ART. III.--_Parties in the Episcopal Church._

(1.) _Judgments of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council._ By the

Hon. G. C. BRODRICK and Rev. W. H. FREEMANTLE. London: John Murray.

(2.) _The Church Times._

(3.) _Church Association Reports._

The glory of the Episcopal Church, according to many of her loudest

eulogists, is her comprehensiveness. She is not, they say, like the

sects, bound within the narrow lines of a rigid orthodoxy. She does not

expect that from all her pulpits the same doctrines should be preached

in stereotyped phraseology, not even that her ritual shall always

conform to the same pattern. She recognises diversities of tastes, and

adapts herself to them. Instead of checking, she encourages the widest

freedom of inquiry, and secures for her clergy a liberty which the

members of voluntary communities will not tolerate in their ministers.

Hence she includes in her ranks men of innumerable varieties of opinion,

from believers in the extreme theory of verbal inspiration on the one

hand to Doctor Colenso and his sympathizers on the other; from upholders

of sacramentarian and sacerdotal systems, which run to the very verge of

Romanism, to men whose Church principles are hardly to be distinguished

from those of the Plymouth Brethren. Whether such diversity is

consistent with the fundamental principles of the constitution of the

National Church; whether it was ever contemplated by the men who, at the

time of the Restoration, gave her her present character; whether the

advocates of this comprehensiveness support it by arguments drawn from

their own ideal of what a National Church should be, rather than from

the documents which determine what the Anglican Church really is;

whether the principle they lay down is worked out to the extent which,

if admitted at all, justice would demand; whether, on the whole, it

works for evil or for good, are questions which we do not propose to

discuss at length here. The fact at all events is patent, and was never

more so than at present, that the Church of England includes not only

individuals of different views, but great antagonistic parties having

their separate organizations, pursuing their own ends, and two of them

at least, so far from admitting that the Church should be of this

comprehensive character, asserting that they themselves are the only

loyal Churchmen, and that all others have more or less of the taint of

heresy upon them. The lines of demarcation have become even wider, and

the feelings cherished by the more eager partizans on either side more

intense than when, eighteen years ago, one of the distinguished divines

of the day gave to the world his celebrated sketch of the rival hosts.

During the interval there have been many fierce struggles, in the

settlement of which the courts of law have been called to intervene.

Decisions of great importance in their bearing upon the liberty enjoyed

by the clergy have been given. Toleration has been secured for doctrines

and practices which it was generally thought were inadmissible, and the

legislature has gone so far in its desire to relieve scrupulous

consciences as to modify the terms of clerical subscription. The result

of the liberty thus given, has been, as perhaps might have been

expected, a wider divergence of opinion than has existed at any previous

period; but this, unfortunately, has not been accompanied by a growth of

that mutual tolerance which even the result of the various suits,

instituted for the suppression of what was regarded on one side or the

other as heresy, ought to have produced. The parties who have failed in

their attempts to purge the Church of error have sat down under their

defeat, angry and discontented, the loud talk of a determination to

secede rather than be parties to the toleration of false doctrines has

died away, but the lesson as to the limitation of their power has done

nothing towards producing a spirit of greater charity.

The Broad Church party--if indeed it is right to speak of a number of

men who have no party organization and no party aims, among whom are to

be found all shades of opinion, and whose one bond of connection is

their common love of freedom--have consistently maintained that the

Church of England belongs neither to one section nor the other, but is

intended to comprehend all. The aim of the courts has been as far as

possible to maintain this view, on behalf of which they have often

strained the language of the law to a dangerous extent, and in fact have

allowed mere custom to set aside the authority of law in a way which

certainly would not have been tolerated in any proceedings relative to

property or civil right. The expositions of ecclesiastical law, as given

even by the highest court, have often been remarkable as illustrations

of the dexterity with which the judges have rescued the Church from

positions of great difficulty, rather than as examples of sound

interpretation of the statutes. Considerations of public policy have

affected the decisions, and the strict letter of the law has been

disregarded in a fashion which would find little favour in Westminster

Hall. The question has been, not as to the positive requirements of the

statute if construed on the ordinary principles of language, but as to

the amount of latitude to be permitted; and so far has this been

carried, that the defendant in a recent suit was bold enough to quote a

passage from a letter of Dr. Arnold, which was not published till after

his death, as illustrative of the liberty which had been granted to him,

and which, therefore, though to a much greater extent, he demanded for

himself. Statesmen and lawyers in truth, understanding that the absolute

victory of either of the contending parties meant the downfall of the

National Church, have anxiously sought to protect all in the enjoyment

of their position, and to make them understand that the continuance of

the great institution, to which in common they profess so hearty an

attachment, depends upon their mutual recognition of each other's

rights. But the lesson has been given to reluctant pupils, of whom it

would not be too much to say that they cling to that which they ought to

forget, and turn a deaf ear to all they need to learn. If among the best

men on all sides there has been the steady growth of a better feeling,

and if there is an increasing body of the ablest and most thoughtful of

the clergy who refuse to identify themselves with any party, the

majority of the strong adherents both of the High Church and the

Evangelicals display all the old spirit, and if they had the power

certainly do not lack the will to make the Church the exclusive preserve

of their own section.

A better illustration of this could not well be found than that which is

given in the introductory Essay on 'Anglican Principles' in the recent

volume of 'Essays on the Church and the Age,' the manifesto of moderate

High Churchmen. In this party the Dean of Chichester deservedly holds a

very high place. His great abilities, his large and varied experience,

his distinguished services in various departments of labour, his high

character, rightly give him position and influence. He is not a man of

illiberal temper, and if he ever had the heat of the partizan, the

mellowing influence of time has toned down its ardour. He is so far from

being a man of extreme views or from cherishing any sympathy with the

Ritualist party, that he says, 'They assert dogmas which are scarcely to

be distinguished from some of the errors of the Church of Rome.' 'To

this party,' he adds, 'those who adhere to the principles of the English

Reformers, and who were, till of late years, known on that account as

High Churchmen, are as much opposed as they have ever been to the

Puritans, and on the same grounds.' His opposition to these Romanizing

tendencies, however, does not lead him to regard more favourably those

who are at the other pole of the theological compass. On the contrary,

if he condemns Ritualists, he lays much of the blame for their position,

as well as for that of the Rationalizers, on the Evangelicals, whom he

charges with infidelity to their ecclesiastical obligations, and with

all the consequences which have resulted from those lax notions of

subscription of which they gave the first example. 'The only

difference,' he says, 'between the Tractarian and the Puritan, in regard

to the formularies of our Church, is this, that the former honestly, if

not discreetly, has avowed the principle upon which the other party has,

from the time of the Reformation, never ceased to act. The Puritans did

not use the term non-natural; but what else is meant when they clothe in

the garment of Calvinism what the Church has laid before them as plain

and simple Catholic truth?' Having himself no sympathy with those who do

not care to inquire what the Church really means in the dogmas which she

has laid down, and who are satisfied if they can so torture her

formularies as to make them lend an apparent sanction to preconceived

opinions, he contends that 'if the thumb-screw be allowable to one

party, it cannot be withheld from the other;' ... that if liberty be

granted to one, it must be extended quite as freely to the other; and

that if this be conceded, the only conclusion is that 'we possess no

authoritative statement of doctrine whatever.'... 'The question is--we

repeat it--the principle having been conceded to the Puritans, where is

it to stop!' This is certainly turning the tables to some purpose. The

Evangelicals have been in the habit of denouncing, with a good deal of

righteous indignation, the Popish traitors who eat the bread of a

Protestant Church, while all the time they are labouring only to betray

her into the hands of her enemy; or the still greater offenders who

continue to occupy Christian pulpits, while their writings show that

they have accepted even the fundamental doctrines of Christianity in a

non-natural sense. It is somewhat startling for them to be told, not

only that they are equally guilty, but that their own laxity has been

the fruitful parent of the excesses of which they complain so bitterly

in others; that as the definite meaning of formularies must be

maintained or universal liberty be conceded, and every man left to

believe as seemeth right in his own eyes, the toleration to a Gorham

necessitated toleration to a Bennett and a Mackonochie and a Colenso;

and that on them, therefore, rests the responsibility for the disorder,

the anarchy, and the heresy by which the Church is afflicted. The

argument is not new, for it is substantially that which was employed by

the Rev. W. G. Ward in his defence before the Oxford Convocation, and

the Evangelicals would doubtless have a good deal to say in opposition

to its conclusions. We quote it here only as indicative of the strong

feelings that prevail between different parties. Mr. Ward used it in

self-defence, and in an extremity when the _tu quoque_ plea was about

the only one which was available. From Dr. Hook it comes as a judicial

utterance; and when such a man adopts this style of criticism, we can

easily understand with what bitterness the struggle will be carried on

by those who have neither his ability nor his self-restraint.

While High Churchmen are thus determined on their side, and while the

more advanced section of the party never attempt to conceal the contempt

they entertain for Evangelicals, we have only to turn to the utterances

on the opposite side to see how fully the sentiment is reciprocated. It

would be hard to conceive of a sadder caricature of Christianity than

would be presented by a series of extracts from the _Church Times_ and

_Church Review_ on the one side, and the _Record_ and the _Rock_ on the

other. That there are members of both parties who are shocked by the

violence, the narrow-mindedness, the unreasoning partizanship of their

organs, we do not doubt; but it is impossible to deny that these

journals do represent large classes, whose antagonism to each other they

at once stimulate and express. The scenes which two or three years ago

disgraced the meeting of the Christian Knowledge Society, and the

prosecutions which occupy so much of the time, and must sometimes try

the temper and patience of the judges, are other indications of the same

virulence of spirit. We hear about the comprehensiveness of the Church,

but while this internal strife continues, that comprehensiveness is its

scandal, not its glory. It is the legal association in a Christian

Church of men who have no faith in each other, whose principles are

mutually subversive, who lose no opportunity of expressing their disgust

with their companions and their belief that they are where they are,

only by unfaithfulness to conscience and disobedience to law. It is the

maintenance of an outward and visible form of union where there is not

the inward and spiritual grace; not the fellowship of those who have

subordinated minor differences that they may cultivate a true spiritual

unity, but of those whose antagonism is deep-rooted and intense, and who

remain in the same Church from mutual jealousy and distrust rather than

from any better feeling. It is a comprehensiveness which is the child of

legal moderation, not of Christian charity, which, so far from being

the legitimate development of noble and generous sentiment, is the

result only of external constraint, whose hollowness is evident in the

railing accusations to which both parties condescend, and which survives

only because neither is willing to withdraw from an enforced and hateful

union, and so leave all the prestige and emoluments of the National

Church in the hands of its opponents for the promotion of what it

regards as deadly error.

