Christ Church, and Bishop Copleston of St. John's, whose influence is as excellent as it is widespread; whilst one, at least, of the Halls is happy in having for its Principal and Vice-Principal men whose examples in this respect might with advantage be imitated elsewhere. In spite, too, of certain obvious disadvantages, such as those mentioned in the pamphlet we have quoted, there can be no doubt of the immense amount of good effected amongst Undergraduates by the Parish Churches of Oxford. The influence of St. Barnabas', in particular, with its plainspoken teaching and its gorgeous ceremonial, is especially noteworthy. As to the University Pulpit, St. Mary's is always thronged by hundreds of Undergraduates whenever the preacher happens to be an eminent man. The diversities of doctrine are doubtless great, but not more so than is the case generally in the Church of England, whether for good or evil. Nor is this a point which the abolition of tests has affected either one way or the other.

In short, our cause of complaint against the existing state of things is not that the Church, even when fighting against heavy odds, still less when contending on equal terms, is unable to hold her own. But we protest against the gross iniquity of reinforcing her enemies from resources which belong to her, and of perverting to the propagation of error the provision made for the teaching of Truth. It is not desirable, nor indeed would it be possible, to treat Undergraduates as if they were children, by keeping them from contact, or even from familiarity, with all varieties of belief and opinion. But we have a right to demand that they shall not be left to drift hopelessly hither and thither amidst the various currents of speculation without chart or compass. Yet this is the condition to which young Oxford has been brought. To quote Cardinal Manning's most admirable and effective sermon at the consecration, last autumn, of the new R.C. Church," Rationalism, like the moth that fretteth the garment, and like the canker-worm that eateth away the leaves of the vine, has overspread the words of Holy Writ, 'Dominus illuminatio mea,' which were emblazoned upon the open Book of Scripture." Well would it have been for Oxford if that great principle had never been lost sight of which His Eminence has so eloquently expressed in the following words:"I affirm that all progress of true culture, intellectual and moral, all civilization worthy of the name, all development of the human reason, all expansion and perfection of the human character, is to be ascribed to the preservation of the one great Gift coming down from the Father of Light, the knowledge of Himself and of Jesus Christ."

the severance of members of the Church of England from its Communion; it being his settled purpose to cling to the old Church of this land, his Bishop, and his people."

Language such as this will, of course, appeal to the prejudices and sympathies of many; but just in proportion as it does this, it is misleading and delusive. If the Church of this land by a vast majority, if Mr. Grueber's Bishop, and the majority of his people, accept the decisions of the Privy Council which Mr. Grueber refuses to accept: how can he cling to them or they to him? What is the use of people remaining in nominal communion with each other when they are divided on fundamental principles? The result can only be the perpetuation of suspicion, discomfort, and strife. Much of the exasperation which has been occasioned by "Ritualism" is due to the conviction in people's minds that the Ritualists would explain away or elude every effort to dislodge them from their position; and that when the outward manifestations of it had been put down, the danger would still exist in a suppressed form, ready to break out again at the first convenient opportunity. If High Churchmen are to cling to the Church of England and to their Bishops, the only fair way of doing so is to accept what the Church of England and the Anglican Episcopate accept. Anything short of this is the form without the substance, Uniformity without Unity. If the members of a political party, after being beaten on a division, were to declare that they meant to cling to its Sovereign, to its duty, and to its supporters (—a periphrasis which would be rightly understood by its opponents to mean clinging to office), the exasperation which would be provoked by such a declaration would know no bounds; and the morality of such a policy would at best be questionable.

Of course all the talk about "clinging to the Church of England," " not deserting the ship," and so forth, points only in one direction: it means we will not seek Corporate Re-union with Rome; and it is here that the Catholic party in the Church of England appear to many to be making a fatal mistake.

When you have lost your way in a wood, the surest way to get out of it again is to retrace your steps to the point at which you digressed from the beaten track. Now it cannot be denied that we are very much in the way of men who have lost their way; if we trace back the evils from which we are at present suffering, whence do they all date? Is it not from the submission of the clergy and the acceptance of the Royal Supremacy in Henry VIII's. reign? Is it not from the breach of unity committed in the sixteenth century? And what is the natural and necessary inference? That, like sensible men who feel that they have missed their way, we should admit the necessity of retracing our steps at all events for part of the way which we have come. Three hundred years is a sufficiently long period to test the value of an experiment; and the changes made at the Reformation were an experiment, and a very hazardous experiment. candid person who takes a fair survey of the present state of the National Church, or of the state of religion and morals in England, can say that the experiment has answered. All the good (and there is much of it) which has been accomplished during the last forty years, has been accomplished by acting on principles which were the exact reverse of those on which the Reformation proceeded; but if the foolish "noPopery" mania, which is spreading among the Ritualists, is to prevail, we shall only have marched a great way up the hill to march down again.

