sides with respect to the rival Communion; the second, the total emancipation of the Oriental Christians from the temporal power of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch; and the third, the readjustment of the hierarchical system of the East in unison with the needs and requirements of the present age.

Upon one point in particular, the Erastianism of the Greek Church, M. Pitzipios is both bold and stringent. Knowing well by experience the evils which such a policy has inflicted, he can speak with accuracy and force. And the general freedom, at all events in theory, which Roman controversialists maintain to exist in the Latin Communion, and which in many places may be witnessed in practice (as was no doubt the case of our author), yet still is even this a topic which needs to be handled by any Catholic Christian with temperance and equity. Of course it is not for a writer who has a point to gain, and a distinct message to enunciate, to be perpetually raking up the difficulties, and putting them forward, which must and do exist before even preliminaries could be arranged. The question of the Eastern rites and liturgies, therefore, is disposed of in a somewhat unsatisfactory manner; and although the author appears quite willing to admit the necessity of some alteration in the West, so that an uniform and consistent liturgy might be adopted, he is somewhat vague in his suggestions, and not a little doubtful as to the probability of being able to see the point successfully carried. And if we pass from rites to dogma, we find that a difficulty of far greater dimensions meets us at the very threshold of such consideration. For it is impossible to confound the modern Roman Catholic theory of purgatory, with the doctrine of the Eastern Church. They are as dissimilar as it is possible for them to be. There is little or nothing of agreement, say for example, between the extravagant expressions of the London Oratorians and the solemn petitions for departed souls, found in the ancient liturgies. The language, the ideas, the phraseology, are all totally diverse, the offspring of another mode of thought, and the result of totally divergent systems. While of course, it is no object of ours to point out difficulties or suggest failures, we are bound, at the same time, to consider in the main, the principal points, which a perusal of this most interesting treatise brings out, as likely to create still greater difficulties even at the very outset of any preliminary inquiry.

Again his attempted parallel between the indulgences of the Roman Communion and the rite of absolving the dead, which, as our readers are aware, is a practice of the Easterns, seems to us scarcely satisfactory. Nor does the use of the word xalapτýpov prove what the author desires it to prove, viz., the Tridentine dogma of Purgatory; for it is neither the recognized word adopted in Eastern books of devotion, nor is it very generally made use of at all. Even were it so, the parallel would no more hold good

than would the use of the word μETOUσ 10σis prove them to accept the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation.

But the two great questions which would have to be first determined, would be the doctrine of the Procession and the Supremacy of the Roman See; and these, we cannot help remarking, are somewhat avoided by the author. However, the many historical facts which are incidentally brought to light, having reference to the history of the Oriental Church during the past three centuries, are of the greatest interest and value. And if their consideration brings out the weak points of the Eastern system, and tends to exhibit in some provinces its almost slavish subservience to the will of a Mahometan master, it at the same time points out characteristics and peculiarities which are both interesting in themselves and valuable as enabling us to form a more accurate idea of the true position of affairs in the East. One part, which is especially valuable, is the minute account given of the very important Synod of Bethlehem, held in the year 1672, when, whatever may have been the hopes of the Latins, it is quite evident that the idea of reunion was never contemplated in seriousness, if it was not positively scouted. However, a consideration of the entire volume, which we should be glad to see published in an English dress, would interest many of our readers, and if we appear to have been too general in our account of its aim, let it be remembered that it is partly owing to an earnest desire that they may make themselves practically acquainted with its contents, which are well deserving of their most serious attention.

Father Gagarin's book is one of a similar character, in some respects its superior, in others its decided inferior. The author, a member of a noble Russian family, but a convert to the Church of Rome, is not unknown in England, nor is the position of ecclesiastical affairs here altogether unknown to him. He seems to write with the position and policy of England in his mind's eye, and many allusions to the Erastianism of the Greeks, might have been penned, after a consideration of our own position. Will Russia become Catholic? is a question which he answers in the affirmative, for notwithstanding the immense amount of untruthful prejudice that exists in that country concerning the Latins, M. Gagarin maintains, and that not without considerable success, that two Churches which agree in the main so identically in doctrine cannot long remain visibly separated, if an earnest desire for reunion be felt on both sides, and a common ground discovered upon which both may act. This question has been largely discussed both at Rome and in France, where this distinguished writer has been received with great cordiality and respect, and the many important considerations and suggestions which have proceeded from him, have received that attention from the authorities in those cities, which their intrinsic merit, as well as the important position of their author render them deserving of.