The ideal of a church which allows the greatest latitude of opinion

consistent with an adherence to the primary truths of the Gospel, which

trusts for the maintenance of Christian truth to its own living force

rather than to any artificial defences, which aims to cultivate unity of

spirit rather than agreement in creed, which, proceeding on the belief

that where there is the same spirit there will yet be diversities of

gifts, and under the same law differences of administration, does not

attempt to curb the free development of individual belief or allow the

divergence to which it may lead to interfere with the enjoyment of true

spiritual fellowship, is a very exalted one. If the Church of England

were really striving to attain that, or if it exhibited any signs of an

approach to it, we should be prepared to condone many faults, and, even

though it failed to realize its own conception, to honour it for aiming

at such an ideal. But this is just the view which High Church and Low

Church would alike repudiate. Little love as they bear to each other,

they have still less for the only section which is honestly seeking to

give the Church this character. Whether or not the members of the Broad

Church party are right in their interpretation of the facts of history

or the principles of ecclesiastical law, it is due to them, at least, to

say that they are consistent in their maintenance of clerical liberty.

Others demand freedom for themselves, and are very loud in their

protests against ecclesiastical despotism if there is any danger that

they may themselves become its victims. Broad Churchmen vindicate the

liberties of all, and have more than once, in times of fierce

excitement, exposed themselves to a storm of unpopularity by their

gallant defence of men who had made themselves obnoxious by their avowal

of what was branded as heresy. All others have in their turn been

assailants; they, never. From all the crusades against heresy they have

stood aloof, and have been content to bear the reproach of heterodoxy

themselves rather than do anything which might narrow the boundaries of

the Church, or curtail the freedom of the clergy. We could not find a

better illustration of this than in Dean Stanley's recent volume of

Essays. We find him in the Gorham controversy breaking a lance in

defence of the Evangelicals when an attempt was made to deprive them of

their status in the Church; and when they, forgetful of their own

difficulties, turned round, and in their turn became assailants of the

authors of 'Essays and Reviews,' we find him equally resolute in

courageously withstanding them. His own views in opposition to Ritualism

are expressed with sufficient distinctness, and, when dealing with its

favourite South African prelate and his attack on Dr. Colenso, he is

bold and unsparing; but if any wish him to unite in an effort to expel

Ritualists from the Church, his answer is, 'As we would wish to include

the Nonconforming members of the Church who are without its pale, so we

would wish to retain those Nonconforming members who are within its

pale.' The very thoroughness with which the Dean carries out his

principle itself irritates many. They cannot understand how a man should

be so zealous a champion of the rights of those whose theological and

ecclesiastical opinions he has not a spark of sympathy. But nothing

tempts him to swerve from his position. The Church is nothing to him if

she be not comprehensive, and he will resist to the death anything which

threatens to deprive him of this boasting on her behalf.

All that Broad Churchmen can thus do, however, is to justify themselves.

They cannot alter the fact that there is an Act of Uniformity defining

exactly what the character and constitution of the Church shall be; and

when we come to examine the history and requirements of that Act, it is

difficult to see how it can be maintained that the Church was intended

to be comprehensive. It is so in fact; but it is so certainly in

opposition to the designs of the ecclesiastics of the Restoration who

gave it its present constitution, and in opposition to the letter of the

law.

But if the existence of separate parties with views in such complete

antagonism as to be mutually destructive is an anomaly, these parties

may plead in their own behalf that they are as necessary to the

Establishment as the Establishment is to them; that they could exist and

work for the advancement of their own views even though they should be

expelled from the Establishment, but that in such case it must assuredly

fall; and that so conscious of this have been the administrators of the

law, that until the extreme views of Mr. Purchas and Mr. Voysey have

dictated a somewhat different course, their constant effort has been to

avoid any decision which might compel any one of them to secede--a

tenderness certainly not prompted by any regard to them, but solely by

a consideration of the probable results to the Establishment. How far

this should reconcile conscientious men to retain their position, is a

point which must be left for themselves to settle. Nonconformists have

sometimes been too ready to settle it for them, and condemn both

Evangelicals and Ritualists for infidelity to truth because they do not

take the course which, under like circumstances, they themselves would

feel bound to adopt. Imputations of this kind are as impolitic as they

are unfair. They leave out of sight the different aspect in which the

same facts present themselves to different minds, and the diversity of

conclusion which may be reached with perfect honesty on all sides. It is

certain, however strange it may seem to those looking at the subject

from a different stand-point, that of the two extreme parties there are

numbers who sincerely believe that the Church was intended to be of

their particular type--'Evangelical or Catholic,' as the case may be. It

requires a good deal of faith, perhaps, to believe that any man can

honestly think that Gunning or Sheldon intended to make the Church

Evangelical, but it is nevertheless certain that numbers have a sincere

conviction that Evangelicals are the true Churchmen. That 'Catholics' on

their side are satisfied of their own ecclesiastical orthodoxy is less

surprising; while any, whether High Churchmen or Low Churchmen, who are

candid enough to confess their rubrical transgressions, would maintain

that no one conforms to the pattern in all things, and that if they err,

it is only in common with all beside.

One of the most remarkable features in the history of the Church during

the last twenty years has been the development of High Church

principles; and in this we do not so much refer to the extreme extent to

which they have been pushed by the Ritualists, or to the increase of

professed adherents of the party, as to the higher tone of Church

sentiment which is so perceptible, and which has affected numbers who

would disown all connection with any section of the party. The

Tractarian movement has undoubtedly been one of the chief causes of

this. Mr. Bennett and others of the early leaders who still remain

faithful in their allegiance to the Church of their birth, may well

congratulate themselves on the different atmosphere by which they now

find themselves surrounded. They have not indeed succeeded in moulding

public opinion, they have not undermined the strong Protestant feeling

of the nation nor have they persuaded the people that the National

Church is anything but a Protestant Church. But practices are tolerated

to-day which formerly were regarded with horror and alarm;

battle-grounds which once were hotly contested have been left in

possession of the High-Anglicans, and they, grown bold by the successes

they have won, have put forth new claims and are seeking to introduce

innovations--or, as they would call them, restorations--which the most

sanguine among them would not have dared to contemplate a few years ago.

To preach in a surplice, for example, is no longer regarded as an

evidence of Romanising tendency, although, perhaps, it is still a sign

that the preacher is not of the Evangelical party. In the struggle,

however, which is now waged to prevent the adoption of sacrificial

vestments, it is almost forgotten how recently the appearance of the

preacher in a surplice was sufficient to provoke popular commotion and

to furnish an occasion of legal prosecutions. In the style of Church

architecture and music, in the more elaborate form of service adopted in

places innocent of High Church tendencies, and in the increased

attention paid to some of the festivals, we find the same advance. Nor

is it only in such points as these that the change is seen. Even more

significant is the quiet revival of Convocation, and the amount of

influence it has been able to gain. Power in the strict sense of the

term it has not; and there is often a ludicrous contrast between the

loudness of its talk and the feebleness of its performances. But if it

has no legislative authority, it continually passes its judgment on

questions affecting the interests of the Church, and its pretensions

have sometimes been treated with a consideration, not to say deference,

which is indicative of an alteration in the spirit of the times. No

English Prime Minister, indeed, whatever might be his personal

proclivities, would dare to concede what its leaders consider themselves

entitled to ask; yet a careful observer cannot fail to see that it has

been quietly asserting itself in a way most grateful to the advocates of

ecclesiastical ascendancy. The Bill for the Revision of the Lectionary,

introduced in the last session of Parliament, afforded a very striking

proof of this advance. Convocation was first consulted as to the changes

proposed to be made, and greatly to the satisfaction of High Churchmen,

the preamble of the measure contained a distinct reference to the

opinion which that august body had expressed on the subject. It is true

that the Bill did not pass the House of Commons, and would probably not

have been able to secure the assent of an assembly chosen by household

suffrage without the sacrifice of this point of the preamble, but the

fact that it was introduced by the ministers of the Crown and, in

opposition to the protests of Lord Shaftesbury and some other peers, was

accepted by the House of Lords, is itself painfully significant. It may

even prove that the move has been premature and impolitic, and the

result may be the awakening of a spirit of jealousy that will prevent

any further encroachments. Still, such progress as has been made in this

development of Church authority would not have been possible if there

had not been, in certain quarters, a state of feeling friendly to it--a

reaction against the Erastianism which would treat the clergy as mere

officers of the State, whose duty was simply to carry out the will of

Parliament--a growing tendency to accept the rule of the Church in the

business of the Church.