No

The High Church party in England has reached a crisis in its history at which it seems called upon to choose whether it will unite itself with Catholics beyond the seas, or relapse

Mr. Grueber must pardon us if we say that he too (notwithstanding the honour due to him for his Declaration) sins in the same manner. He writes to his Bishop to say that he takes "no part in any movement that may have for its object

tantism. Neither decorations, choral services, coloured stoles, Gothic churches, nor the successful performance of Bach's Passion Music, constitute Catholicism. Catholicism consists of Catholic doctrine, Catholic worship, and Catholic discipline. Except in so far as she maintains these, the Established Church is not worth clinging to by those who wish to be Catholics. And the Church of England, for the time being, consists of the men and women of which it is made up. If these are Heretics or Erastians, the National Church can only be regarded as a body which has lapsed into heresy or Erastianism; and to cling to it is to prefer sentiment to truth, and to hug a corpse when the soul has taken its flight from it.

We believe that the true policy for the High Church party is to face these home truths at once, and to act on Mr. Hurrell Froude's maxim, that the Reformation can only be compared to a limb badly set which needs to be broken and re-set. If any large number of High Churchmen would realize this and apply their minds to the excogitation of some basis on which they could approach the Church of Rome with proposals of Corporate Re-union, we cannot think that the Holy See would be indifferent to their proposals. The dogged determination to cling to the Established Communion, whether the Church of England be right or wrong, whether she wants them or not, can only lead to more controversy, more bitterness, more subterfuges, more unreal subscriptions to, and contradictory explanations of, the same formularies; until the Nation becomes sick of the very mention of Theology, and Religion becomes a laughing-stock among all who take words to mean what they express.

IT

WHAT IS CONSERVATISM? NO. IV.

T is said by some that human law cannot bind man of necessity in foro conscientiæ. For an inferior power cannot impose a law upon the judgement of a superior power. But the power of man, which is the source of human law, is lower than Divine power. Therefore, human law cannot impose a law upon the Divine judgement, which is the judgment of conscience. To this, we answer, as have said before, that the Apostle says: "Every" (human) "power is of God;" and, therefore, "he that resisteth the power," (in those things that pertain to its order,) "resisteth the ordinance of God." According to this, it becomes binding upon the conscience; and this authority must be final for all Christians.

we

Again, it is said, that the judgement of conscience chiefly depends upon the Divine command. But sometimes the Divine command is made void by human laws, according to the words: "Ye have made the Word of God of none effect by your traditions." Therefore, human law cannot impose obligation of conscience upon man. But this mode of arguing is grounded upon human laws which ordain things against God's command; and it does not extend to this kind of power; whence it is not to be applied to human law in such points as these.

It is further argued, that human laws often bring calumny and injury upon some men, according to the passage: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed, to turn aside the needy from judgement, and to take away the right from the poor of My people." But it is lawful for any man to avoid oppression and violence. Therefore, human laws do not impose obligation upon man's conscience. To this we answer, that this argument also proceeds upon the supposition of law which inflicts injustice upon the subject; to which also the kind of power Divinely granted does not extend; whence in these cases also man is not bound to obey the law, if he can, without scandal or some greater evil, resist it.

Laws aid down by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, then they have the power of binding in conscience from the eternal law, from whence they are derived; [for being just they necessarily are thence derived] according to the Scripture: "By Me kings reign and princes decree justice." But they are called just laws, both because of their end; inasmuch, that is to say, as they are ordered to the common good; and because of their author, inasmuch as the law given does not exceed the power of the lawgiver; and lastly because of their form, inasmuch as they impose upon the subjects, according to their condition respectively, burdens in order to the common good. For every individual man is part of a multitude, and nature sometimes inflicts a certain amount of evil upon a part, that she may save the whole. And in accordance with this, laws which proportionably and equitably distribute these burdens are good: they are binding in conscience, and are lawful laws-laws which possess both the form and matter of laws.

Laws are unjust in two ways: in one way, by being inconsistent with the common good; or, again, because of their end, as when a ruler imposes laws burdensome to the subjects, not as tending to the common utility, but rather to his own

cupidity or pride; or, again, because of their author, as when anyone imposes a law beyond the limits of the power committed to him; or, lastly, because of their form, as when burdens of the kind mentioned are unequally distributed, even though they may on the whole be conducive to the common good. And these things are outrages, rather than laws: for as Augustine says, "That which is not just does not appear to be law." Hence such laws are not binding in conscience, unless indeed they may be so on account of the need of avoiding scandal or disturbance, on which account man ought to yield even what is his of right, as our Lord teaches: "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." Laws may be unjust in another way, when against the Divine good; such are the laws of tyrants, which compel idolatry or anything else contrary to Divine law; and these laws it is in no way lawful to keep. We must obey God rather than man.

We conclude, that just human laws are binding on the human conscience, by reason of the eternal law from which they are derived. And, further: "This is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully."

Reviews and Notices of New Books.

MEMORIALS OF THE LATE REV. ROBERT STEPHEN HAWKER, M.A., sometime Vicar of Morwenstow, in the Diocese of Exeter. Collected, Arranged, and Edited by the Rev. Frederick George Lee, D.C.L., and Vicar of All Saints', Lambeth. London: Chatto and Windus. 1876.