From the Eastern we now turn to the English Church, which is treated of in the four last pamphlets at the head of this article. And here we cannot but congratulate our readers upon the fact that the subject of reunion is occupying the minds of some amongst ourselves. Beati pacifici, say we, whether or not human infirmities mar the work, and the frailties of man tend to consolidate dis-union. The name of Mr. Ambrose Lisle Phillipps, of Grace Dieu Manor, Leicestershire, is not unknown to many of our readers, as that of an eminent and able Roman Catholic gentleman, who in writing of our National Church invariably speaks of it with respect and consideration; and who, from the very first moment that he felt called upon to become a Roman Catholic, made it, as we learn, the subject of his daily intercession that the separated communions might again become visibly one. His present treatise is one which deserves the most attentive perusal from every earnest-minded Catholic of the English communion; for, independent of being written in a spirit which does credit to his heart and his head, it is a most able resumé of historical facts which Anglicans have neglectfully passed over, and which Roman Catholics have thought it policy to ignore. The logical acumen, too, displayed in the arguments made use of, the wisdom and earnestness of its propositions, give it a position, which its size and bulk scarcely merit. But while it is small, it contains many valuable thoughts, and thoughts which, sooner or later, more than a single school in the Anglican churches will be compelled to consider. It raises questions, in which all are interested, and to which each one must be prepared with his own answer. It treats of plans, which before this, have engrossed the attention of some of our ablest prelates, and points out that the present is, more than ever, a period when kindred propositions might not be unprofitably discussed. The arguments are systematic and clear, the language free from any meretricious ornamentation and the general tone and character most Christian and admirable. The particular and most pointed proposition regarding the Church of England is given in the following valuable extract, which, notwithstanding its length, we reprint entire, as it is a good indication of the honesty of purpose and cordiality of sentiment and truthfulness of expression, which characterises a small but energetic and respectable school amongst the Anglo-Romans and fully deserves a permanent record in our pages. We only wish that we could believe it represents the feeling of any considerable number of the members of his com

munion.

"But it must be acknowledged this is not the only difficulty on the Catholic side. In reference to the re-union of the Church of England it is contended, that even admitting the theory of Anglicanism to constitute a wide distinction between that Church and any of the foreign Protestant bodies, still she cannot be placed in the same rank with the