There are many who attribute this High Church development to the

influence of what they call the 'Catholic revival' throughout Europe. A

wave of deeper spiritual feeling, more humble reverence for authority,

more perfect faith in Catholic truth, and more earnest desire to work

out the true Catholic ideal of holiness has, they say, been passing over

the Continent, and it has reached us. Before we admit the fact of this

revival, we are entitled to ask where its evidences are to be found. Is

it in Belgium, esteemed the most Catholic country in Europe except

Ireland, where the closer our acquaintance with the people the more

clearly does it appear that underlying much show of outward devotion,

there is, especially in the male part of the urban population, a spirit

of silent but decided revolt against the superstitions of Rome? Or is it

in Austria, whose ecclesiastical policy has been growingly liberal in

its character, and has been continually putting it more and more out of

accord with the Vatican? Or in Spain, where once priests and Jesuits

ruled supreme, but where the fall of their wretched instrument, who so

long disgraced the throne of that unhappy land, has inaugurated an era

of freedom? Or is it in Italy herself, preserving indeed her outward

allegiance to the Papal See, but it is to be feared with little faith of

any kind surviving among her people? As we look at these nations where

the dominion of Rome is supposed to be most secure, it seems absurd to

talk of 'Catholic revival.' Still we cannot say that it is only a dream

of enthusiasts. In a certain sense there has been the revival of which

Archbishop Manning is so fond of boasting. Ages and countries in which

we find great material prosperity, love of luxury, a low standard of

morals, are those in which we find also a strong development of

superstition, and a readiness to bow to the will of the priest. Europe

in the nineteenth century is no exception to the rule. France in

particular would perhaps be pointed out as the scene of the great

Catholic revival of the day; and if the desertion by the great body of

the Gallican bishops and clergy of the cause for which their

predecessors so gallantly contended, the readiness of priests and people

to accept the most extreme views of Papal infallibility and Mariolatry,

the restoration of the rites of the Church in the old cathedrals in

their full pomp and circumstance, and the shameless subserviency of

French politicians to Papal ambition, be the signs of a 'Catholic

revival,' such revival there undoubtedly has been. Side by side with the

falsehood, the frivolity, the idle display, the incredible extravagance,

and the immorality which were the scandal of Paris, and in which the

court of the Second Empire was so deeply implicated, there was also an

outburst of superstitious devotion, yclept, we suppose, a 'revival.' The

Empress was the great leader of fashion, and as she was a devotee of

Rome and the Jesuits, it became fashionable in the circles of which she

was the centre, to affect an earnest zeal for the Church and her

observances. As in Paris, so to some extent in other capitals; and thus,

though there is little on which a Church intent only on spiritual ends

could congratulate herself, there have been an increased splendour in

ceremonial, a more facile acceptance of Church dogmas, a greater show of

deference to the priest, and especially to the Holy Father, which have

been gratefully welcomed. Looking back at the position of the Papacy in

1848, and tracing its rise from the extreme depression into which it had

fallen at that time, to that sense of power which encouraged the Pope

eighteen months ago to convene a Council in the hope that it would

realise the grand idea of years, and proclaim his infallibility, we

cannot be surprised that we hear boasts of a revival. But the more

closely it is examined, the less of a religious character will it be

found to possess.

In England it has been different. Whatever we may think of the doctrines

of the Tractarians, it would be worse than uncharitable to doubt their

sincerity, their conscientiousness, their intense devotion to the

principles they hold, their spiritual life and fervour, as it would be

foolish to deny that they have been the authors of what may fairly be

described as a 'Romish revival.' So far as there has been any real

religious movement in the Roman Catholic churches of the Continent, we

believe that it has come from this country. It was no small thing for

the Papal See to gain the distinguished band of converts, of which

Newman and Manning are the most conspicuous. Bringing with them subtle

and highly-cultured intellects, high reputations, and fervid zeal, they

threw themselves into the service of the Church in which they professed

to have found rest with all the passionate devotion of new converts, and

their influence could not but be felt throughout the whole Romish

community. The prospect of the return of England to the true Church that

so large a secession from the Anglican ranks seemed to hold out, was

itself sufficiently stimulating, while the example of their ardour and

diligence stirred up their new associates to nobler efforts in the

common cause.

But while they thus breathed new life into the movements of the Roman

Catholic Church, their influence did not end there. The leaven of their

teaching and spirit remained in the Church they had forsaken. Contrary

to what was once expected, their secession neither deterred many of

their sympathisers from venturing still further in the dangerous paths

which had conducted their leaders to Rome, nor induced them to follow

their example, and reconcile themselves with the Holy See. So far from

the Church being purged of Tractarian principles, these are more defiant

and rampant than ever. Mr. Bennett, Dr. Littledale, and Mr. Mackonochie

have only developed the idea of Mr. Newman and his coadjutors; but they

have done this to an extent which their predecessors never attempted,

and which in those days they would not have thought possible. It is

possible now, because these teachings have done much more than merely

indoctrinate a certain number of minds with their opinions, they have

created a High Church tone in a much wider circle than that which they

are able directly to affect. Men who would scorn to accept them as their

leaders, who declaim about the absurdity of some of their practices, and

the Romish tendency of the whole movement, are yet to an extent, perhaps

almost unconsciously, influenced by them. How is this?

Something is due to their very audacity. They speak with no faltering

tone, they act with decision and fearlessness, and the confidence which

they show in themselves and their opinions begets a similar feeling in

others; while even with those who refuse to yield themselves absolutely

to their lead, there is a disposition to think that, though they may

push their notions too far, they would not have dared to go to such an

extreme unless they had been in the main right. There are large numbers

of Englishmen, who, looking on at the spectacles provided for them in

Ritualistic churches, are induced, after the first feeling of surprise,

and possibly of indignation, is over, to say, 'There must be something

in these men; they have gone too far, but that is only what others are

doing in the opposite direction. They have borrowed too much from Rome,

while others approach too near Geneva. We like neither the one nor the

other. What we want is the service of our own Church well done.' Thus

they have carried a large body who condemn Ritualism to a position in

advance even of the old High Church view, and they have done it mainly

because they had the courage of conviction, and did not shrink from the

consequences to which their boldness might expose them. What the

Protestant public would think and say of them, how many prejudices they

would awaken, what condemnation they would have to face, they must have

foreseen. But they have braved all, and they have a reward, even beyond

the progress they have made in winning converts to their party, in the

subtle but powerful influence they have exerted on Church sentiment.

They have had, too, the life and energy characteristic of the youth of

religious parties. In the abundance of their labours, in their freedom

from conventionalism in their work, in their willingness to adopt any

plan which has been found successful by others, they are an example to

ministers of all churches. There are, of course, among them those who

have little sympathy with the noble aims of their brethren, and who have

no higher object than a gratification of their own strong priestly

instincts, perhaps even of their childish love of display, who delight

in the show of the gorgeous service, and have little care for the truths

it is intended to symbolize, and who bring contempt upon the whole

movement by words and deeds which stamp on it a character of weakness

and puerility. It is the fate of every party to attract some followers

of this type, and it would be as unfair to judge it by them, as it would

be uncandid not to recognise the higher qualities of those who have

given it weight and importance. The truth is, these men have a faith,

and they are not afraid of avowing and of acting upon it; and in an age

which is only too prone to seek after compromises, this itself gives

them power. Their very dogmatism, offensive as it is to inquiring minds,

is a reaction from the too prevalent laxity of religious belief, and

commends them to a large class who are weary of endless disputations,

and crave for something positive. To the clamour for liberty--which is

not unfrequently only another name for lawlessness, the sign of an

unwillingness to submit to any rule either of faith or practice, the

assertion of a man's right to believe what he likes, and do what he

will--they oppose the law of a Catholic Church, ending all discussion,

and silencing opposition by the mere assertion that the Church has

spoken, and that through her we receive the will of God. In the presence

of a widespread disbelief in the supernatural, and a desire to eliminate

the miraculous from the teachings of Scripture, they assert the

existence of a perpetual miracle in the presence of the Lord upon His

own altars, and find the best evidence of His Incarnation in the

extensions of that incarnation through the sacraments for the

nourishment of the spiritual life of His followers. Such a creed is out

of harmony with all Protestant opinion, and does not bear the test of

either reason or Scripture; and when, as it must be, the demand for its

acceptance is based on the authority of the Church, it is open to attack

from the Roman Catholic side equally fatal with that which it has to

encounter from Protestantism. But illogical and unscriptural as it

appears to us, it is held by Anglicans with a tenacity, and worked out

with an enthusiastic ardour, of which we find too few examples among the

believers in creeds of a more Scriptural order. They are ready to

proclaim its articles on the housetops; so far from attempting to hide

the extravagance of any of their pretensions, they seem rather to

delight in bringing them out in their most pronounced obnoxious forms;

and by their outspoken boldness they constrain even the admiration of

those who like them least.

If this party have gained power by the strong assertion of their

distinctive principles, they have largely increased it by the way in

which they have identified themselves with various popular movements,

and the earnestness, combined with a certain kind of practical wisdom,

with which they have prosecuted their work. With all the deference they

claim for tradition in relation to doctrine, they show not the slightest

respect to traditional notions, so far as Christian work is concerned.

Of that regard to dignity which restrained the High Church clergy of a

former time from everything that bore the most distant resemblance to

Methodism, they have not a vestige, and, indeed, they view it as one of

the errors of that dreary Hanoverian Protestantism which they hate

intensely, and certainly not without good reason. They set out with an

ardent longing to recover the masses of the people to their allegiance

to the Church, and any means that will contribute to that end they

adopt. 'All other sections of the English Church save one,' Dr.

Littledale tells us, 'have stood their trial and have failed.' The time

is come when an effort should be made on a different principle, and that

principle is a careful regard to the tastes and necessities of the

people whom they have to win; for past failure is to be attributed

largely to 'a refusal to face the fact, that it is with beings with

human wants and frailties, and not pure disembodied rationalities that

the Church has to deal, that the shopkeepers and artisans have gone to

Dissent, and the labourers have gone to the devil.' Acting on this

conviction, they have sought to understand the nature of the influences

by which the people have been drawn on both sides in order that they

might fight both dissent and the devil with their own weapons. They have

been willing to learn everywhere, believing that if the children of this

world are in their generation wiser than the children of light, the

latter cannot do better than become pupils in their school. Hence they

have not been particular as to who their instructors were, if only they

had something to teach them, and have been content to learn from a

gin-palace as well as from a conventicle, from the Odd-Fellow or

Forester as well as from the Primitive Methodist, borrowing from the one

the histrionic style of their Ritual, and from the other the spiritual

enthusiasm which expresses itself in revival services with stirring

addresses and glowing hymns. There is certainly something singular in

the idea that, inasmuch as the landlord of the gin-palace caters for his

customers by means of painting, light, and music, the Church of Christ

should do the same, and that ministers of the Gospel, adopting the arts

of the managers of benefit societies, and pandering to that childish

love of display which the latter gratify by glittering insignia of

office, processions with a great deal of pomp and show, and rites around

which a mysterious awe is thrown, should seek to attract the people by

churches with gaily decorated altars, processions with banners and

music, and a regular succession of church festivals celebrated with

accessories that appeal to both the eye and ear. It indicates, however,

the spirit of the party. Their Ritual has a deeper meaning than this,

but by many it has undoubtedly been developed with the prominence they

have given it under the belief that it would produce great popular

effects.

Had they, however, confined themselves to the cultivation of this

histrionic element, they would never have gained the power they possess.