TH

HERE is something very touching in these Memorials. Mr. Hawker's own worth, and the kindliness and devotion of his soul-points most graphically brought out by his biographer-interest us at once in the man: while the chivalrous attitude of the writer towards an old and valued friend adds immensely to the attractiveness of a tale which could not be other than attractive, however told.

The subject of these Memorials, born at Plymouth in the year 1803, was the eldest son of the Rev. James Stephen Hawker, by Jane Elizabeth, second daughter of Stephen Drewitt, of Winchester, gent., and was grandson of the celebrated Calvinistic Divine, the Rev. Robert Hawker, D.D., who for fifty years was Minister of Charles Chapel, Plymouth. Dr. Hawker sprang from a family of gentlepeople long resident at Exeter, many members of which have served God and their neighbours as clergymen of the National Church. Mr. Hawker married early in life, that is, in November, 1823, Charlotte Eliza Rawleigh I'Ans (one of the daughters of Colonel I'Ans, a country gentleman of Whitstone House, in Cornwall), who died on February 2nd, 1863, and was buried in the churchyard of Morwenstow. Afterwards, in 1864, he married Pauline Ann, only daughter of Francis Kuczynski, a Polish nobleman, whose wife was an English lady-by whom he left three children. Mrs. Hawker had been brought up a Protestant, but joined the Roman Church last November, three months after her husband's decease.

The story of Mr. Hawker's life carries us back to the early days of the Catholic Revival. His tenure of the Vicarage of Morwenstow, which dates from the year 1834, embraced the whole period of that revival; and, with an occasional eccentricity as to matters of detail, there, during the forty years of his Incumbency, he carried out, in the remote wilds of Cornwall, the principles of which Oxford was the head-quarters. As a Parish Priest, his work may be summed up in this: that he found Morwenstow one of the most degraded and most neglected parishes in Cornwall, and he left it above the average. "Mr. Hawker," says Dr. Lee, "young and highprincipled, set to work both wisely and well: and in due course won his way amongst people who had been too long neglected by the authorities of the National Communion. His high Sacramental doctrine, his anxious care and patient watching for those over whom he was set in the Lord, his daily intercessions, accompanied with the obvious benedictions of Almighty God, Who mercifully gave the increase in abundance, enabled Mr. Hawker's Oxford friends to reckon up Morwenstow among the many out-of-the-way parishes where the revised teaching of the Church of England was practically experienced, and eventually heartily welcomed." (Pp. 7, 8.) Such lives as these have, of course, little of stirring incident

to attract the casual reader. The daily toil, the patient endurance, the wearisome round of recurring duties, are neither romantic nor attractive. But they are recorded in heaven, and will doubtless be published forth with honour when the Lord reckons up his jewels. Mr. Hawker was essentially a parish priest. His parish was his world. Rarely -most rarely-during his forty years' incumbency was he absent from his post. If he was known to the outside world it was chiefly as a cultured and Christian poet, an archæologist, and antiquarian. He was one of the earliest contributors to the Ecclesiastic; and his poems, gathered from time to time into volumes, have been appreciated by all lovers of melodious and religious verse: and have won commendation from competent critics-among whom we may mention the Poet Laureate.

Dr. Lee's judgment of Mr. Hawker's masterpiece is recorded in the following criticism :

:

Mr. Hawker's poetical masterpiece, written in the year 1863, in his summer-house or hut, a rocky excavation overlooking the Severn Sea, is a poem in blank verse of about five hundred lines, entitled "The Quest of the Sangraal." The Arthurian legends were carefully studied prior to its composition, and he gave the greatest consideration to every delicate thought, due epithet and telling expression used throughout it. Full of the deepest meaning, yet never obscure nor spasmodic, but always musical, the verse seems to march on like the stately chant of an ancient bard; while over every sentiment and sentence gleams the glory of the Cross of the Crucified. There is not a diffuse passage throughout: every line is full of pious thought, and fraught with lofty teaching: while the scriptural lore evidenced so continually, adds much to its devotional characteristics and obvious beauties. Deep Catholic instincts are apparent on every page. In it the scenery of Cornwall is pictured with graphic power and epigrammatic beauty. It may well claim a foremost place amongst the Christian poems of the nineteenth century, as much for its sound practical teaching as for the unity of the author's purpose, the splendour and power of his pictures, and, as the late Bishop Phillpotts remarked, for the masterly literary capacity evidenced throughout." On no page is there any affectation of obscurity, and the lines are always musical, sweet and scanable. In truth, the more this poem is studied, and it needs patient and painstaking study, the more do its sterling beauties become manifestly apparent. (Pp. 85-86.)

