existing independently of itself, derived by the several bishops from their sees' (iii. 259). But while one appreciates the historic interest of this fragmentary work, it must be admitted that the actions of emperors such as Theodosius, Justinian,' or Charles the Great are not in any serviceable analogy with the action of civil judges under a 'démocratie royale,' when the bonds between Church and State have been so much relaxed by the religious divisions of the country. What can be said is, that they furnish precedents for such a 'supreme governorship' as was claimed by Elizabeth or by Charles I.

Our space is nearly exhausted, and this article must draw to an end. We must pass over several scenes in which Pusey is more and more of a chief actor. Much might be said of his University life, his designs for the 'extension of University education,' his warm support of Mr. Gladstone's candidature for the representation of Oxford, his elaborate though somewhat one-sided criticism on the professorial system,' his curiously chivalrous effort to save the Hebdomadal Board' in the reorganization of the University, his vain attempt to resist the admission of Dissenters, his long tenure of a seat in the new Council, where he unexpectedly developed an 'admirable' capacity for business. Or.

His book on Collegiate and Professorial Teaching and Discipline was a plea for tutorial and 'catechetical' instruction, and for the collegiate system as morally beneficial. He gives most interesting details as to its good effects in France and Germany. Dr. Liddon quotes (iii. 389) the 'strong and luminous passage' on the relation of all knowledge to theology (C. and P. T. &c. p. 212).

One of its happiest results was that it completely re-established his old and affectionate relations with the Provost of Oriel,' Dr. Hawkins. 3 Writing in 1856 of what he calls 'the retrograde movement' in Oxford, Pusey says to Keble, 'Twenty years ago people's minds were earnest, directed towards Theology; now they are turned away from it. The young men (our future clergy) are ignorant in the extreme of the Bible' (Life, iii. 410). Since those days the Oxford School of Theology' has had a real effect in reviving an interest in sacred studies among undergraduates who look forward to holy orders; and in its curriculum the department called Biblia Sacra has a prominence at once statutable and real. Yet we fear that too many candidates for ordination in English dioceses present themselves for examination with far less available knowledge, either of the Bible or of the Prayer Book, than would be exhibited by well-trained pupil teachers in Church schools. We know that this grave defect is matter of disappointment and anxiety to examining chaplains.

It would be something, it would be much, if the younger clergy would profit by the example of those ancient and mediaval clergy who knew large portions of Scripture by heart. Kingsley did not hesitate to tell Cambridge students that 'the early monks had ingrained the minds of the masses throughout Christendom with Bible stories, Bible personages, the great facts and the great doctrines of our Lord's life' (The Roman and the Teuton, p. 237). And a young priest or deacon will be

there is the discussion started by the Scottish bishops' 'resolution' in favour of admitting laymen into synods, which drew from Pusey a work on the Councils, in which he proves incontestably that bishops alone were constituent members of ancient councils.' Or there is the anxiety about the 'Jerusalem Bishopric,' as then in close alliance with German Protestantism. Ör there is the unfortunate revival of controversy on the Holy Eucharist, 'provoked' by the three sermons' of Archdeacon Denison, and rendered specially acute in Scotland after Bishop Forbes, of Brechin, deemed himself bound by his own convictions to devote a primary Charge to this subject to Keble's regret, it appears, and also in a sense to Pusey's. In the discussion which followed, and out of which grew Pusey's first volume on the Real Presence, it was perhaps unfortunate that Pusey thought it necessary to insert between those two words the harshly technical term 'Objective.' The idea of a Presence effected by consecration, and independent of faith (which is a receptive, not creative faculty), might have been guarded, we think, by such a word as sacramental.' And he also pressed upon Keble a stringent view as to the relation of wicked' communicants to the inward part of the Sacrament, on which point, as a correspondence in the appendix shows, Keble 'inclined' to the opinion which Pusey combated, and which would certainly have the advantage of finding no difficulty in the twentyninth Article, though Keble referred rather to the sayings of our Lord in St. John vi. 54, &c., and St. Augustine's commentary on them in his Tract upon that part.' Neither seems to have noticed the first exhortation in the Communion Service.

4

far better qualified to minister to the sick or sorrowful, and to abate or modify prejudices against the Church, if he is found, in preaching, to be really familiar with Scripture, and if, when visiting,' he can readily 'bring out of his treasure the psalm, or parable, or portion of a discourse which will meet the case in hand, and can repeat it without book.

Hefele comes to the same conclusion (Hist. of Councils, Introd. sec. 4). But two facts must be also borne in mind: (1) the bishops, in the ancient Church, did most effectively represent their clergy and laity : (2) individual clerics, and even lay communicants, often attended councils, and sometimes materially influenced the decisions. The Scottish prelates'' resolution' was not carried out.

2

On the attraction exercised by this admirable prelate, whom Pusey always spoke of as 'the dear Bishop,' and whose death overwhelmed him with sorrow, see Life, iii. 448; cf ib. 133.

3 This was properly a series of notes on the first Eucharistic sermon. On another volume on the Real Presence see Life, iii. 470.

He had used that term, with 'real' and 'actual,' in a letter to Bishop

Wilberforce in 1852 (Life, iii. 336).

We shall look with the keenest interest for the appearance of the one remaining volume, which will be purely the work of the two 'editors.' They have deserved well of the Church. If, as we confidently expect, they satisfy the requirements of the most trying part of their task, they will deserve still better.

A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation. By M. CREIGHTON, D.D. Oxon. and Camb., Lord Bishop of Peterborough ; late Dixie Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Cambridge, &c., &c. Vol. V. The German Revolt, 1517-1527. (London, 1894.)

