I can get on with it without interruption, as is the case here. Besides this, I have done little except reading Newman's book about Romanism and Protestantism, and Bishop Sanderson's work on the Origin of Government, which Pusey refers to in the Preface to his Sermons. The latter work does not raise my opinion of its author; it contains divers startling assertions, admirably suited to the purposes of text quoters, which appear to advocate pure despotism; but then they are so qualified, that at last one finds nothing surprising in them, except the foolishness or the unfairness of putting them out at first in so paradoxical a forma. . . I think, by what I hear, the cold in Oxford must have been more severe than with us. I have not seen our thermometer lower than 14, at which it stood at 9 A.M. last Saturday, in a northern aspect. But we have had no snow in the valleys till Sunday, and the water in the house has never frozen. The hills have been very hard to walk on, all the streams being hard frozen, and the water which generally is steeping all the surface of the slopes being now sheets of ice. But the waterfalls and the snowy mountain summits, backed by the clear blue sky, have been most beautiful.

CLII. TO THE CHEVALIER BUNSEN.

(On the affair of the Archbishop of Cologne.)

Fox How, January 27, 1838. When I consider the question I am more and more at a loss to guess how it can be satisfactorily solved. How can truth and error be brought into harmony? This Marriage question is admirably fitted for showing the absurdity of the favourite distinction between spiritual things and secular. Every voluntary moral action is to a Christian both the one and the other. "Spiritual" and "ritual” differ utterly. Mere ritual observances may be separated

a Of Mr. Newman's book he says, in another letter, "Parts of it I think very good, parts as bad as bad can be."

from secular actions, but ritual observances are not a Christian's religion. A Christian's religion is co-extensive with his life, and how can he in the general tenor of his life obey two masters, the King and the Pope; how can he at once obey the rightful authorities of the Christian Church and the usurped authority of Priestcraft? I lament the very expressions in which the actual dispute is described. It is represented as a contest between the Church and the Government, or between the Church and the State; in which case I think that all Christians would be bound to obey the Church, and, if the State's commands are incompatible with such obedience, to submit to martyrdom. But in truth, you are the Church, and the Archbishop of Cologne represents the Church's worst enemy, the spirit of priesthood. It is Korah the Levite, falsely pretending to be a priest, and in that false pretension rebelling against Moses. But this mingled usurpation and rebellion, this root of anarchy, fraud, and idolatry,—is the very main principle of all Popery, whether Romish or Oxonian, whether of the Archbishop of Cologne, or of Pusey and Newman. How either you or we can preserve the Church from it, I do not see; but from the bottom of my heart do I "wish you good luck in the name of the Lord," in this most holy cause.

Connected with this is Rothe's book, which I have read with great interest. His first position,-that the State and not the Church, (in the common and corrupt sense of the term,) is the perfect form under which Christianity is to be developed, entirely agrees with my notions. But his second position,—that the Church in the corrupt sense, that is, a priestly government, transmitted by a mystical succession from one priest to another, is of apostolical origin, -seems to me utterly groundless. It may be, that the Apostles, after the destruction of Jerusalem, if any of them survived it, made the government of the Church more monarchical, and less popular; and that they were very anxious to commit it to persons of their own choice,

or chosen by those who had been so. But this does not touch the point. Different states of society require governments more or less despotic, and that the Church should be governed according to the principles of Christianity as set forth by the Apostles, is most certain. The mischief of the false Church notion consists in its substitution of the idea of priesthood for that of government, and, as a consequence, deriving the notion of a mystical succession throughout all time, which does not and cannot preserve the spirit of the Apostles' principles, but paralyzes the free action of the Church, and introducing a principle incompatible with all sound notions of law and government, at one time crushes the Church with its tyranny, and at another distracts it with its anarchy. I am convinced that the whole mischief of the great antiChristian apostacy has for its root the tenet of" a priestly government transmitted by a mystical succession from the Apostles."

