Dr. Newman has given his answer; and his answer is, of course, in effect the same as that of the rest of his co-religionists.  He offers not the faintest encouragement to Dr. Pusey’s sanguine hopes.  If it is possible to conceive that one side could move in the matter, it is absolutely certain that the other would be inflexible.  Any such dealing on equal terms with the heresy and schism of centuries is not to be thought of; no one need affect surprise at the refusal.  What Dr. Pusey asks is, in fact, to pull the foundation out from under the whole structure of Roman Catholic pretensions.  Dr. Newman does not waste words to show that the plan of the Eirenicon is impossible.  He evidently assumes that it is so, and we agree with him.  But there are different ways of dispelling a generous dream, and telling a serious man who is in earnest that he is mistaken.  Dr. Newman does justice, as he ought to do, to feelings and views which none can enter into better than he, whatever he may think of them now.  He does justice to the understanding and honesty, as well as the high aims, of an old friend, once his comrade in difficult and trying times, though now long parted from him by profound differences, and to the motives which prompted so venturous an attempt as the Eirenicon to provoke public discussion on the reunion of Christendom.  He is capable of measuring the real state of the facts, and the mischiefs and evils for which a remedy is wanted, by a more living rule than the suppositions and consequences of a cut-and-dried theory.  Rightly or wrongly he argues—­at least, he gives us something to think of.  Perhaps not the least of his merit is that he writes simply and easily in choice and varied English, instead of pompously ringing the changes on a set of formulae which beg the question, and dinning into our ears the most extravagant assertions of foreign ecclesiastical arrogance.  We may not always think him fair, or a sound reasoner, but he is conciliatory, temperate, and often fearlessly candid.  He addresses readers who will challenge and examine what he says, not those whose minds are cowed and beaten down before audacity in proportion to its coolness, and whom paradox, the more extreme the better, fascinates and drags captive.  To his old friend he is courteous, respectful, sympathetic; where the occasion makes it fitting, affectionate, even playful, as men are who can afford to let their real feelings come out, and have not to keep up appearances.  Unflinching he is in maintaining his present position as the upholder of the exclusive claims of the Roman Church to represent the Catholic Church of the Creeds; but he has the good sense and good feeling to remember that he once shared the views of those whom he now controverts, and that their present feelings about the divisions of Christendom were once his own.  Such language as the following is plain, intelligible, and manly.  Of course, he has his own position, and must see things according to it.  But he recognises the right of conscience in those who, having gone a long way with him, find that they can go no further, and he pays a compliment, becoming as from himself, and not without foundation in fact, to the singular influence which, from whatever cause, Dr. Pusey’s position gives him, and which, we may add, imposes on him, in more ways than one, very grave responsibilities:—­