In later years Mr. Hawker found himself considerably out of accord with the later developments of the "Ritualistic" school of the Anglican Church. We do not allude to developments of ceremonial, but to the policy, or rather want of policy, which seems to have settled down as a blight upon the movement during the last eight or ten years. In his distant parish-far removed from the centres of the revivalhe was more clear-sighted than those who were mixed up with the fray. Whilst expediency and tortuous courses were the order of the day, Mr. Hawker stood firm to principle. Thus in November, 1874, he wrote on this and two other topics of interest :

It is not well, methinks for the "Ritualistic party," as they are called, that their cheap serial should be conducted by irresponsible persons-Radical parsons, as I hear-with neither parish charge nor ecclesiastical obligations; "free lances" of an upstart and misleading band; which, I am inclined to aver, has but little in common with the grand and great men of God in Newman's day, whose sensitive refinement and deference to Authority contrast so mightily with the brag aud bounce of vulgar anonymes and adventurous theorists, whose newspaper I cannot read and will not see. The guards little else than its proprietors' capital and financial interests. I take the Register, because its foreign church news is always so good and interesting.

In truth the policy and principles of the so-called "Radical Ritualists" distressed Mr. Hawker deeply. He saw keenly and clearly enough the wide distinction between the sound and solid principles of the old Oxford school of Dr. Newman's time-honestly put into practice in the relations which the clergy of that day bore to their Bishops-before a demure Whiggism and afterwards a revolutionary Radicalism, had seized upon too many of the leaders of the High Church party, issuing in weakness, paralysis, and discomfiture. He felt strongly that the Christian Religion rested on the great principle of Authority. "Most of our disputes," he wrote, "arise from the manner in which men answer the questions, so often arising and as put to them, 'Has the Almighty left any authority upon earth, Divine and unerring, which obviously represents Him; or are men left to be guides to themselves? ""

Mr. Hawker disliked public meetings, the organization and action of party societies, the policy of rival missionary corporations, as well as clap-trap appeals to the oi rooi for sensational support and temporary aid, because they seemed to him based on a thoroughly false and bad principle. Missionary operations," he remarked to a friend, "ought to take either a diocesan or provincial form. One diocese, old-established, should aid another, in God's Name, to plant the Faith and your squabbling societies, riotous in dispute, should put up their shutters and die quietly and without any noise." And, on the same subject, to another friend; "For God's sake, let us try to agree together at home, before we transplant our demoniacal disunion to foreign lands. A National Church [acting] apart from foreign Catholics has never been able to retain its own flock, let alone the folding of others. Discord, the delight of demons, is the greatest foe to all English missioners, wheresoever or whatsoever theymay be." (Pp. 149-151.)

Six years ago, the growing Erastianism of the Bishops, and the utter helplessness of the clergy, were to him sources of the keenest anxiety and perplexity. "In December, 1870, Mr. Hawker wrote thus: You will have noted that neither Moberly the friend of Pusey and Keble, nor Mackarnessuntil the eve of his consecration a member of the English Church Union-came forward to maintain and defend the most elementary principles of a true Church. At the Union they give talk abundant, in return for ill-spent subscriptions: and in talk, as experience teaches us all more and more, the frivolous and shallow of the younger race seem to put their whole trust and confidence.' And in January, 1870, as follows: Tait claims to be a Pope, and his provincials allow it, without rebuke or protest. He acts, and they register his will, in unanticipated and shameful silence. In Capetown, and India, and Canada, he actively interferes, without jurisdiction and superior men bow the head as well as the knee. But he is a Pope, without Cardinals for Councillors or Congregations for advisers. His beardless and unfledged Chaplains know nothing and can advise nothing: save to grease the creaking wheels of the Establishmentarian coach well, and to sacrifice everything which concerns the World to come, in order to make things more pleasant and comfortable for the World that is."" (Pp. 121-3.)

The aspect of public Church affairs influenced him greatly. Thus we read that

The rebellion which existed amongst the Clergy, every man doing that which was right in his own eyes; the utter inability of the Bishops to curb the mutinous or to steer the vessel; the contradictory faith and opinions amongst Bishops themselves and the clergy of the same communion; their unpractical compromises and insincere co-operation; the shallow and fruitless talk of Conferences, the babbling platitudes of Congresses; and more especially the feeble and insane appeal of our spiritual rulers to a non-Christian Parliament to help them in their ecclesiastical difficulties, all tended to work a great revolution in Mr. Hawker's mind. So much so that the services at his church began to become a heavy burden to him, and he looked with considerable distaste at having to perform them. Still he was not so convinced of the need of actual change as to leave the national communion; though he felt that any day he might be called upon by conscience to do so. As I have said before, he had lost heart; not by the action of Roman Catholic controversialists, but because of the policy of our own Fathers in God. (Pp. 144-145.)