CLIII. TO SIR T. S. PASLEY, BART.

Rugby, February 16, 1838. You may perhaps have seen in the papers an account of our meeting at the London University; but at any rate I will keep my promise, and give you my own report of it. Every single member of the Senate except myself was convinced of the necessity, according to the Charter, of giving the Jews Degrees; all were therefore inclined to make an exemption in their favour as to the New Testament Examination, and thus to make that Examination not in all cases indispensable. Most were disposed to make it altogether voluntary, and that was the course which was at last adopted. The Examination is not to be now restricted to any one part of the New Testament, and it is to be followed by a certificate of a man's having simply passed it, and a class paper for those who are distinguished in it. I think that it will be passed so generally, as to

mark very much those who do not pass it; and in this way it will do good. It also saves the University from the reproach of neglecting Christianity altogether. But it does not maintain the principle which I wished; and as on the one hand I think it neither fair nor of any use to go on agitating the question with every one against me, so, on the other, I have no satisfaction in belonging to a body whose views are so different from mine; and I should leave them at once, were I not anxious to see something of the working of our Scriptural Examination, and, if possible, to try to settle it on a good footing. After we left you at Bowness, we had no farther adventures. When we came to Lyth, the snow was all gone, and between Lancaster and Preston the roads were quite dirty. We slept at Yarrow Bridge, embarked on the railway the next day at Warrington, and got safe home by about ten o'clock. Our visit to Oxford was very delightful; we saw great numbers of my old pupils, and met with a very kind reception from every one. Have you yet got Pusey's Sermon, or seen the review of it in the Edinburgh Review? That article was written, I am told, by Merivale, the Political Economy Professor; I have looked at it, and like its tone and ability, though I do not think that it takes the question on the highest ground. From Oxford we went to London, where my two days were passed, one at the University, and the other at Mr. Phillips' room, where I sat for my portrait. Then we went down to Laleham, from whence I paid a visit to Eton, a place which has always a peculiar interest for me. And now we are as regularly settled at our work as if we had never stirred from Rugby, and looking forward to the speedy opening of the Railway to Birmingham, to effect which, we have six hundred men working night and day, as hard as the frost will let them. I rejoice in the prospect of a peaceful settlement of the affair of the Caroline; it is not easy to make out the facts exactly, nor, if I knew the truth, am I quite sure as to the law. But one is glad to find the American

Government disposed to act justly and in a friendly spirit; and the Buffalo and the Canada Orangemen will not, if this be the case, be able to involve the two countries in war. Alas, for all our evergreens, if these biting east winds last much longer. Poor Murphy's reputation must be pretty well at an end now.

CLIV. TO THE BISHOP OF NORWICH.

Rugby, February 17, 1838.

The result of the meeting of the London University, on the 7th, has placed me personally in a situation of great embarrassment; and I venture to apply to you, to learn whether you, on your own part, also feel the same difficulty. On the one hand, the Senate were so unanimous in their opinion, that the admission of unbelievers of all sorts to Degrees in Arts could not be resisted under the terms of the Charter, that I should not think it becoming to agitate the question again. And I think that the voluntary examination which we have gained is really a great point, and I am strongly tempted to assist, so far as I can, towards carrying it into effect. But, on the other hand, the University has solemnly avowed a principle to which I am totally opposed, namely, that Education need not be connected with Christianity; and I do not see how I can join in conferring a degree on those who, in my judgment, cannot be entitled to it; or in pronouncing that to be a complete education, which I believe to be no more so than a man without his soul or spirit is a complete man. Besides, my continuing to belong to the University, may be ascribed to an unwillingness to offend the Government from interested motives: all compliances with the powers that be being apt to be ascribed to unworthy considerations. Yet, again, you will believe me, though probably would not, when I say, that I feel exceedingly unwilling to retire on such grounds as mine, while three Bishops of our Church do not feel it inconsistent with their