are pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ; and the XIII., which is-Of Works before Justification, says, "Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit are not agreeable to God." Dr. N.'s comment is, "They say that works before grace and justification are worthless and worse, and that works after grace and justification are acceptable; but they do not speak at all of works with God's aid before justification." They do not, because they say that good works, without any distinction at all, are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification; that is, they say there are not any such. Nor can the miserable plea, that "which" distinguishes some, namely, those that spring from faith, and follow, be of any avail. Not only is it evident to every upright person that it is not the meaning of the sentences, but the title disproves it, and the next article sets it at rest, because it says of works done before justification, "Forasmuch as they spring not from faith in Christ, they are not pleasant to God." He says, "They say that councils called by princes may err; they do not determine whether councils called in the name

of Christ may err." To be sure. But they say, general councils (none, that is) cannot be called without the commandment and will of princes; and that general councils, which cannot be called in any other way, may and have erred.

That is, it applies to all general councils. No; all this is offensive dishonesty. He was trying, as he says, how much the Church of England could

bear; he did not expect people to look at the articles for themselves. I think his answer to Mr. Kingsley, as to the sermon on "Wisdom and Innocence" being a Protestant sermon, dishonest; but I will not enter on that part of the book. It is to be noted, that already in 1833, when abroad, he was forming theories which tended to obliterate "the stain upon my imagination" his youth had left as regards Rome. And note, this was not merely his feelings, which he tells us all through the book led him Romewards; but as regards my reason, I began in 1833 to form theories. It was deliberate; it was his reason. Foolish his theories were; but that is not my subject now. It was the genius loci like the Prince of Persia, one of his Alexandrian middle demons, neither good nor bad absolutely, which infected "the undeniably most exalted Church in the whole world."

I cannot but think, Dr. N.'s book to prove himself honest, proves distinctly he was not. As to a Protestant theology in the interpretation of the articles, "it sets his teeth on edge even to hear the sound” of it. He had led many on so far towards Popery, that he was forced, when ordered by Dr. Bagot to try and keep them, to stretch the articles as far as possible, without their being aware why; as we have seen him say. Was he honestly asking what they did mean? not he; he tells us so: but what they could bear by perversion. "Men had done their worst to disfigure, to mutilate, the old Catholic

truth; but there it was, in spite of them, in the articles still." (171.) We have seen how he found it there. It will be said, But his protest against Rome saved his consistency. His consistency in what? forming theories in favour of it, tenderly loving it, counting it the most exalted Church in the world? But there was no conviction in his protest either. In excusing himself, when he retracted his words. against Rome, he tells us, at the time he protested, "I said to myself, I am not speaking my own words; I am but following almost a consensus of the divines of my own Church. They have ever used the strongest language against Rome, even the most able and learned of them. I wish to throw myself into their system. While I say what they say, I am safe. Such views, too, are necessary to our position." (233.) Yes, they spoke against Rome, but they believed what they said. They were opposed to He has explained their

Rome. Dr. N. favoured it. words when urged against him; but there is no explaining them to an honest mind. I admit he did not believe in transubstantiation; he thought they adored the Virgin Mary too much. But these were slight things; he joined the Church of Rome when he did not believe them a bit more. He believed them because Rome was now an oracle, and what she taught must be right.

I do not think I ever met, in all my experience, a mind so effæta veri as Dr. Newman's, so perfectly incapable of valuing truth; and truth of doctrine

has more to say to truthfulness than we are aware, for we are sanctified by the truth. In that conviction which wholly overthrew his whole scheme of the via media, it never occurred to him to think, even, whether in one case error was opposed, in the other, truth.

In studying the monophysite history- that is, the controversy whether Christ had one nature or two, or rather, whether the divinity did not take the place of a human soul, he found Eutyches on one side, and Leo, a most able pope, on the other, who wrote a famous letter, accepted by the Council of Chalcedon as rightly defining the doctrine; and the doctrine so defined has been ever since accepted. Eutyches sought imperial protection: well, here was a pope instructing a council, and a heretic condemned; the universal Church accepting the council's

At Trent a pope confirms a council's decisions, which the Protestant world does not accept; consequently the Protestant world must be as wrong as Eutyches. What the composition of the Council of Trent was; what the doctrine was that was condemned; whether Eutyches held what was contrary to the faith of the apostles or not; whether Trent condemned the faith of the apostles or not, is never a subject of his enquiry even. There was a pope, and a council, and Eutyches; and a council and a pope, and half the European world against it. The Greek Church absent. But as in the two cases there was a pope and a council (whether general

or not, even, is a question), half Europe must be wrong, as Eutyches and many Orientals were. The only question for Dr. N. was analogy of position. What was condemned was a matter of total indifference to him. Dr. Newman knows very well that another pope and another general council condemned a part of this same Council of Chalcedon for all that what was called the three chapters. But that was no matter; he was on journey to Rome. But, as we have seen, when he joined Rome he did not believe in transubstantiation more than before. He says, "People say that the doctrine of transubstantiation is difficult to believe. I did not believe the doctrine till I was a Catholic. I had no difficulty in believing it, as soon as I believed that the Catholic Roman Church was the oracle of God, and that she had declared this doctrine to be part of the original revelation." Is it possible for truth to be more absolutely null in a human mind, or true faith to be more absent from it?

Another principle which really led Dr. Newman to Popery was the doctrine of development. I will say a word on this. I deny it absolutely in divine things. In the human mind there is development. In the present truth there cannot, for God has been revealed. There is no revelation more, nor meant to be any. Individuals may learn more and more, but it is there to be learned. The Scriptures give two

* His protest was really to avoid getting the credit of being on his way there.