Again as regards the Bishops' utter Revolution :Those of the clergy who were ordained in bygone years were For from them particular ordained on certain specific conditions. and explicit demands were made both as regards personal pledges as to belief and opinion, and due and reasonable safeguards against theological errors; while, on the part of the State, and in return, certain civil advantages and proper protection were practically promised, and various definite civil and religious rights and privileges formally bestowed. One was the old and unquestioned right under accusation and article to be judged, in the first instance, by the Bishop of the diocese, within the limits of the same, in accordance with the ancient Canons; and with an appeal to the Provincial Court. To the Bishop canonical obedience-i.e., obedience in accordance with the Canons-was solemnly promised by the subject of ordination; while the Bishop, on his part, was to do justice and to give judgment according to ancient Church law and recognized custom. And these mutual arrangements were not only of the nature of a contract, but made up a contract, obvious, equable, mutually binding, and not to be determined without the formal consent of both parties to it. And yet, what has been done? Might has triumphed over right, to the certain loss and eventual degradation of the whole clergy of England. One man is forced to taste the bitter dregs of the Erastian chalice to-day; another to swallow its drastic dregs to-morrow.

Here, of course, a very practical, legal and moral question at once comes up for consideration:-If one party to a contract forcibly breaks it, altering its conditions, and to all intents and purposes destroying its equity and validity, is the other party to it still bound by its original terms? Many, no doubt, amongst the beneficed clergy will sooner or later put this question to their own c nsciences; and some may answer that, being a contract which no longer exists as of old, its new and altered terms are by consequence binding neither in morals nor in law." (Pp. 165, 166.)

The following, on Recent Legislation, is worthy of notice :Again: persons who have the hardihood to declare that the "Public Worship Regulation Bill has not in any way altered the law" must surely be at once morally blind and deaf. If the law needed no alteration, why, in the name of common sense, was the Bill proposed? And if, as Archbishop Tait pleaded, the Bill was so urgently required, how can it be honestly asserted, now that it has become law, that "the law has in no way been altered?" The Prime Minister, who is reported to have directly borrowed his phrase from a conversation with the Archbishop, declared in the House of Commons that the proposed Bill was expressly intended "to put down the Ritualists:" thus implying that the existing law could not do it; in other words, that the existing law was in the Ritualists' favour, and in the archbishops' and bishops' opinion required to be altered so as to be made not in the Ritualists' favour. Thus no better nor further evidence can possibly be had than this assertion to prove conclusively that the law has been altered. But in truth

there is not a beneficel clergyman in England and Wales who has not absolutely lost certain important legal rights by and through the passing of that Act. His old, and once secure position is gone. His benefice is no longer practically a freehold; for he may be turned out and ruined by the process and judgment of a court which, when he was legally instituted, had no existence, and by the decrees of a secular Parliamentary Judge who was never heard of before the Bill in question became law. To maintain, therefore, that "the law is not altered" is an insult to common sense as well as a falsehood of the first water. The whole foundations of ecclesiastical jurisprudence are removed; and, by consequence, the old building, newly overweighted, may topple over and fall down at any moment. Perhaps those who are preparing to stand aside out of the impending danger, as Report maintains, are not so foolish or wanting in foresight after all. That Mr. Hawker thought and felt all this, towards the close of his lengthened career, I know. (Pp. 159-161.) The man who could think and write thus shows that he had an intellect capacious enough to grasp the situation-a phenomenon rare enough, if we may judge from appearances, in England just now. The Ritualists seemed to have returned his distrust with interest. Dr. Lee gives an amusing account of his fruitless endeavours to get the use of some of the London pulpits for appeals towards the restoration of Morwenstow Church-too long for reproduction here, and which we must not spoil by abridgment. Later on, the character of the Reformers-as drawn by Dr. Littledale-the grave doubts which attached to Dr. Tait's baptism-"Has Archbishop Tait ever been baptized?" he writes, "If he has, the exorcisims were omitted, if one may judge from the demonism of his measure [the Public Worship Regulation Bill], I wish he and his could be induced to renounce the Devil in old age" (p. 135), the portentous revolution effected by that Bill, and the apparent disposition of High Churchmen to temporise with a measure fraught with nothing short of utter destruction to the National Church, added to his trials and difficulties. The end is well known. After forty years of loyal fighting for the Anglican Church, Mr. Hawker died out of her Communion, and lies buried not at his beloved Morwenstow, but in the Roman Catholic portion of the Plymouth cemetery.

A degree of mystery attached to his last hours-a mystery which Dr. Lee has not succeeded in clearing up. Prior to leaving Morwenstow on a short visit to his brother, Mr. Hawker-with a presentiment of approaching deathrequested his churchwarden to see that he was brought back to Morwenstow to be buried beside his first wife: and one of his latest acts was to have himself photographed as an Anglican priest,-sending to Morwenstow for a favourite stole for that purpose: and Dr. Lee says that "as report says" his body was dressed for burial "in cassock, surplice and stole" (p. 194). On the other hand, as the Standard wrote of Mr. Hawker, obtaining its information from Mr. Christopher A. Harris of Exeter: "In allusion to the Public Worship Regulation Act, Mr. Hawker said emphatically and with calm determination, that if, at the expiration of the year 1875, the pernicious measure came into operation, without further interference, he should take his stand at once, and sever himself from a Church which had neither authority nor doctrine. I will never consent to have my competency as a Minister of Christ called in question or judged by a barrister of six years' standing, without reference to Episcopal or archi-episcopal jurisdiction- little as I value that State Church which would make Dr. Temple a Bishop. Mr. Harris adds, 'It is my impression, almost amounting to a certainty, that, had his health permitted, he would not have joined the Church of Rome until he had first done battle with Dr. Temple' -an impression emphatically endorsed by Dr. Lee in a footnote (pp. 162-3). Here we most probably have a key to Hawker's last hours. Living, he would have fought the Devil of Erastianism-dying, he could only submit to have it exorcised, lest it should peril the salvation of his soul.