They have been equally active in the employment of means of a higher

order. With the contempt for preaching which was, and still is, so

prevalent amongst a large number of the Anglican clergy, they have

little sympathy; for while they attach supreme importance to the work of

the sacrificing priest or the confessor, they take ample care also to

cultivate the art of popular address. This was specially apparent in the

celebrated 'twelve days' mission,' which brought into notice more than

one public orator of a type very different from anything with which the

Episcopal Church has been familiar. That mission itself, disfigured as

it was by many extravagancies and eccentricities, lowered in its

character as a Christian work by the loud flourish of trumpets by which

it was heralded, and the jubilant exultation as to its success in which

its promoters indulged, and especially discredited by their manifest

design to make it an opportunity of familiarising the minds of the

people with Romish notions and practices, was, nevertheless, a

remarkable proof of the skill as well as enthusiasm of the party. We

should be sorry to think that among those by whom it was carried on

there were not many influenced by a higher desire than to secure a mere

party triumph; but regarded in that light only, we cannot too much

admire the knowledge of human nature, and particularly of English human

nature, shown by those who conceived the idea. Its very novelty was sure

to arrest attention and draw crowds, and the fact that crowds are drawn

by whatever means to religious services is with many sufficient to cover

a multitude of offences against good taste, and even against Christian

truth. There are those who apply to everything what they call practical

tests, and one of their surest tests of the power of a preacher, is his

capability of attracting large audiences. Of course, the proclamation of

a grand crusade against sin and Satan, to be undertaken by a number of

clergymen whose peculiarities had already attracted to them a large

share of public attention, awakened curiosity, and, if there had been no

other feeling, that would have been sufficient to crowd the churches.

Among those who attended these services were many good people who went

to see in what fashion and with what weapons this new warfare would be

carried on. They saw the unusual sight of numbers, and many of them

belonging to classes seldom found in a place of worship, coming night

after night, and apparently impressed by the services. They heard

eloquent preachers preaching to them the great truths of the Gospel, in

forcible and striking language rebuking the sins of the day, in vivid

and glowing pictures setting before them the love of Christ and His

redeeming work, and in thrilling appeals beseeching them to believe and

obey. Though even this could not reconcile them to a style of worship so

strongly Romish in its character, or lead them to accept the error which

was so subtly insinuated, it disarmed not a few prejudices, and led

numbers, who never had a friendly thought towards Ritualism or

Ritualists before, to think that, despite all their faults, these men

were doing a great work, and were not lightly to be evil spoken of. The

spectacle of so many clergymen banding themselves together for earnest

evangelistic work, casting aside the traditions of their Church and

their office, throwing themselves heart and soul into services in which

the freedom and fervour, characteristic of Methodist revivals were

substituted for the dulness and decorum with which the high Anglicans of

former days were satisfied, and determined that, so far as lay in their

power, they would make their Church what it has so often claimed to be,

and what as a National Church it ought to be, the Church of the people,

could not fail to produce a deep and favourable impression. Men who

maintain an attitude of indifference to all parties did homage to the

earnestness which marked the movement; and even among those who regarded

it with strongest disapproval, and believed that its effect, so far as

it was successful, would be to Romanize rather than Christianize the

people, there were many who felt that the only way of overcoming such

workers would be to display a spirit as devoted, as self-denying, and as

practical as their own. Ritualists would be mistaken if they accepted

the ungrudging praise which was given in many quarters to their daring

courage, their free and energetic modes of action, their conscientious

attempts to solve in their own fashion one of the most important

problems of the day as indicating any abatement of decided opposition to

their teachings, or of the righteous indignation with which those who

are most ready to honour them for all that is good in them or their

work, view their disloyalty to the Church of which they are ministers,

and the wretched quibbles by which they seek to cloak or excuse their

unfaithfulness. But, on the other hand, the Evangelicals will be equally

mistaken if they forget that practical service of this character tells

powerfully on behalf of the party by whom it is undertaken, and that

those who feel that duty compels them to take a position of antagonism

to it must, if they are to carry popular sympathy with them, justify

their faith also by works.

Another feature in the conduct of the Ritualist clergy deserving of

commendation, is the tact they have shown in utilising the power which

was lying dormant in their congregations. The experience of all Churches

testifies that nothing does more to attract a man to a religious

community than the assigning to him a place and a work, and so making

him feel that he contributes something to its power and prosperity. The

'Catholic' party (as they would have us call them) understand this, and

have acted upon it. They endeavour to find a place for every one who

will heartily give himself to the common work. They take care, of

course, to preserve the sanctity and authority of the priesthood, and

have clearly-marked boundary lines beyond which no layman will be

allowed to go; but they perceive that one grand secret of the weakness

of the Episcopal Church has been the unwillingness or the inability of

the clergy to use the services which numbers in their congregations were

willing to render, and they have sought to remedy the defect. Let it be

granted that much of the work they give to their followers is not of a

very exalted or edifying character. Still, even the masters of

ceremonies, the cross-bearers, the choristers, the acolytes, the

sacristans, feel themselves honored by the kindly notice of the clergy.

They are pleased to think themselves of some use and importance, are led

to identify themselves with the movement, and are often among its most

zealous propagandists. The Christian work of women has been made a

special study, and a number of devoted labourers called forth, who are

among the most trusty adherents of the party, and whose ministry of love

has been an immense gain to the influence of the Church in the neglected

districts where it is carried on, and is a tower of strength to it. If

we were intending here to estimate the exact value of the service done

in these and other ways by the Ritualist clergy, we should be compelled

to make many deductions. But the point on which we wish to insist, is

simply the effect of their work in ministering to the growth of High

Church sentiment in the country--a growth which has been aided by the

unwise opposition of the Evangelicals, who have been too prone to oppose

every movement of Ritualist origin without regard to its character. They

have thus not only enabled their opponents to monopolise the entire

credit of movements which might just as consistently have been

undertaken by one party of the Church as another, but have caused

Evangelicalism to be viewed by men of a more catholic spirit, who belong

to no party organization, but are willing to accept wise suggestions

from whatever quarter they come, as obstructive and impractical. The

_éclat_ which never fails to attend activity and enterprise has thus

unfortunately remained with the Anglicans.

But while High Churchmen owe much of their present position to

themselves, or, to speak more accurately, to the small but active

section who form their extreme left, it cannot be denied that they have

to some extent been favoured by circumstances. There are different

characteristics of the age, distinct from and even opposed to each

other, which have been friendly to them. They have profited by its

material prosperity, and the consequent increase of its wealth and

luxury; and they have profited, though in a different way, by its spirit

of philosophic inquiry, its intelligent freedom, its political

earnestness. A religion which delights in show, which attaches high

importance to externals, which will be lenient in its judgments of those

who obey the priest and regularly attend the sacraments, is certain to

find many votaries in an age when there are such numbers who have no

higher business in life than the pursuit of mere pleasure. The love of a

new sensation alone is enough to attract crowds of this class to a

church like St. Alban's. But it is not the novelty alone which

captivates them; it is the type of religion which meets their tastes. It

is true that they may hear from the pulpit eloquent denunciations of the

frivolity of the life they are leading, but these oratorical thunders do

not disturb them, save for the time. It is a remarkable fact, indeed,

which has often been noticed, that sermons directed against their own

special sins are rather popular than otherwise with hearers gathered

from the world of fashion. They listen with interest, and if a preacher

does his work well, are, perhaps, moved to some degree of sentimental

emotion; they meekly submit to the castigation which they have to

endure, and accept it as a species of penance which is to be borne with

all humility, and having discharged what they consider a religious duty,

feel themselves entitled to return with all the more zeal and avidity to

the scenes from which they have for a time been withdrawn. They have had

indeed the virtues of an ascetic life set before them, but they do not

apply the exhortations to themselves. These, they quietly assume, belong

to the 'religious,' the clergy, or those who have a vocation to a more

exalted type of piety. For themselves, they are satisfied with a much

humbler _rôle_; and if they are regular at church, observe the Holy

Communion at proper times, and practise some degree of abstinence on

Fridays and in Lent, they consider that they have amply satisfied all

the claims of conscience and religion. If they are zealous at all,

their zeal is shown in a very different direction. They leave to others

all services demanding self-denial or patience. They are never found in

the crowded alleys where the poor congregate, visiting the sick or

succouring the needy. For the painful austerities which some practise

they have no love. It is by the histrionic element that they are

attracted. To them the decorations of the church and the vestments of

the priests are subjects of supreme interest. They go into ecstasies

over the cut of a chasuble or the colour of a stole, can tell the exact

difference between a dalmatica and an alb, can give the most orthodox

opinion as to the colour proper to each church festival, and are

wonderfully captivated with a religion in which millinery plays an

important part. 'You should (said one of this class) visit ---- church.

It is so delightfully high; the vestments are superb, and the clergyman

has got such dear little boys, with red stockings, for acolytes.'

There is a better side of the system which appeals to another and higher

class, also to be found in aristocratic circles. Repelled by the

wretched frivolity of fashionable society, wearied of its incessant

round of pleasure, conscious that life ought to have some higher end,

and seeking after something to satisfy the craving of their souls for

the real good,--they are taken by the ascetic view of Christian life as

given by High-Churchism. The idea of an authority in the Church which

shall relieve them from the trouble of deciding between the conflicting

opinions which are abroad, and shall give them some resting-place in

which they may find secure footing and so be saved from the indifference

and unbelief into which such numbers are drifting, is itself welcome.

They are pleased with the idea that they have the faith held by the

Catholic Church for centuries, while the prospect of a life marked by

self-sacrifice and active labour is that above all others the most

calculated to kindle their aspirations. Romanism has always had these

two sides by which it has attracted adherents of the most opposite

character; and it is not surprising that Ritualism, which has sought to

follow so closely in its steps, should exhibit the same characteristics

with the same results,--drawing from out the circles of fashion both the

superficial and frivolous, who are captivated by its outward and

objective character, and the more earnest, who are won by that ideal of

a life with nobler aims, and under the government of unselfish

principles which it exhibits before them.

The controversies of the day, too, have helped the development of High

Church feeling. When a Church is or is supposed to be in danger, when

enemies are assailing her from without, and some of her own adherents

are seriously compromising her character and influence, and when there

is a need, therefore, for the display of special zeal on the part of

those who would maintain her position, the party which is conspicuous

for the highest idea of her rights, and for the most uncompromising

spirit in their assertion and defence, is sure to be specially popular.

