding, thanks were publicly given in one chief place that the bishop had from that pulpit denounced our teaching as 'another gospel;' in another great city, the people were instructed to look upon the teaching of a portion of the ministers of their Chureh as the teaching of Satan. Would that this were an insulated case! If this goes on, my lord, where is it to end? If our own bishops, and others encouraged by them, say to us-sore as it is to repeat, they are their own words-' Get thee hence, Satan!' while those of the Roman Communion pray for us and invite us,-is it not sorely adding to the temptations, I say, not of ourselves, but of younger men ?"

Passing over Dr. Pusey's remarks on the appointment of a Protestant bishop at Jerusalem, which we shall notice in another article next month, we proceed to the remedies which he proposes to save his Church from the ruin which threatens her. These are:- -1. "A direction to be given to this mighty movement within the (Anglican) Church, which, swelling as it is, month by month and day by day, cannot be checked, cannot be overlooked, but may be guided; 2. The Church to take the

movement up into itself'; 3. The direction of things to be taken out of the hands of the Tract writers into theirs, to whom, in the order of God's providence, it belongs to direct and guide his Church,' [i. e. Dr. Howley and his Protestant episcopal brethren ;] 4. To restore ordinances which have fallen into desuetude, viz. daily prayers; the keeping of fasts and festivals, the weekly commemoration of the passion of our Lord, and the hallowing of Lent, and the cheerful joy of the Pentecostal season, the greater frequency of communions, the restoration of the offertory, and its use in the collection of alms for religious ends. And as there is a greater longing for discipline, for acting under rule, for the comforts of absolution under a burdened conscience, to encourage the "ministers of God's word" to train themselves to receive griefs" when others wish to open them, and give them "the benefit of absolution."

"And (continues Dr. Pusey) since the godly discipline which our Church yearly laments, cannot yet be restored, at least, let it be extended where it can and is desired; let not persons have the temptation (I know such cases) of seeking relief for their consciences in the Roman Communion, because they look for discouragement if they apply to ministers in our own.”—p. 144.

In the present state of the Established Church, we see no prospect of those supposed remedial measures being adopted; and were they tried, we think that they would have little or no effort in stemming the current which is running cheerily in the direction of Rome.

ECCLESIASTICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS

INTELLIGENCE.

SPAIN.