Dr. Lee draws his character thus:

I have written enough to have sketched feebly but faithfully (too feebly, I know, but faithfully, I believe), the character of my deceased friend. A gentleman and a priest, a scholar and a poet; with great personal attractions, considerable theological and literary powers, and gifted with high poetical qualities, he made his sure mark upon those amongst whom he dwelt, as well as on the general public and those who knew him well and intimately. His convictions were as deep as his principles were true; and he was never ashamed of either. Outspoken and brave in his utterances, brilliant and sometimes sarcastic in his conversation, he was ever leal and tender in friendship, and noble both in his thoughts and actions. A firm believer in Historical Christianity, he was somewhat impatient of the literary prigs and inquiring critics of these later shallow times,

Long may his memory live in his own native Cornwall, as a man of sound principle and singular ability; whose learning, charity, kindliness of heart and generosity of sentiment are known and cherished by not a few. (Pp. 199–200.)

In conclusion, we cordially commend this interesting and instructive book to our readers. No one who collects the literature of the Revival can afford to be without it: as it throws a vivid light upon the events of the last few years. Dr. Lee, with the true instincts of a friend and of a priest, has left to others to dwell upon the eccentric side of Mr. Hawker's character-and has shown us the inner man: while drawing the moral of his life. As a sketch of their subject, these "Memorials" are as minute and lifelike as a photograph: while, considered from a literary standpoint, they abound in that picturesque and graphic writing which every one expects from the author of "Petronilla." All who respect and revere the memory of a good man, and would fain see it cleared from cruel and malicious aspersions: and all who have at heart the welfare of our Sion, and its deliverance from the bondage of a degraded and degrading Erastianism, owe Dr. Lee a debt of gratitude for his "Memorials of Robert Stephen Hawker."

A SECOND Edition of Mr. L. Brown's slight manual, The Dead in Christ: A Word of Consolation for Mourners (London: J. Masters and Co.), has just come under our notice. Mr. Brown has, no doubt, good intentions and a few Catholic instincts, but he needs systematically to study theology, not merely modern tractates, before he writes again. Here he is hazy, contradictory, and confused in sentiment; while in the chapter on "Recollection and Reflection Means of Improvement," he borders upon very dangerous errors. On p. 37 he enlists Dean Stanley, of all persons in the world, to enable him duly to interpret St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, and to maintain his negative thesis concerning "Purgatory," where he feebly combats popular errors rather than authoritative expositions. On the duty of praying for the dead he appears to be sound. Why, then,-except for the idle purpose of "protesting against something, somebody or other,-invite mourners to descend into a controversial arena?

CAPT APTAIN FORTESCUE'S compilation, The Anthem Book An Antiphonal, adapted to the Book of Common Prayer (London: J. T. Hayes), is a handy volume, which ought to be adopted in all places where the aim is to render the services both Catholic and complete. It indicates considerable liturgical knowledge, good taste and sound judgment. There is no note of the cost of the book; and (what is more) there is no date to the title-page,-an unworthy trade dodge to make the novelty of a publication last a little longer than usual. The Captain ought to have inscribed it to his Erastian uncle-the Archbishop: or, better still, have secured both the Archiepiscopal "imprimatur" and its introduction into the chapels of Addington and Lambeth Palace.

Ꭱ.

MR. RADFORD'S Seven Good Friday Addresses, entitled Studies at the Foot of the Cross (Church Printing Company), though sometimes redundant in style, now and then a little over-crowded both with adjectives and images, and occasionally wanting in literary art and simplicity, are nevertheless marked by devoutness of expression and accuracy of theological terminology. Suitable hortatory sentences are sometimes properly introduced and carefully elaborated, which of course add to the effect of the Addresses.

ON the same subject, but decidedly inferior, are Mr. Free

:

man Wills's well-intentioned Sermons, Seven Last Words from the Cross (London: R. Clay). Here and there they are painfully slipshod and occasionally theologically inadequate while his treatment of the "Third Word" is about as jejune, shallow and unsatisfactory as it is possible to be. It was a wise and valuable saying of the Eastern sage that "A vessel should be first filled before it be carefully emptied."

DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT RELICS.-During some excavations among the ruins of an old abbey at Nuneaton the workmen discovered a stone coffin containing human bodies. Alongside of it were two stone coffin lids, oue bearing a Maltese cross the other a Latin cross.