ALL readers of Dr. Creighton's earlier volumes will welcome with no little satisfaction this further instalment of his great undertaking. Promotion to the episcopate, with its heavy burden of pressing and absorbing cares, has too often in the annals of English literature cut short work of exceptional promise, and left only a splendid torso to testify to the grandeur of what, under other conditions, might have been. How much of the volume before us was practically complete before Dr. Creighton's summons to the Bench, and how far the new and possibly increasing demands upon his time will allow him to proceed with it, we cannot conjecture, for not one word of preface ushers in the history of the German revolt; and although the Bishop is a master in condensation, the scale on which his work is projected would justify some apprehension about its completion. The period embraced in the volume before us only extends over a single decade, and its three hundred pages are strictly confined to the movement of religious thought in Germany, without reference to the parallel revolt in Switzerland against the inordinate claims of the Roman Pontiff. Are we mistaken in regarding the addition of a long appendix of some eighty pages-nearly a quarter of the entire volume-and consisting of extracts from some newly discovered manuscripts in the British Museum, as a mark of the haste inevitable under the conflicting demands of Dr. Creighton's new position? Such matter seems to us rather of the character of mémoires pour servir, than of the mature and well-reasoned summary which we expect at the hands of a learned writer; and when to its

original disadvantage of unrestrained verbosity there is the added difficulty of a language not widely acquired in England, we feel that the author is leaving us to do for ourselves what we have been wont to regard as his own special métier. We sincerely trust that we shall not incur the imputation of ingratitude in offering these criticisms With the present as with the earlier portion of Dr. Creighton's history we have been so unfeignedly charmed that we immeasurably prefer his able direction to the exercise of our own inferior judgment. As the work grows under its author's hands, we recognize a maturer exercise of the high qualities which have marked it from the outset a singular capacity in massing unwieldy details and selecting such as are typical and of primary importance, a clear grasp of the principles at issue resulting in the most lucid presentation of them, and a nice discrimination in points of no little subtlety, which preserves the author from the sweeping and unjust generalizations of partisan writers.

The successors of Hildebrand in the sixteenth century were heirs to an untenable position, and we cannot altogether withhold our sympathy as we read the story of the desperate shifts by which they strove to retain an authority which was hopelessly moribund. A new world was springing up, and they utterly misinterpreted its tendencies. Pretensions to infallibility and to absolute authority, which had been made respectable by the lofty personal character of Gregory VII. and the sanctity of Bernard, had become ludicrously incredible when wielded by the Italian princes who in the fifteenth century wore the triple crown. In an age, moreover, of very moderate acquaintance with historic truth, forged decretals and 'fictitious' donations passed unchallenged, whose spurious character was inevitably exposed when the light of the new learning was concentrated upon them. Nor was it merely with questions of academic or of purely ecclesiastical interest that the claims of the Papacy were concerned. In the long struggle between the house of Hapsburg and successive Roman Pontiffs Germany had suffered humiliation and indignity which had sown the seeds of hatred that might lie dormant for a time, but would eventually germinate and produce their bitter fruits. Yet so unexpected was the uprising of any serious antagonism to the Papacy that, to use Dr. Creighton's opening words, 'the religious revolt, originated by Luther, fell like a thunderbolt from a clear sky.' The position of the Pope seemed most secure at the moment that it was fatally undermined. Monarchical power was

everywhere consolidating itself in Southern Europe, and kings were the natural upholders of an ecclesiastical form of government akin to, and in many cases invaluable to, their own. The attempt to limit the absolute authority of the Papacy by the action of Councils had proved practically a failure, and Leo was surrounded by officials who bade him disregard canons which did not deserve obedience and would derogate from his dignity. Amidst the growth of new ideas begotten of the revival of classical learning, interest in questions of Church reform appeared in Italy to have died out, and in its place there arose an atmosphere of cultivated indifference, too easy going to attack existing institutions, and disposed to accept them without question as a part of the general culture which alone made life worth living. In Germany, however, the effect of the new learning was widely different, and Dr. Creighton describes in a characteristic paragraph the causes which differentiated its influence beyond the Alps from its results in the Italian peninsula.

'What Italy had gained,' he writes, 'was not so much a system, or a method, as a mental attitude; and it was impossible that a mental attitude should be transplanted and grow up in the same shape as before. Other nations received an impulse from Italy, but they applied that impulse to their own conditions, with the result of producing different types of thought and different views of life. The systematized and logical ideas of the Middle Ages had affected Europe equally, and were current universally. It was otherwise with the subtle suggestiveness of the new learning, which was capable of many modifications and could be applied in various ways. At a time when the movement of external politics was awakening national consciousness, the movement of thought was supplying that consciousness with new modes of expression. Germany was the first country which distinctly admitted the influence of Italy, but it did not, in so doing, absorb the Italian spirit. The new learning won its way gradually through students, teachers, and universities; it was not carried home to the minds of the people by a great outburst of art and architecture, by the pomp and pageantry of princely and municipal life, such as dazzled the eyes of the Italians. It came from above, and won its way by conflict with old institutions and old modes of thought. The result was that it wore from the beginning the appearance of a reforming and progressive system, which proposed new modes of teaching and criticised existing methods. Moreover, in Germany there had been a quiet but steady current of conservative reform in ecclesiastical matters which had created an amount of seriousness not to be found in Italy, and was too powerful to be neglected by the leaders of a new movement. . . What in Italy was frivolous and superficial, was esteemed in Germany for its practical utility. Culture did not remain as an individual possession: it must