High Churchmen have known how to use to the utmost advantage the

existing state of things. By a singular coincidence, the Judicial

Committee have been engaged in hearing the case of Mr. Voysey on the one

hand, and Mr. Mackonochie and Mr. Purchas on the other; and although the

Vicar of St. Alban's and the Brighton Incumbent have both been

condemned, we doubt whether the High Church will not profit more by the

spectacle presented by Mr. Voysey than it will lose by the suspension of

Mr. Mackonochie or the prohibition of the extravagancies of Mr. Purchas.

By the one, indeed, the High Church, as distinguished from the Ritualist

section, will gain, rather than lose, if the result be the repression of

outrages upon Protestant feeling and defiances of law, which check the

sympathy that otherwise would flow much more decidedly in a High Church

direction. By the other, however, the gain is immediate and very

considerable. Here, we are told, is the outcome of Protestantism.

'Rights of private judgment, free inquiry, individual responsibility--see

to what they all lead us! There is safety only in abiding by Catholic

truth, and submitting implicitly to the authority of the Church which

asserts it. The assumed right of conscience which is the basis of

Protestantism is the root of all evil, and the consequence of admitting

it will be an absolute eclipse of faith. Reject the voice of the Church,

and men will soon cease to believe in the Bible, or even in God at all.'

There are not a few who receive all this; even sincere lovers of

Evangelical principles will declare that they would rather men should

believe too much than believe too little, forgetting that the one evil

is tolerably sure to be the cause of the other; that it is just where

the dominion of superstition has been most absolute that, in the

inevitable sway of the pendulum, scepticism becomes most rampant and

powerful; and that no more fatal error could be committed by the friends

of truth than to appeal to ecclesiastical authority on its behalf. The

fact, however, is undeniable, and it is only another illustration of the

general law of which we have just spoken, that in the reaction from

rationalizing views and the fear of their consequences, numbers are

ready to throw themselves into the sheltering arms of High-Churchism.

They love truth more than liberty, and are content to surrender the

latter rather than brave the risk of any danger to the former.

The progress of opinion in favour of the separation of Church and State,

so manifest in different quarters, has produced a similar effect.

Anticipating the possibility of disestablishment and of its coming soon,

thoughtful members of the Episcopal Church are anxiously considering in

what way she will be best able to meet the difficulties and demands of

the novel position in which she will find herself when she is placed on

a level with other Christian churches. They see that when the prestige

of State connection is gone, something will be necessary to make up for

the loss which she will sustain, and they hope to find it in that

exaltation of her claims in which High Churchmen delight. In the view of

High Churchmen, the Evangelical who has nothing on which to rely but his

faithfulness and power in carrying on the work of his ministry, and who

admits that the Congregational minister by his side is on a level, so

far as authority is concerned, with himself, reduces the Church to the

position of the sects; and in the competition which is provoked, she

will not necessarily be the gainer. What is wanted, according to them,

is that the clergy should assert their prerogative. The maintenance of

an ornate and gorgeous ceremonial is important, for it has been shown

that it has great attractions for the mass of the people, and has been

able to win back numbers who, so long as simplicity was the order of the

day, saw no difference between the service of a church and that of a

dissenting chapel, and, in fact, preferred the latter because of its

greater freedom and warmth. But of still greater moment is it that the

Church should mark out distinctly the line which separates her from the

sects; should insist on the authority which belongs to her clergy as

being in the true line of the Apostolical succession, and should make it

felt that her members possess advantages in which those outside her pale

do not participate. We do not believe that experience will justify the

policy, or that the pretensions which are intolerable in an Established

Church would meet with anything but ridicule when put forth by a Church

which has not even the special patronage of the State to encourage such

un-Christian arrogance. In the meantime, this is a prevalent view, and

it is of material service to the party who are contending for High

Anglican principles.

From those various causes a High Church spirit is showing itself far

beyond both sections of the clergy who have identified themselves with

Anglican movements, and, in fact, is more or less affecting all parties.

We heard of a conversation the other day between some laymen of

extensive information and strong Evangelical sympathies, in which the

question was asked in relation to a place which had once been a

stronghold of Evangelicalism, 'Are they not becoming rather high at

----?' 'Where' (was the reply) 'is it that they are not becoming high?'

We have taken some trouble to get information, and it all goes to

corroborate this view. There are few of our larger towns, even those

which have been most distinguished for their zeal for Evangelical

principles, where we do not find the intrusion of a High Church, and

indeed, a Ritualist element, which in some cases may become strong and

popular. We regret to add that several of the Episcopal appointments

made by the present Government must still further strengthen the hands

and encourage the hopes of the sacerdotal party. Already we note some

ominous signs in a southern diocese, where, after the lengthened rule of

an Evangelical bishop, one of a very different character--a prelate of

great power of eloquence and extraordinary tact, not to say

subtlety--has been appointed in his room. Some of the Evangelical clergy

have, we are told, suddenly awakened to a perception of the great worth

of their new diocesan, and are adopting practices which hitherto they

have condemned, and a tone which will certainly be much more acceptable

to him than that which they have been accustomed to maintain. We venture

to predict, that if he preside over the see for a few years, he will be

able to report a different state of things from that which he found when

he commenced his administration. It is not probable that he will so

completely expel the Evangelical element as, if we are to accept his own

statement, he had excluded Ritualism from his late diocese, but we fear

that his influence may so transform some of his clergy that their old

friends will hardly be able to recognise them. Whether Nonconformists

have any reason to congratulate themselves on this result of the Liberal

triumph to which they so largely contributed, is a question on which we

need not enter. They do not owe so much to the Evangelical prelates on

the bench, that they have any special reason to regret that their number

has not been augmented. Still, the increase of the power of the High

Church party was not the direct and immediate object for which they gave

their support to Mr. Gladstone; and we are bound to say that the amount

of encouragement given to that party, both in the appointment of its

members to important positions, and in the favour shown to certain

points of its policy, has not been regarded with satisfaction.

One result of the new spirit that has been awakened in the Anglican

party, has been the almost entire extinction of that particular section

of the Episcopal clergy known as the 'high and dry' school. So long,

indeed, as the present system of patronage continues, it is never likely

altogether to cease from among us. While there are a considerable number

of livings in the gift of the Universities and colleges, who appoint to

them members of their own body, who have lived so long among the musty

records of the past that they have little fitness for the work of the

living present, who have, in fact, by the very force of circumstances,

became so many Dryasdusts; and while there are a still larger number

regarded as the appanages of great families, who give them to younger

sons or needy cousins, without any thought either of their mental or

spiritual qualifications, many of the clergy are sure to be 'dry, yea,

very dry;' and because they are dry they will also be high. They have

nothing on which to rest their claims except the authority of the Church

and the dignity of their office, and they are sure to exalt the one and

magnify the other. Still, the section is a diminishing one, and the

Church may well rejoice both that it is diminished in numbers, and that

what remains of it is improved in quality. We have before our eyes now,

one whom we knew in our childhood, a quiet, dignified old gentleman, who

might have earned respect in any other position but that of a clergyman.

He resided in the parish for many years, but what influence for good he

ever exerted upon it, except by means of his charities, which were

always free enough, it would have puzzled his admirers to tell. Of

course, he had a righteous horror of Dissent and Radicalism; but even in

opposition to them he never showed any enthusiasm. Such men belong to

another generation, and where they are found now occupying positions of

importance, in the midst of the busy life of this nineteenth century,

they only hold them to the injury of the Church of which they are the

representatives.

The papers announced, a few weeks ago, the death of one of this class,

with some facts of whose story we happen to be acquainted. He was one of

the few pluralists who still remain, residing on one of his livings in a

midland county, and holding another in a large manufacturing town in the

North of England. This town, with its teeming population and growing

importance, he had never visited for more than twenty years. The work

was left to be done by two curates, living on very inadequate incomes,

while their rector satisfied himself with drawing the lion's share of

the ample revenues of the parish. He found more congenial employment in

the small village where his other cure was situate, and where he

discharged, doubtless with becoming grace, the duties of a country

gentleman. A glimpse of his life was given through a side-light in a

speech of one of his curates, who, in acknowledging his rector's health,

at a great agricultural dinner in the town of which he was so negligent

an overseer, assured the company that the rector would gladly have been

present, as he took a deep interest in all agricultural pursuits, and

was himself one of the most successful breeders of pigs in the county of

----. It is hardly necessary to say that Dissent has a powerful hold

upon the parish, or that numbers have grown up in indifference, if not

in absolute hostility to religion altogether. And yet even he was not of

the worst type. We remember, some years ago, driving several miles in a

midland district, with a friend who was thoroughly acquainted with the

region and its history. The country was rather thickly studded with

churches and parsonages, and, as we passed them, our friend gave us some

account of the men who had lived and worked in them. Many of the livings

were in the gift of colleges and other public bodies, while others were

the property of the country gentry, and, as might be expected, the

clergy had almost invariably been of the 'high and dry' school; and as

we heard story after story of indolence, incompetence, heresy, or, in

some cases, ministerial delinquency, we could not but feel that the

Church of England might well rejoice that there are but few remaining of

so unworthy a generation.

The Anglican clergyman of to-day (and the class is very numerous in

rural districts) is of a very different pattern. Even where he has not

actually embraced Ritualistic opinions, he has generally breathed

something of their spirit, and is determined to carry it into his work.

He loves Dissent as little as his 'high and dry' predecessor, but he is

determined to deal with it in a different way. He is courteous in his

manner toward the Dissenting minister, but he means, all the time, to

'stamp out' Dissent. But it is to be done by outworking it

everywhere--in schools, in pastoral visitation, and in public services;

any weakness in preaching being compensated by increased splendour of

service. It is impossible not to admire the intensity of devotion with

which some of these young clergymen give themselves to their work. A

Congregational minister of our acquaintance was telling us of one of

them who had recently come to his neighbourhood, and who was working a

wondrous change among a remarkably slothful and apathetic people by the

earnestness of his spirit and the abundance of his labours. He had

himself been called to visit one of his own members, and, though he

immediately responded to the summons, he found the clergyman already

there, proffering services of every kind, and unwilling to accept a

denial of his request to sit up and watch all night by the bedside of

the sick man. The Nonconformist convictions of a poor man must be very

clear and decided if he can be insensible to such a mode of approach as

this, and it was only natural that, when he recovered, the recipient of

such kind attentions should be found occasionally in the parish church.

