bishop, that was sufficient proof that they were very wicked clergy. Arians were in the school of Antioch; this is proof that it must have been a school of very wicked men. Like the Galatians, they had the fickle spirit of speculation, and did not submit to the Church. This short and easy method with heretics Newman applied to all who stood apart from the Anglican Church, which was supposed to be the lineal descendant of that early church, which had in its bosom the undefined tradition.

After the bishops had almost unanimously in their charges condemned the interpretation of the Articles in Tract 90, Newman's mind was for some time unsettled. His position had been that all Church authority was vested in the bishops, that they were the successors of the Apostles, and now that they were against him, either he was wrong or they did not represent the true Church. He began to suspect that Protestants and Anglicans were in the same condition as the old Eutychians and Monophysites in relation to the Church. At this time Wiseman's Article in the Dublin Review was put into his hands. We have already recorded the argument founded on the rhetoric of St Augustine. The Donatists were a sect of Episcopal heretics in the north of Africa, while the Catholic Church was over the whole world. It was not then, as now, divided into East and West, but was one Catholic Church co-extensive with the Roman Empire, and so the argument had apparently some force. The Donatists, like nearly all sects, boasted that they were the true Church, which had kept the faith whole and undefiled. They proved it from the Song of Solomon, in which it is written, 'Tell me where thou makest thy flock to rest at noon.' The Latin for at noon' is in meridie,' 'in or under the meridian,' which answered to Africa. St Augustine refuted them from the Song of Solomon, where it is written of the Catholic Church, 'My dove, my undefiled is one.' Newman did not think much of Wiseman's article when he read it, but a friend drew his special attention to the words 'Securus judicat orbis terrarum,' and repeated them till they kept ringing in his ears, and he began to see the force of the argument that the Catholic

must come under the same category as Donatists and Methodists and the followers of Knox and Calvin.

In his retirement after the suspension of the Tracts for the Times, Newman wrote an Essay on Development, in which he was to trace the unfolding of the original traditional system of the Church, into the present system of defined dogmas. But which was the developed Church, that of England or Rome?

That antiquity was on the side of the Church of England, against the Church of Rome, had been always maintained by our old divines. With Newman this position took the form that the Church of England rests on Antiquity, but there had been developments.' In the sixteenth century these were put aside as excrescences or growths, not natural to the body. In the Church of Rome they were the traditional outcome of the traditional system of the infallible Church. In the progress of the composition of this essay, Newman perceived that the goal to which he was tending was not the Anglican.

He turned on the Church of England, and found that when tried by its fruits it was worse than the Methodists. The latter might be proved eccentric and fanatic, but they had higher and nobler vestiges or semblances of grace, than were ever found in the Church of England! Wesley could not be mentioned without our being reminded of his 'self-reliance and self-conceit,' but when he was to be set off against the Anglican Church, he was a saint to be compared with St. Vincent Ferrer and St Francis Xavier. The Anglicans may have grace just as all the world, even Pagans may have grace. They may live and die saints, but the highest gifts and graces are compatible with ultimate reprobation. They may have grace in their sacraments, but it is only of the same kind as

See Anglican Difficulties.

2 It is to be hoped that this was only a private opinion, or popular not authoritative teaching. Something to the same effect is in the Rheims Notes to the New Testament. Justifying faith is there defined as the faith of the Roman Catholic Church. 'The Jew, the Heathen philosopher, and the Heretic, though they excelled in all works of moral virtues could not yet be just; and a Catholic Christian man, living but an odinary honest life, either not greatly sinning, or supplying his faults by penance, is

may be had in a Methodist love feast,' and unless the grace they have brings them into the Catholic Church, it will avail but little. The Orders of the Anglican are not worth the money paid to the bishop's lawyer. They have nothing on which to rest. Here the Tractarians placed all their trust for their divine commission, but it was found to be without a base, and to vanish away as a vision of the night. The idea then of the divines of the Tractarian movement was simply and absolutely submission to an external authority. To such an authority they appealed, to it they betook themselves. There they found a haven of rest, there they looked out on the troubled surge of human opinion and upon the crazy vessels which were labouring without chart or compass upon it. Judge then the dismay, when, according to the Arabian tale, on their striking their anchors into the supposed soil, lighting their fires on it, and fixing in it the poles of their tents, immediately the island began to move, to heave, to splash, to frisk to and fro, to dive, and at last to swim away, spouting out inhospitable jets of water upon the credulous mariners who had made it their home.'2

Newman had been educated among the Evangelicals, and underwent a sensible conversion in reading Thomas Scott's 'Force of Truth.' This to the end of his life he believed to have been a real change. When a Roman Catholic he pitied the Anglicans, but he ascribed it to boundless grace that he had had the benefit of Anglican baptism, and was not born a Presbyterian or a Nonconformist.