Great Eastern Church, which in theory at least has never departed from orthodoxy, while no Catholic has ever denied or for a moment doubted the validity of her orders. It is contended that, on the contrary, the orders of the Anglican Church have always been regarded by the rest of the Church as exceedingly doubtful, so that when any of her clergy have returned to the unity of the Universal Church, if they wished to exercise the sacred ministry after their change, they have in every case been re-ordained, and this, too, without any verbal condition. Now it would be altogether at variance with the determination I have already expressed, not to enter within the arena of any polemical controversy in the present essay, for me to discuss in these pages the question of the validity of Anglican orders. It is a question which, in my opinion, does not affect the substantial issue contemplated by me. If ever the desire for unity should become so general in the Anglican body as to lead to serious negotiations between them and the Holy See, they would be fully competent to argue the point for themselves; and it being a question not of abstract doctrine, but of fact, they would be fully at liberty to lay before the Holy See, or before a general council, whatever evidence existed in favour of their own view of it. Nor would the previous practice of the Church in reordaining their clergy for motives of safety, and for the indisputable security of the case, in any way preclude their theologians from laying it more clearly and more elaborately before the authorities of the Catholic Church, if they believed that they had reasonable grounds for thinking that this had been done insufficiently hitherto, and that they had new facts to allege in favour of the validity of their orders. And here I have no hesitation in saying that, although I do not regard this question, however decided, as vitally affecting the feasibility of a corporate re-union, for, as I shall presently show, the Popes have sanctioned the attempt to re-unite even the Calvinistic Churches of France and Switzerland, which never pretended to possess Catholic orders; yet it cannot be denied that, if the validity of Anglican orders were established, it would constitute an additional link between their communion and the rest of Christendom. I can very well understand that in the commencement of the separation, and when the spirit of hostility between them and the Catholics was at its greatest height, it might very naturally appear consonant to sound policy on our side to make out the case of the English Church in a Catholic point of view to be as bad as possible; but now assuredly the circumstances are very different: in the presence of so many indisputable proofs of an altered feeling towards us in their minds, when their ablest and most pious clergy come forward to advocate every dogma of the Catholic faith, and defend all those points common to us both with a learning, a power of argument, and an earnestness, that no Catholic could surpass; when, in addition to this, they hesitate not to express a noble desire to heal the divisions of Christendom, and to return to the normal state of union, it is obviously our interest, quite as much as theirs, that they should be able to establish as much as possible, not only the doctrinal affinity between their own communion and the Catholic Church, but their organic relationship also.

"More than a hundred and fifty years ago, when the chances of re

union were so much smaller than in our day, the force of what I have been just referring to was so obvious, that the great Bossuet, in his efforts to promote the endeavour to effect a corporate reconciliation between the Church and the Lutheran body, in his famous correspondence with the Abbot Molanus, lays down, even in regard to those who belong to the Confession of Augsburg, 'that if there be any Bishops belonging to that Confession, concerning whose succession and legitimate ordination sufficient evidence can be adduced, having made profession of the right faith, they shall remain in their office; and the same rule shall hold good for Priests also.' Now it is a fact of indisputable notoriety, that no one calling himself either Bishop or Priest in the Lutheran Communion, or in any branch of it, was ever allowed to exercise the sacred ministry in the Roman Communion without previous re-ordination; and yet it is clear from these words, laid down by the great Bossuet, that neither he, nor those who laboured with him, thought for a moment that such an antecedent fact as that in any way precluded the Lutheran clergy from establishing, if they could, the validity of their succession and of their ordination. But the reader should bear in mind that the larger portion of the Lutheran body reject episcopacy altogether; nor am I aware of any Lutheran Church, except the Swedish, which has retained it, or thought it worth while to make a claim to apostolic succession. And yet, Bossuet felt that, even in that case, the claim was not to be wholly overlooked. How much more would he have laid down a similar principle in the Anglican Church, especially if he could have lived to witness the wonderful revival of Catholic belief in that communion which has taken place in our day? But as it is quite clear that the object of re-union is far from being materially involved in this question, it is needless for me to refer to it further on the present occasion; I leave it to the learned theologians of that communion to show more fully than has been yet done what solid ground may exist, which, upon Catholic principles, would tend to establish the validity of their orders; and I, for one, believe that such an attempt, if successful, would be a great step towards the consummation of the union.

"But there is another difficulty in Catholic minds, which is, perhaps, even greater than the doubt about their orders, and that is the doctrine of the Church of England. In regard to this we must always remember, that when a re-union is contemplated, it does not so much affect the question to consider what has been the teaching of separated communities in times past, or whether an agreement can be come to upon doctrine for the future. If, after a careful investigation, it should be found possible by God's grace to agree in signing a common formulary approved by both parties, it would seem immaterial to enter much into the question as to how great or how small had been the amount of previous deviation from this common standard now agreed upon. And I find in the rules for the Ecclesiastical Re-union of all Christians, drawn up by the most learned theologians of the German empire in 1691, and published by the authority of the Emperor Leopold, the following very remarkable propositions laid down as the basis of proceedings, bearing, assuredly, very powerfully on this view to which I have just referred. In the Regula Tertia, it is there laid down :-'Ad hanc tamen non