But it is by means of the schools, especially, that this gentleman and

his class operate, and operate to considerable effect. We are told, and

with some truth, that children cannot enter into nice theological

distinctions; but it is not in theological subtleties that they are

instructed. The lessons given are plain and intelligible enough, as to

the rights of the Church and the evils of Dissent, the reverence due to

a clergyman and the Church, and the sin which they commit who neglect to

show it. Besides there are innumerable ways in which, indirectly, both

parents and children are affected; and a clergyman knows well enough,

that when he has once got a child to the national school, he has taken

the first step towards securing the parent for the Church. Hence the

resolute determination of the clergy to get hold of the education of the

people, an attempt in which they have been helped by those who,

twenty-five years ago, persuaded Nonconformists to take up an untenable

position that prevented their just scruples from receiving proper

attention, and shut them out from a work in which they had previously

been the leaders. Hence, too, the remarkable outburst of zeal and

liberality in the extension of denominational schools since the passing

of the late Act. Denominational schools are, for the most part, Anglican

and Roman Catholic, and a large proportion of the grant to them will, as

a matter of fact, go to build up the power of the Establishment and

suppress Dissent in the rural districts. It is true the new national

schools will be under a conscience clause, but they must be credulous

indeed who believe that it will be of much avail in parishes where there

is an active and influential clergyman, wielding, in conjunction with

the squire, a supreme authority. A more potent instrument could scarcely

have been put into the hands of the priesthood; and among the young

recruits of the Anglican party, there are numbers who know how to wield

it with the greatest effect. They do not trust to the influence of the

teaching alone, but they find various ways of interesting the children:

they form them into singing classes; they prepare them for their choirs;

they accustom them to the observance of Saints' Days; they please them

by giving them a place in processions, or employing them as acolytes. In

short, they find them in the National schools, and they lose no

opportunity of so training them that they shall naturally grow up to be

loyal sons of the Church. We have neither the intention nor the desire

to reproach them for the manner in which they thus carry on their work,

or for the care which they specially devote to children. With their

views of the Church, they are only showing a proper loyalty to

conscience in the course which they adopt. What we object to is, that

the nation should be called upon to support them in this hierarchical

crusade by increasing the grants they now enjoy. We have asserted from

the first that schools already in existence had a fair right to be left

undisturbed in the enjoyment of advantages which the State had virtually

engaged to secure them, and which they had won by their own efforts.

What we complain of is, that facilities should be given for the

multiplication of these denominational schools at the very time that the

Government are establishing a great National system.

The National school, however, is not the only theatre on which the

activity of the advanced Anglican priest is manifest. His coming into a

parish is the signal for a series of changes, all directed to one end.

First, the interior of the church is to be remodelled to adapt it to the

style of service he means to introduce. Pews which, it must be

confessed, are often unsightly enough, are displaced to make way for

benches. If it be practicable, a part is railed off for a sanctuary; and

the altar, with its tall candlesticks, and, where they can be obtained,

with its embroidered and coloured cloths, assumes an entirely new

aspect. Fast days and feast days, hitherto unknown, begin to be

celebrated; intoning takes the place of the quiet and orderly reading of

the service, and by degrees the people find their church and their

worship bear a striking, and, to many, not pleasant resemblance to that

of Romanism. In all this there is no consultation, either of diocesan or

of parishioners. The clergyman assumes the position of a dictator, and

resolves to carry out his own ideas, whatever be the result. Sometimes

there is fierce discord and, not unfrequently, there are many

secessions; but even where this is not so, the changes are, as we hear,

in many cases anything but satisfactory to the squirearchy, who have

hitherto been found among the most steady supporters of the Church. They

valued it as furnishing a respectable and quiet type of religion, which

did not make any excessive demands from them. Their old High Church

clergyman neither disquieted himself nor disturbed them. He was a

welcome guest at their boards, and the slight requisitions which he

made, in the way of subscriptions to his charities, were not

particularly burdensome, and were generally met with cheerfulness. The

new-fangled notions, which make it a far more difficult thing to be

zealous Churchmen, requiring not only money for schools and other

objects, but some amount of personal effort and sacrifice, and often

involving a man in unpleasant controversies with his neighbours, are far

from being welcome, and already quiet murmurings may be heard in various

quarters. We have given the party by whom this work is carried on, all

the credit to which they can possibly lay claim. We are therefore the

more at liberty to condemn that which is reprehensible; and one of their

most prominent features is their utter contempt for the law to which

they owe subjection. Not content with adopting the most pitiful evasions

in order to introduce practices contrary to the whole spirit of the

Church to which they belong, they have invented a convenient theory of

their own as to the distinction between the law of the Church and the

law of the State, refusing to obey the one when it comes into collision

with the other. In the economy of the Episcopal Church, such a

distinction cannot be maintained for an hour. In the eye of the law, the

nation is the Church, with Parliament as its legislator, and the courts

as its administrators. If any of the clergy feel that their consciences

are aggrieved by this subjection to civil authority, they have the

remedy in their own hands. Nonconformity has after a long and difficult

struggle, succeeded in obtaining for itself a recognised legal status,

and the liberty which it has thus secured is opened to them, if they are

content to accept the conditions. They can have the freedom, if they are

satisfied to pay the price at which it can be obtained. What they cannot

do, is to enjoy the advantages which the law gives to the national

Church, without, at the same time, submitting to its control. Their

declamation about the rights of the Church, and the iniquity of any

secular Parliament putting restraints on its free action, or any civil

tribunal undertaking to adjudicate on matters of doctrine and

discipline, sounds well enough, but coming from those who still claim

to enjoy the prestige and emoluments of a national Church, it is simply

idle bunkum which can impose on no one. Were they manfully to resolve

rather to be free than to retain a position which they can only hold on

condition of their disobeying what is to them a higher law, they would

command sympathy from all who know how to honour loyalty to conscience.

As it is, their attempts to represent themselves as victims of

persecution because they are required to obey the law, expose them only

to contempt and ridicule.

It is only fair to add that there is a considerable section of the party

by whom the force of this reasoning is felt, and who are prepared to

carry their objections to State interference to their ultimate issue.

'It would be' (says Mr. Orby Shipley, one of the ablest and

most fearless exponents of Ritualistic views) 'the crowning

labour; it would be the culminating honour, it would be the

blessed consummation of the Catholic reformation to be the

means in the Divine economy of terminating that wicked,

immoral, and godless alliance which, under present

circumstances, exists under the title of the Union of

Church and State.'

How far it is consistent for any man to lend his personal support to an

alliance which he pronounces 'wicked, immoral, and godless,' by

continuing to accept the advantages which it secures to him, is a

question which his own conscience must be left to determine; but it is

at least satisfactory to find that Mr. Orby Shipley and his friends have

begun to feel the inconsistency of their present position. Whether in

the event of the Judicial Committee condemning their distinctive

principles, as it has already condemned their symbolic practices, and

deciding against Mr. Bennett as it has done against Mr. Purchas, they

would secede from the Establishment, is not very clear. What is clear

is, that they regard the present relation of the State to the Church as

hindering the work of the 'Catholic' restoration, and therefore seek

disestablishment as the first essential to the realization of their

ideal. But this cannot be brought about at once, and in the meantime

circumstances may force on a separation. Perhaps, however, it is more as

a menace to the bishops than as an indication of any serious purpose

that Mr. Shipley tells their lordships that the 'conspicuous want of

success which has attended Episcopal hindrance to the Catholic revival

has certainly postponed, but has not at all removed the prospect of

impending schism.' We are left to infer, therefore, that if the attempts

to repress Ritualism should be crowned with more success than has

hitherto attended them, we must be prepared for schism, which, Mr.

Shipley says, would be an untold evil to the Church; adding, and in this

we agree with him, 'that the present state of abnormal antagonism, in

any Christian sense, is less harmful, it is hard to believe.' If,

however, this calamity should come, he gives the Episcopal Bench to

understand that on them the responsibility will rest.

'If they precipitate a schism, either by actively hostile

legislation, or by unconstitutional illegality, or by the

continuance of vexatious antagonism, the sin of schism will

rest upon their individual consciences. Neither those who

see below the surface from without, nor those within, who

can feel the pulse of the Catholic Party,[210] and know its

deepest sentiments, need to be told that the scandal of

Episcopal sanction and apology for the desecration of the

Blessed Sacrament in Westminster Abbey, and the dishonour

done to God's Holy Word, by entrusting the revision of the

Authorized Version to heretics and schismatics, out of

which this scandal arose, has done more to render such a

schism possible than any other act of the English bishops

during the last half century.'

These thunders will not disturb the serene complacency of the Episcopal

Bench, nor are such petulant utterances to be regarded as indicating any

serious idea of separation, but their insolent and lawness tone is

eminently characteristic of the party. They have formed their ideal of

the Church, and in defiance of all authority, whether civil or

spiritual, they are determined to work it out. They know and confess

that they are at variance with the bishops, whom they have promised

'reverently to obey,' 'following with a glad mind and will their godly

admonitions, and submitting themselves to their godly judgments;' but

they have a convenient theory as to the necessary limitations of the

obedience they are bound to render, by which they satisfy themselves

that they are right in their resistance to the authority which they have

in the most solemn manner bound themselves to accept. The bishops 'are,

it may be, good results, but still they are results of a bad, vicious,

immoral system; of a system which is utterly un-Catholic;' they have

pronounced against the Catholic revival from beginning to end, and

having thus set themselves against all that 'priests of the Catholic

school' are doing, they have condemned themselves, and forfeited all

title to unlimited obedience, by condemning these developments. In other

words, the want of harmony which they confess exists between the mind of

the Episcopate and the mind of the Presbyterate is a sufficient reason

why priests should refuse their allegiance. The conclusion is not that

which suggests itself to ordinary minds, but these men are so thoroughly

convinced that they have Catholic truth, and are doing a great Catholic

work, that they seem to suppose themselves superior to the laws by which

ordinary mortals are governed. They may seem to be arrogant and

overbearing, they may indulge in railing and vituperation, they may

condescend to a style of controversy, happily altogether cast aside by

Christian gentlemen, but everything is done in the interests of the

Catholic revival, and these are to be advanced at all costs. Mr. Shipley

candidly avows that their aim is to 're-Catholicize the Church of

England,' and he appears to think that because that object cannot be

secured without disobeying the bishops, there is sufficient reason why

they should be disobeyed. After enumerating the changes that require to

be made in the election of bishops and the remodelling of Convocation,

he says:--

'We have again to make confession the ordinary custom of

the masses, and to teach them to use Eucharistic worship.