I here proceed to consider the treatment which I have experienced from the High Church Press. Before doing this, however, it may be well to say a few words in disproof of the notion of an "Intrigue with Rome."

That there has been no "Intrigue" will perhaps be best shown by a simple narrative of all the facts connected with the publication of Christianity or Erastianism?"

The idea of addressing a Letter to the Cardinal on the present situation of the Anglican Church was purely my own. Being myself a perfect stranger to the Cardinal, I asked a friend, resident in London, who was personally known to him, to obtain for me the necessary permission to address my Letter to Cardinal Manning. This was graciously conceded, and my Letter was written in the summer months of last year. I thought that the Public Worship Regulation Act, having been generally represented in 1874 to be such an absolutely necessary measure, would be at once resorted to both by its promoters and by the oppressed laity to whom it was to bring such longed-for relief. I had determined not to publish my Letter till this Act had actually become an integral part of the discipline of the Anglican Church, but the measure in question lay fallow from the 1st July, 1875, when it legally came into operation, till quite the close of the year; and the publication of my Letter was withheld in consequence. This led to my friend's writing to me to ask whether I adhered to my previous intention, and to suggest that I should provide him with some explanation which he might offer to the Cardinal for the non-appearance of the Letter; and I therefore wrote to him explaining my wish not to take the initiative, but to wait till some overt act on the part of the Anglican Bishops, in connection with the Public Worship Regulation Act, occurred to justify the publication of "Christianity or Erastianism?" This letter was forwarded to the Cardinal, who wrote (not to me, but to my friend), to say that it was for me to choose my own time, his share in the matter being limited to granting the request that the Letter might be addressed to him. This was absolutely all that passed between his Eminence and myself previous to the publication on January 8th, 1876, (after the prosecution of Mr. Ridsdale had commenced), of "Christianity or Erastianism?"

It will thus appear that up to the time when my first Letter to his Eminence was published I had not even communicated directly with Cardinal Manning, and my indirect communication with his Eminence had been limited to the request for permission to address publicly to him a Letter to be read of all men, and to an explanation of the delay which had occurred in its publication. There was "no plot," no "intrigue," no "duping" or being "duped," as has been suggested by newspaper correspondents; and what I had to say to his Eminence was published to the world without any secret understanding whatever.

I might be content to stop here, and leave the inventors of "plots" and "intrigues" to their own silly and uncharitable imaginations, did I not consider it due to myself personally to answer the calumnious comments of the High Church Press on myself as an individual, and were I not also of opinion that some good may ensue from an exposure of the tactics which the papers in question are not ashamed to employ when their anti-Roman prejudices are aroused.

The three newspapers upon which I have occasion to comment are (1), the Church Review; (2), the Church Times; (3), the Guardian.

It would be attaching too much importance to the Church Review were it to detain us long. It has indeed written many foolish and insolent things about myself and my Letter to the Cardinal, but my readers will agree with me that, as it is candid enough to admit that it has not read "Christianity or Erastianism? its criticisms are not worth much. In the Church Review of January 22nd, 1876, we read as follows:-"The pamphlet has been forwarded to us by the publisher, but we admit that we have only so far looked through it as to be justified in saying that the writer speaks only for himself, that his proposals are ridiculous, &c., &c." When a newspaper writer is candid enough to admit that he has only "looked through" what he is criticising, his criticisms may be dismissed with the remark that he who criticises or maligns what he has not carefully read, is sure to misrepre

sent it, and does not deserve to be himself read with care.

The case of the other two offending periodicals deserves somewhat longer notice at my hands. These two papers differ widely from each other: the Guardian preaches the Gospel of Respectability; the Church Times flourishes the shillelagh; yet these two characters, so dissimilar in other respects, have two points in common: an intense hatred of the Pope and of his authority; and a kind of incapacity to deal fairly and justly with any question in which the claims of Rome are involved.

Only on this supposition can their conduct to myself be accounted for. I take the case of the Church Times first. Of the two it is the least culpable; for, while defaming my personal character as unjustifiably as the Guardian, it did not altogether close its columns to my remonstrances, after the manner of its contemporary.

The Letter, "Christianity or Erastianism?" was first noticed in the Morning Post of January 8th, and subsequently received kindly notices in some Roman Catholic papers. It was not, however, mentioned in the Church Times till its number of the 21st. An article then appeared, of which I quote portions, to show that, at that date, the Church Times had not conceived or framed the charges which it afterwards chose to hurl at me; and that the defamatory language afterwards employed by it was a deliberate afterthought, and not to be excused even on the ground of first impressions or panic.

In this first notice it is admitted that "the grievance" which I describe in the first twenty-six pages of my Letter "is but little overdrawn," and the article proceeds as follows:-" The writer turns to ask where he can find some system more in harmony with the Christianity which is described in the New Testament. he finds his remedy

for existing evils in the foundation of a Uniat- Anglican Church, &c., &c.

What the writer entirely fails to see is, on the one hand, the indecency of his addressing a supplication to an avowed and embittered enemy of the Church of England; while he himself continues to be an official of that Church, even seeming to compromise others, however few, by his language, &c., &c."

