Prima facie difficulties. 7 dwell on the causes of isolation, without pointing to a gleam, which I hoped I saw beyond-a way in which I trusted that all Christendom might be united, on the basis of what all the Churches hold to be of faith, and which is primitive, apart from those things which, however widely held, are not "de fide." God, I hope, put it into my heart to change what was begun, at the instance of others, as a mere defence, into suggestions of re-union. But the vaguer and more incidental the hints of the possibility of the re-union and of its possible terms were, the more manifestly was the response, not to my poor disjointed words, but to the great thought itself-the re-union of Christendom. I wished but to awaken hopes, that a healthful reunion was possible, a re-union which should involve no sacrifice of truth. If hope should be awakened, then that icy hindrance to prayer, despondency as to the possibility of what we pray for, would be dissolved. Men would pray, God would hearken, and do what and as He sees best. There are, of course, prima facie difficulties and objections against such hopes; else the actual state of things would not be what it is. I only suggested that such difficulties are not insurmountable. Those difficulties have been represented much in this way; that re-union itself is a beautiful dream, but impracticable: 1) on account of the immutability of Rome, which, it is said, could not make any concessions, without giving up its belief in the 8 What "concessions" impossible; infallibility of the Church; 2) on account of the actual indisposition of the English Church,. that her people would never accept the terms which alone Rome could give; 3) much the same is said of the alleged stiffness of the Greek and Russian Church. 1) But the term "concessions" is ambiguous. If by "concessions" were meant the declaration that that is not "de fide" which has been declared to be "de fide," "concessions" in this sense, would, of course, be contrary to the fundamental principles of the Roman Church, or to its claims to be alone the Church, whose decisions would consequently be infallible. But in all matters of discipline, "concessions" might be made without any violation of principle on your part. Nay, it is said, that to some Easterns in communion with Rome a married priesthood is permitted, and (which is a very deep feeling among some of us) the gift of the Cup; or (which touches more on matters of faith) they are allowed, it is said, the use of the unaltered Creed of Nice and Constantinople, without the word "Filioque," which yet, as was agreed at the Council of Florence, expresses the common faith of the East and the West, although it has, for centuries, been understood in a wrong sense in the East. Owing, I suppose, to an almost invincible prejudice, sedulously instilled by Photius, and transmitted from generation to generation, that the word "Filioque" involved the heresy of two 'Apxaì in the Divine Nature, it is said to have been allowed to them to retain the unaltered Creed, Rome being, I suppose, satisfied on her side, that their mislike of the word does not arise from any rejection of the doctrine, that, in the language of their forefathers the great Greek Fathers, God the Holy Ghost eternally proceedeth from the Father (Sià TOû riov) through the Son. This, if true, is the graver, on account of the reverence to the AllHoly Trinity, Whose Eternal mode of existence is thus spoken of. Again, as to one ground of the original rejection of King Henry VIII. or Queen Elizabeth, "and their adherents" respectively, the election of our Bishops, or the right of appeals in all ecclesiastical causes to Rome, it has been said by an able and candid Jesuit writer', that appeals to Rome are almost 1 The following passage in the "Études Religieuses," &c. (March, 1866, No. 39, pp. 388, 389), will be read with great interest" Since the beginning of this century, very few suits have been carried to Rome in appeal, from France, Belgium, Holland, the Rhine Provinces, England, Scotland, Ireland, the United States, Canada. Very certainly there have not been, in all, more than some ten cases from these different countries which have been terminated in the last instance at Rome. The Council of Trent, and the Popes who have reigned since, have reduced processes in the Roman Curia to the narrowest limits. The Council of Trent (sess. 24. c. 20) forbad the introduction of processes in the first instance. Extra-judicial appeals have been, so to say, fundamentally extirpated by the Popes Clement VIII., Gregory XV., Urban VIII., Benedict XIII., and especially Benedict XIV., in the Constitution Ad militantis of March 30, 1742. The same Council was not less 10 Appeals to Rome now disused; nomination universally disused. The nomination to bishoprics has been the subject of Concordats with different severe in regard to appeals called 'interlocutory,' and to all byways of hindering condemnations. There remain judicial appeals from definitive sentences. The ancient Concordats of France restricted these to 'causæ majores' and to those of monasteries immediately subject to the Holy See; and it is known that Innocent X. declared null of full right any thing done against the Concordats. Many religious have been forbidden by Popes, under the severest penalties, to appeal outside their Orders. But what, more than all the rest, has reduced appeals and processes almost to nothing, is, that ambition and avarice have almost disappeared from the Catholic Clergy, purified by the Revolutions. At least, very few ecclesiastics would now sacrifice their conscience or their repose to these vices. Processes, then, are detested. The priests leave themselves to the equity of their Bishops; and, if any unusual difficulties present themselves, Bishops and priests betake themselves to the Roman Congregations, who examine and decide, summarily and without expense, the question of right at issue. Processes, then, are fallen into such desuetude, that probably, in all France, Belgium, Holland, England, and the Rhine Provinces, not one would be found capable of conducting any other ecclesiastical processes than processes in nullity of marriage. "If Dr. P. will allow me to say so to him, he lives far too much in old books. He has seen that appeals, both in the civil and ecclesiastical forum, readily give occasion to abuses, and, consequently, that there have been always very grave complaints on this subject. But what he has not seen is, that the Council of Trent and the Popes have done all which is possible for man to cut short these grievances. Does Mr. P. believe that we are still amongst the misdoings of the 15th and of the first half of the 16th century? And if he does, why does he not become acquainted with the present state of affairs among Catholics, as the celebrated Protestant historian Leo, who declared not long ago, that Protestantism never would have of Bishops may be provided by Concordats. 11 Roman Catholic powers. And yet, to judge by the, I must say, unintelligent tumult which was raised on the ground of the appointment of English Roman Catholic Prelates, instead of the Apostolic legates by whom the Roman Catholics in England used to be governed, this is a matter of considerable feeling among the English people. I say, "unintelligent," because although, as relates to the English Church, it was a very grave change, and does much embarrass the subject of corporate reunion, the feeling awakened among the English people had nothing to do with the Church, but originated perhaps in the transmitted memory of ancient wrongs; any how, it was a dislike of the distribution of our English territory, even for purposes purely religious or ecclesiastical, by one whom they held to be a "foreign potentate 2." It was been brought about, had there, in the 16th century, been a discipline like that which flourishes now, and which is the fruit of the Council of Trent." In answer to this last appeal, I would say here, that I spoke of the past because my subject related to the past. I spoke of appeals, only on the defensive, that the Church of England, in consenting to the suppression of appeals, had not gone against any thing of Divine right. If I spoke of the evils in times past, it was because, in the absence of Concordats, those evils justified the suppression of the cause of them. 2 While writing this, I see that a Wesleyan, Mr. Jackson, says, "Nor will we, as John Wesley's sons in the Gospel, ever consent that the power vested in the Crown of England should be shared with an Italian priest" (Letter read at Wesleyan Conference). Yet he might as well have spoken of "the |