We have to establish our claims to Catholic Ritual in its

highest form. We have to restore the Religious Life, to say

Mass daily, and to practise Reservation for the sick.

Looking at these and other more or less pressing needs of

our communion, I confidently ask, "Can these and suchlike

wants, in the providence of God, be restored to His

afflicted, and to this extent indigent, Church, if we admit

the theory of limitless obedience, not, observe, to the

Episcopate combined in a Sacred College, but to any or to

all the individual members of the Bench of Bishops?"'

The simplicity of this is no doubt beautiful, but its weakness is

manifest. 'Limitless obedience' no one expects them to render; but the

justification of their refusal to obey at all, on the ground that

disobedience is necessary to their design of revolutionizing the

character of their Church, has certainly the merit of novelty. They seem

to imagine that the first essential to success is audacity, and expect

that they will prevail, in virtue of their blustering self-confidence

and contemptuous treatment of all opponents. But the ultimate result of

such a policy cannot be doubtful. A party which sets up a plea of

liberty to excuse the violation of distinct obligations, whose

Catholicity has in it not a single element of true charity, which seeks

to subject others to authority while it disclaims all authority that

comes into collision with its own ideas and designs, which brands every

man, however eminent and good, who will not bow down to its idols as a

heretic or an infidel, is not a party that is likely to exert any

permanent influence. The age is tolerant, disposed to permit great

latitude of opinion, perhaps too ready to sympathise with those who are

resisting constituted authority, but it is not to be cajoled by the

specious sophistries of men who, professedly contending for liberty, are

seeking only to establish a new priestly despotism.

But if we have no fears of Anglican Catholics being able to shape the

future of the Church of England according to their wishes, neither can

we look hopefully on the condition and prospects of the Evangelical

party. Thirty years ago it was the most popular and influential, if not

the most numerous section of the Church. Its most sanguine friend would

hardly pretend that it holds the same position to-day. We have already

marked incidentally the disadvantage under which it lay in contending

against a party full of the passionate zeal and energy of youth, and

with ability equal to its earnestness, its members claiming to be _par

excellence_, the assertors of Church principles and the champions of

Church interests, skilful in adapting themselves to the wants of

different classes of minds, fertile in expedients, and indefatigable in

labours. Under any circumstances, it would have been no easy task to

have maintained an equal struggle against such adversaries, hampered as

the Evangelicals necessarily are by their position in the Church. Still

they had many compensating advantages, and had they known how to avail

themselves of the forces at their command, they might not only have held

their ground, but have been to-day masters of the situation. In the

great conflict which has been going on between authority and freedom,

the reactionary forces are not the strongest, and had the Evangelicals

been prepared fully to identify themselves with the cause of liberty,

they need not have feared the result of the struggle. They had on their

side the prestige of the noble work which they had done in rousing the

Church from torpor and idleness, and in regaining for her much ground

that she had lost, in quickening the spiritual life of the nation, in

promoting social and philanthropic movements at a time when they were

not viewed with so much favour as at present. As the representatives of

Protestantism in the National Church, they were able to rally to their

support a strong national sentiment, not always very intelligent or

reasonable, but deep and passionate in its hatred of everything that has

on it the taint of Romanism, and only too easily roused in opposition to

any party which could fairly be suspected of Popish sympathies. Their

position, too, seemed to mark them out as the connecting link between

the Established Church and the Nonconformists. Their theological views,

if not identical, were in close sympathy with those of Evangelical

Dissenters: they were frequently brought into association in Christian

work, and had often to fight side by side against the common foe; and

though there never was a chance that the Nonconformists could be won

back to the Church, kindly and intimate relations might have been

established with them, which would have told greatly to the credit of

the party by whom they had been promoted. Yet with all these

circumstances in its favour, the Evangelical party has been declining.

Its enemies point to it with triumph, and exaggerate the weakness over

which they rejoice. Its friends reluctantly confess it, and find the

explanation in the wickedness and degeneracy of the age.

The tone of a recent gathering of the leaders of the party at Islington

shows that they are conscious of the fact, and alive to the necessity of

making some strenuous effort, perhaps of effecting a considerable change

in their policy, in order to recover the ground that has been lost. To

outsiders, however, the real causes of their weakness may be more

apparent than to themselves, and we shall therefore attempt to explain a

state of things which we unfeignedly regret. The Episcopal Church,

whether Established or not, must be one of the most powerful religious

forces in the country, and we must desire to see its influence wielded

by men whose theology is that of the Reformers, who recognise the rights

of the individual conscience, whose creed is derived from the Bible and

not from Church tradition, who preach salvation by faith in the living

Christ, and have no confidence in priests and sacraments. It would

therefore be cause of sorrow to us, as it will assuredly in the issue

prove disastrous to the Church and injurious to the nation, if the

Evangelical party should be overborne in the present struggle, its power

crippled, or its character so modified as to impair its usefulness. We

are fully alive to its defects. As Nonconformists, we have little for

which to be thankful to it; but not the less should we deplore the loss

of what has been the most spiritual element in the Church, and therefore

we can only regard with sorrow the state of things of which we have to

speak.

The decline of the Evangelical party is attributed by many, both friends

and foes, to a growing distaste for evangelical doctrine. The age, we

are often confidently told by those in whom the wish is father to the

thought, has outgrown the old theology; it is too intelligent to rest in

the dogmas which were once received without question; the leading

spirits of the time are known to be unbelievers, and that fact itself is

sufficient to make unbelief a fashion among a class who desire to be

esteemed intellectual. Very sorrowfully we admit there is some ground

for these statements, but they are only half-truths. The philosophic and

scientific movements of the day, have undoubtedly affected theological

opinion; the spirit of inquiry has become more searching in its

investigation; the rebellion against the bondage of creed has, in some

instances, led to an indifference to all forms of belief; and in

general, doctrines that were thought to be established, are discussed

with freedom, and rejected when they do not stand the more severe tests

by which they are proved. Orthodoxy counts for less in the estimate of

Christian character, and there is less disposition to condemn any man

because of his inability to accept all its shibboleths. But all this

does not indicate that the power of the Gospel is diminishing; and,

indeed, there are many things that point in the opposite direction.

Preaching _quâ_ preaching may be less influential; but the preaching

which is a power at all, never was a greater power than it is at

present. Men chafe against the notion that it is their duty to hear a

certain number of sermons, even though they be made up of platitudes

rendered additionally wearisome by the style in which they are

delivered; but where a preacher has a message from God, and knows how to

deliver it he is quite sure of having a large audience. Nor is it at all

likely to be diminished by the fact that his sermon is decidedly

evangelical and even strongly dogmatic. We have popular Ritualist as

well as popular Evangelical preachers; but the discourses of the former

are in their leading features as decidedly evangelical as those of the

latter. Indeed, at the conference at Islington, it was frankly admitted

that whatever might be the actual condition of the party, the doctrines

for which it contends were never so widely preached by the clergy as at

present. Certainly, the Nonconformist Churches know no decline, nor is

their prosperity to be traced to any abandonment or concealment of

evangelical doctrines. Congregationalists, accustomed as they are to

breathe the atmosphere of freedom, and unfettered by the restraints of

any formal creed, have, perhaps, felt more of the influences of the age

than any other body of Christians; but no one who is acquainted with

them would assert that they have at all faltered in their loyalty to the

Gospel. Perhaps one of the best proofs of this is to be found in the

essays in 'Ecclesia.' Their writers speak with great frankness; they

admit many defects in their system, and suggest various changes; they

are anxious, as far as possible, to adapt themselves to the wants of the

age; but withal, there is a consistent adherence to the essential

principles of the old theology. Changes in the forms in which doctrines

are expressed, differences in the modes of expounding and defending them

there are, but change as to the root-ideas there is none. And

Congregationalism upholding the great truths of the Trinity, the Godhead

of our Lord, and the Atonement, and basing all on the authority of

Scripture, not only maintains its ground despite the opposition it has

to meet from the renewed activity of the Established Church, but is on

the increase.

If, then, the Evangelicals are decreasing in numbers and influence, the

cause must be sought in some errors in their policy, and not in the

increased unpopularity of the principles they profess. We are confirmed

in this view by the refusal of some of the best men of the day to

identify themselves with the party, even though they hold the

principles. It would be invidious to name living men; but there is one

recently passed from among us, to the great loss not of his own

particular Church only, but of all Christian Churches, who affords,

perhaps, the most striking illustration of the remark. Others there are,

of whom the late Canon Melville may be taken as a type, whose

High-Church ideas are sufficient to prevent them from uniting with a

party with whom in doctrinal sentiment they have much in common. But the

Dean of Canterbury, we need not say, had no such hindrance. Mr. Ryle

himself is not more free from any tinge of ecclesiasticism, as he

certainly is not more heartily and thoroughly Evangelical, than was Dean

Alford. Yet the latter stood aloof from the Evangelical party; and they,

we fear, did not desire his union with them. His case was a typical one,

and enables us to understand the enfeebled state in which the

Evangelicals find themselves. They did not like the Dean's breadth of

view; they regarded the opinions on the subject of inspiration, to which

his Biblical studies had led him, as unsound and dangerous; they did not

understand, what was one of his marked characteristics, a large-hearted

sympathy with goodness even in the professors of a false creed. So,

though he was educated in the school, and (as the Rev. E. T. Vaughan

truly says) though he 'preached the Gospel which they preached with a

force and simplicity which they might well have wished to emulate,' they

looked coldly on him, and he could find no home in their midst.