It is evident that on January 21st the Church Times writer recognised the individual character of my letter, and that in his eyes, if any were compromised by it, they were only a few; and that, in appearance, not in reality; and this point is glanced at quite incidentally, and then dismissed.

Nor was the language of the Church Times different in this respect on January 28th. In its article of that date, speaking of a petition to the Pope, which some newspaper correspondent had evolved out of his own consciousness, the Church Times says:-"So far as we know, there is not any such petition in existence, and the probability is that the story is merely an exaggeration, in the course of transmission from mouth to mouth, of the kernel of fact that one clergyman, who has not had the courage to give his name, lately addressed a Letter to Cardinal Manning, asking for this very solution of his personal difficulties." So far so good. Further on, in the same article, the Church Times professed to have knowledge of the authorship, and it proceeded to make a truculent attack upon this supposed author, analyzing his motives from its professed knowledge of his past history and character.

In doing this it inadvertently proved its ignorance by talking of the author's "benefice." This word happily crept into the article in question; and, as I have no benefice, conclusively proved these two things :-(1.) That the writer of the article in question was wholly mistaken as to the authorship of "Christianity or Erastianism?" while pretending to analyze and unfold the motives of the author from his personal knowlege of the individual. (2.) That prejudice against a particular individual, wrongly supposed to be the author, was the guiding influence in the mind of the

writer of that article.

It is usually considered wrong to impute bad motives to a person whom you do know, and of whose character you can form some estimate. But what can be said of imputing motives to a man you don't know-of a criticism based upon an estimate of the motives of some one who was not the author of the thing criticised. It can only be compared to the case of an Irish Whiteboy shooting in the dark at his supposed victim, and killing the wrong mau.

This blunder on the part of the Church Times writer was pointed out by me in a letter to the Editor, which he (more noble than the Editor of the Guardian) inserted in his issue of February 4th. Meanwhile the unwise disclaimer had been fulminated from St. Alban's, and the unfriendly criticisms of the secular press thereon had appeared. The Church Times writer then sought to mend the situation by an article entitled "The Bubble Burst," which I here characterize as a disgrace both to the paper in which it appeared and to the man who wrote it.

In this article, amidst much other abuse and misrepresentation of a very reckless and undigested character, at least three distinctly false charges were made against me, and served as the groundwork for allusions as to my "moral obliquity," "peculiar views of truth," and general fitness for "the Old Bailey."

The three special charges fabricated against me by the Church Times writer are as follows:-(1.) That I had presumed to speak "as a trusted envoy informally charged with a secret mission." (2.) That, frightened by Mr. Mackonochie's circular, I "endeavoured to save my character by retreating abruptly from the position which I had taken up." (3.) With having then misrepresented the truth by pretending to be isolated when I was not "It is not true that he is so completely alone as he now alleges."

My readers will observe the kind of Irish Bull which is here perpetrated. I am first censured for speaking in the name of others, when I should have spoken only for myself; and then the writer's reckless pen is as freely employed in asserting that I am not "completely alone"-in other words, that others are acting with me for whom, therefore, I was entitled to speak.

Now, it so happens, that all these charges brought against me by the Church Times are false. As regards the first I have already dealt with it in the body of this pamphlet (pages 6-8). It is made by the Church Times in the face of my own disclaimer "that I had no authority to speak for others;" and is a scandalous instance of the old legal saying, "No case; abuse the plaintiff's attorney."

As to the other charges invented by the Church Times, they can be most easily disposed of by a simple statement of facts. Having written a public Letter to the Cardinal, and published it, I left it to be known and read of all men to be discussed and criticised as individuals might think fit. Beyond advertising its publication I took no single step to give it any undue importance. The silence which the newspapers at first observed respecting it bade fair to keep it altogether unknown; but after a while it acquired additional publicity from reports, statements, and telegrams, of newspaper correspondents, for which I was not responsible, and of which I knew absolutely nothing till I saw them in print. One correspondent even professed to know the exact number of clergy, laymen, women and children, who were preparing for an immediate exodus from the Anglican Church. It was not till I saw, on February 1st, the circular sent by Mr. Mackon ochie that I had the least idea that a panic existed among the anti-Vaticanists of the Ritualistic party. Up to this time their own organs had not even seriously considered the contents of "Christianity or Erastianism?" but had contented themselves with denying that it had any importance. When I was shown Mr. Mackonochie's circular, I at once wrote to the Morning Post (the only paper which I have found to deal fairly in the matter of inserting letters from unpopular persons), stating that the whole responsibility of publishing "Christianity or Erastianism?" rested with myself. This was the truth. I wrote this as an act of justice to Mr. Mackonochie and his co-signatories, and as such it will, I trust, be regarded by every honourable person; but this letter was not extorted from me by the absurd disclaimer in question: it was a purely voluntary act on my part, written before I knew whether the disclaimer would ever appear in public; as I had disclaimed all autho