F. W. Newman, in 1891, published contributions towards the early history of Cardinal Newman. The spirit and tone of the publication were not particularly fraternal, but it reveals a tendency to eccentricity in religion in all the Newman family. F. W. Newman does not believe that John Henry gave the true reason, in his Apologia, for leaving the Church of England, in fact he never expected candour from his brother. He did not even give him the credit of being the originator of Puseyism, that he ascribes to 'old Alexander Knox, a pious admirer of John Wesley.' Under one aspect

this may be true, but Knox and Wesley had rational elements that are wanting in Puseyism.

Dr Newman's friend, Pusey, was left behind undeveloped. He never got beyond that 'vanity of vanities' the Anglican Church. He supposed it to be identical with the primitive, and following 'the unanimous consent of the Fathers.' But Pusey's approaches to the primitive Church were always commensurate with his approaches to the Roman. He never ceased to believe that substantially the doctrines of the Church of England and those of the Church of Rome were one, and that they were identical with what was taught by the early Fathers. He had begun his public career as an expounder, and to some extent, a defender of what was called the rational theology of Germany. He was afterwards convinced that the German Protestants were heretics, and that their aberrations were due to the want of the apostolic government of Episcopacy. They had no bishops.

Dr Pusey's theological or ecclesiastical activity may be divided into three sections. The first was his advocacy of the Tractarian view of the Church and the Sacraments. The second was marked by his efforts to harmonise the dogmas of the Church of Rome with the doctrines of the Church of England, and the third by his defence of the orthodox view of the authenticity and genuineness of the books of the Bible as opposed to the conclusions of the Bible critics.

To follow Pusey is, in a great measure, to follow Newman over ground already traversed. In a sermon on 'The Rule of Faith,' he gets over Article VI by saying that though Holy Scriptures are the source of all saving truth, it does not follow that everyone unguided is to draw for himself the truth out. of that living well, nor, on the other hand, is he at liberty to reject what he cannot prove from Scripture. Besides Holy Scripture the Church has a guide external to itself, being illumined by God's Holy Spirit. It has a 'deposit' of faith committed. Timothy was not instructed to tell to others, but to commit that which was committed to him. What was thus given to the Fathers we are bound to believe. Antiquity was ever the test of truth and novelty of heresy, and for the plain reason that the Church is older than the oldest heresies.

1 Historical Inquiry, etc.,' in answer to Hugh James Rose.

The actual presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was the subject of many of Dr Pusey's discourses. He did not care to use the word transubstantiation, and consubstantiation he reckoned a term of reproach.1 There were, however, two substances present, the body and blood, and the elements of bread and wine. We are said to receive the body and the blood, from which it is argued that they are present under the forms of the material elements. It is the doctrine of the Church of England that the wicked who receive the sacrament, receive the body and the blood of Christ, and that Jesus Christ thus actually present is the object of worship and adoration. The attempt to explain this presence is not perhaps more successful than similar attempts made by others long before. It is said that where the consecrated bread is, there is the body of Christ, but, it is added, sacramentally, a word which may stand for anything, or if need be, for nothing,

It is maintained that our Articles are Lutheran in contradistinction to Zwinglian. According to Luther the sacramental efficacy was due to Christ's institution. According to Zwingle it was the same in kind as the word or other ordinances which had effect by kindling faith. The Lord's Supper has an inward grace as well as baptism, but because of the presence of Christ's body and blood, it is more than the sacrament of baptism. John VI, 51, is understood of this sacrament. Even Art. XXVIII which was written against Transubstantiation is made to do service for the actual presence of the substance of the body of Christ. This is said to be 'given' as well as 'taken,' which means more than ‘received,' and the following words 'only after a heavenly and spiritual manner' are supposed to aim at those who believe that there was a carnal presence. Spiritually' is explained as not opposed to 'really,' but only to 'carnally.' The Council of Trent admitted the real spiritual or sacramental food, not for the body but for the soul. The wicked may be partakers of the body and blood of Christ, but they are in no wise partakers of Christ.' In Pusey's words, 'the wicked receive to

1 Sermon on the Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. 2'An Essay on The Real Presence.'