Here, then, is one great secret of their loss of influence. Their ideas

of Evangelical doctrine are narrow and rigid, and they are maintained

with an intolerance which is at once repulsive and inconsistent. We

complain that the 'Catholic' champions of authority should demand for

themselves that individual liberty for which Protestantism contends, but

it is still more intolerable that these Protestants of Protestants

should set up a claim to infallibility, and brand all those who do not

agree with them as traitors to the Gospel. By maintaining the verbal

inspiration of Holy Scripture, insisting on a particular theory of the

Atonement as alone Evangelical, committing themselves to a particular

scheme of prophetic interpretation, and adhering to those old ideas of

the religious life which make worldliness to consist in certain outward

acts which are therefore forbidden to the spiritual man, rather than in

the world-spirit which can make everything common and unclean, and which

is the evil to be resisted, they have placed themselves in direct

collision with the culture of the age--even that part of it which

retains a hearty allegiance to the Gospel. But when with these extreme

views is combined a spirit of intolerant conservatism, when new modes of

thought, and even new forms of expression are regarded as dangerous

novelties, when all wisdom is supposed to be summed up in the

determination to walk in the old paths and to meddle not with those who

are given to change, and when those who dare, even in relation to

subjects that do not affect the essentials of the faith, to take

independent ground are treated as enemies of the truth, it is not

difficult to account for the weakness of the party. A creed that is not

only unpopular, and in some points illogical, but which can be regarded

as the creed only of a section, and that not the most intelligent

section of Evangelical Christians, and which is yet set forth as the

only true representation of the Gospel, must alienate many; but a spirit

of exclusiveness, a Pharisaic pride of orthodoxy, a dislike of free

inquiry, are sure to alienate still more.

It may be said, indeed, that the dogmas of the Anglican school are still

more narrow and extreme, and its intolerance still more arrogant and

exclusive; but this does not mend the case. The intolerance of the

Anglicans is extreme enough, but then it is consistent. Their system is

based upon the assumption of a special sanctity and authority belonging

to their Church party. The name of 'Catholic' which they arrogate to

themselves is itself an insult to all other Christians. For them,

therefore, to abjure the spirit of exclusiveness would be to renounce

their own principles. But the Evangelicals are in a very different

position. They are the children not of the bond-woman, but of the free.

They rest their doctrines not on an appeal to authority, but to reason.

The Scripture is their one rule of faith, and they recognise the right

of every man to interpret its teachings for himself. When, therefore,

they attempt to put a bar on all progress, when they claim for the

traditions of their school a position hardly less authoritative than

that which their opponents demand for 'Catholic' tradition, when they

discover a spirit of watchful jealousy in relation to all the

intellectual movements of the day, and seem afraid of the light which

science and philosophy have to shed upon the difficult problems of human

life, they are untrue to themselves and their principles. Their

watchword is, 'The Bible and the Bible only as the religion of

Protestants,' but with them there is a reserved condition that the Bible

must be interpreted as Puritans and Reformers interpreted it. They are

afraid of the liberty to which they owe their existence, and are

continually throwing themselves back on that Church authority which, if

it is to be accepted at all, will pronounce in favour of their

opponents.

It is this ignorance of their true strength which has betrayed the

Evangelicals into errors of policy which have been fraught with serious

injury. As Protestants, they ought to have been the most liberal party

in the Church; the most desirous to secure the greatest liberty

compatible with loyalty to truth; the most ready to welcome every

advance in scholarship that might help to a more thorough understanding

of the Word of God; the most candid in examining and pronouncing upon

the conclusions which modern Biblical criticism has reached; the most

anxious to establish cordial relations with Nonconformists outside the

pale of the Church. Unhappily, the very opposite of this has been the

case. They have left to others the duty of practically developing those

Protestant principles of which they claim to be the representatives, and

have again and again employed their influence in favour of the party of

reaction. The spectacle which they have presented in the ecclesiastical

controversies of the last few years has, indeed, been humiliating in the

extreme. They have been the most timid in every panic,--the first to

raise the cry of danger,--the most eager in the assault, whether upon

Rationalists within or Dissenters outside the Church--the facile

instruments of the High Church party, whose leaders have gladly accepted

their aid, knowing well that any prestige or advantage that might be

secured must remain with those who were the consistent champions of

authority. At present they are the most zealous champions of the

Establishment, and their organ the most Erastian in its tone of any of

the journals of the day. Yet there is no party which owes so little to

the Establishment, or would have so glorious a future before it if the

union between the Church and the State were dissolved. Except during the

brief interval when Lord Palmerston scattered mitres so lavishly in its

ranks, it has had but a scant share of the higher honours of that Church

which owes so much to the devoted labours of its members. Even of the

more important parochial charges, but a small proportion is held by the

Evangelicals, many of whose ablest men are the incumbents of churches

dependent entirely upon voluntary contributions for their support. If

the Evangelical leaders would make a careful estimate of the exact

position of the two parties in the Church, and of the amount of the

national revenues which go to the maintenance of that which they are

continually telling us is deadly error as compared with that which is

devoted to the support of their own principles, we think they would be

inclined to doubt the wisdom of the position they take in relation to

the Establishment. That they who ought to have the most confident faith

in the spiritual forces of the Church, and whose own experience affords

ample proof that that faith would not be misplaced, should cling the

most tenaciously to the union with the State, with all its painful and

compromising conditions, is surely a strange phenomenon. Yet this is not

the worst of the case. Unfortunately, their zeal for the Establishment

is not allied with charity, and their characteristic intolerance marks

their treatment of those Nonconformists who feel themselves constrained

to seek the dissolution of an alliance which they believe to be contrary

to the mind of Christ and injurious to the interests of truth.

Apparently unable to understand that this difference of opinion is

perfectly consistent with the preservation of Christian unity and mutual

respect, they have resented the assertion of Nonconformist principles as

a personal injury, and have urged it as a sufficient reason for

withdrawing from Christian intercourse with those who have been guilty

of so flagrant an offence. They expected that Dissenters would purchase

their friendship by unfaithfulness to their own principles, and have

been disappointed and indignant when they have discovered their mistake.

If Nonconformists will play the _rôle_ of poor relations, content to

receive a patronizing notice on the platforms of Bible and Missionary

Societies, and for the sake of this to suppress their own convictions,

they are willing to be on terms of kindly intercourse with them; but

that they should presume on this, and venture to assert their religions

equality, is more than they will tolerate. The inevitable result has

been a division between two parties who have much in common, and whose

union would have been a tower of strength to Evangelical Protestantism.

We should not care to have written thus fully on these points, but for

the conviction that we are on the eve of important ecclesiastical

changes, and that the character of the future will depend largely upon

the position taken by the Evangelical party. The Broad Church dream of

comprehension must remain a dream. It is beautiful, and it speaks much

for the liberality of men trained amid the influences and associations

of an Established Church, that they should have indulged in such a hope.

But it cannot be realized. Nonconformists do not wish for a place in the

National Church, and could not accept one without the renunciation of

all for which they have been contending. And assuredly, the recent

meetings at Sion College show that a large and powerful party in the

Establishment have no desire for union with them. But if comprehension

is impossible, disestablishment must come, and come speedily, and with

it will come a new phase of the great struggle. 'I disbelieve,' said Mr.

Orby Shipley, himself an able advocate of the separation between Church

and State, 'in anything but a change in the contest of the Church

militant, a change from a contest against the State without to a contest

within, against Puritanism, against Latitudinarianism, against

Infidelity, and against what may be termed "Lay-elementarianism in the

Church."' The sacerdotal party believes that its position in this

struggle will be improved by disestablishment; but if the Evangelicals

are loyal to their Protestant principles, we predict that it will find

itself mistaken. Disestablishment will remove the one obstacle to hearty

co-operation between the two great sections of English Protestantism,

and united, they will be fully able to withstand the fierce onslaught

with which they are threatened. But if the Evangelicals are to play

their part in this controversy, the sooner they choose their position,

and resolve to hold it firmly, the better. Two great principles are

daily coming more and more directly into conflict, and they must elect

to abide by the one or by the other. They must abandon all tamperings

with the delusive fancy of an apostolical succession, or of special

virtue attaching to Episcopal ordination. They must cease the foolish

coquetting in which a few of them seem disposed to indulge with High

Church ideas and practices, they must show a broader spirit and

cultivate closer relations with those of kindred opinions who do not

belong to their party or even to their Church; in short, they must not

shrink from the full development of their own principles, and they will

soon regain the strength which has been lost by the timid and

compromising policy of the past.

Meanwhile it is evident that the Establishment is on the eve of a great

crisis. The condemnation of Mr. Purchas has goaded the High Church

party, some almost to madness; and should it be followed by a decision

against Mr. Bennett, it is not easy to predict the result. Indeed, be

the deliverance of the Court what it may, 'there are breakers ahead.' If

it be against the Vicar of Frome, it will be fatal to the hopes both of

Anglican and Broad Churchmen. It will compel the former to secede, for

we believe the body of them to be honest men who will not renounce

principles which they hold to be the very essence of Catholic doctrine.

It will teach the latter that their dream of comprehension is at an end.

On the other hand, a decision in his favour will not conciliate the

Ritualists, since it will still leave them subject to the restrictions

imposed by the Mackonochie and Purchas judgments, while the Evangelicals

in their turn will be placed in extreme perplexity. At present the

Church Association is in the ascendant. We wish we could say that its

deportment in the hour of victory was such as to assure us in relation

to the future of the Evangelical party. We cannot wonder that it is

jubilant, but wisdom would have suggested some moderation in the

expression of its joy, especially considering that the decision yet to

be given may prove that its exultation has been as premature as it

certainly is undignified and impolitic. We read the report of the

meeting at St. James's Hall to celebrate the victory with extreme pain

and sorrow. The evident failure to realise the gravity of the crisis,

the unseemly tone adopted towards defeated adversaries, the apparent

unconsciousness of the scandal such a strife is bringing upon the Church

and upon religion in general, and perhaps more than all, the disposition

to rest so much on the power of the law, are all indicative of extreme

weakness. Men who can talk in the style of the Dean of Carlisle clearly

do not comprehend the spirit of the times or the true position of the

party which they represent. They seem to think they can stamp out High

Churchism at all events, in its more advanced forms. They do not appear

to understand that, could they succeed, they would secure the downfall

of that Establishment which they love 'not wisely and too well.' If they

would think less of law, and remember that the true weapons of their

warfare are not carnal, but spiritual, they would take a position more

in harmony with their principles, and be more sure of ultimate success.