practical difficulty that exists, exists because we have neglected openly and exclusively to co-operate with the Tories, it is not too late to begin to do so now. There can be no doubt whatever that the establishment in several particulars needs amendment. No amendment which either strengthens or renders it more efficient can be looked for either from Whigs or Liberals. For while they cordially strengthen Dissent it is utterly contradictory to Whig and Liberal principles to strengthen the Church. The object of such people is to weaken it, to defile it, to degrade it and to make its members "an open scorn amongst its enemies." How well this has been done and is being done, let past and recent events tell; for Whiggery and Liberalism defile everything they touch. Mr. Disraeli, the great and successful leader of the Tories, one of the most far-sighted politicians that ever handled the helm of the State vessel, has again and again given us an ecclesiastical programme than which nothing could be more thoroughly satisfactory. Nearly forty years ago he proclaimed identically the same principles as were formally enunciated in his magnificent speech in the Sheldonian Theatre. In " Coningsby we quote from memory-he declared that "the Crown was robbed of its prerogative, the Church was controlled by a Commission, and there was an aristocracy that did not lead -and again: "the Crown," he wrote "has become a cypher, the Church a sect, the nobility drones, and the people drudges.' How true is all this even now! brought about by a "Liberalism as vile in its essence as it is pestilent in its effects. If it be asked, as no doubt it will be, "what has Mr. Disraeli done for the Church?" we can answer that with unswering fidelity to principle, with a foresight which is marvellous, and with a tact and ability unsurpassed, he has staved off dangers and broken up oppositions which might have done even more serious damage than we are now doomed to endure. As for carrying out a policy-the notion has been simply impracticable. No statesman can carry out a policy unless he has a majority at his back. Now Mr. Disraeli has never had a majority. Owing to the disheartening apathy of the Clergy, owing to the consummate craft of the Guardian, as well as to the able manner in which the Liberals have made their way into the most unlooked-for quarters with the sole and single aim of advancing their principles, the Tories have been thoroughly over-manoeuvred and consequently outgeneralled. The English Church Union-the most powerful organization that has existed since the Catholic Revival-has been rendered entirely subservient to the Whigs and Radicals. It is now Mr. Gladstone's most obedient, most devoted and very humble servant. What Mr. Gladstone says that the English Church Union says. What Mr. Gladstone wishes, that is invariably wished by a majority of the two dozen persons who "manage affairs in Burleigh-street. The Tory seceders of two years ago, found this out then; we are all perfectly aware of the fact now. It is a melancholy fact; but still it is a fact. And a fact which cannot be denied.

The reform in matters ecclesiastical which the Radicals desire is of course "Radical Reform." They will pull down, loosen, root up, abolish, weaken and destroy. Dissatisfied with their present position, they fondly expect that out of disorder and disorganization, new laws and loftier principles will arise. Theirs is a dream—a foolish, frivolous, fatuous dream. What they want, or what they declare they want can be had now by going to Scotland. There is a "Liberal" country, Liberal people, a Church "liberated" from State control; Liberal Bishops-like the unconfined lunatic in Argyleshire-preaching liberality, freedom, and all the multiform advantages of the same. And yet our Radicals, (most of them Scotchmen, as has been pointed out in these columns), know better than to do anything so foolish. The Skinners, the McColls et id genus omne intend to experimentalize on the Church of England; and if men here, who mark the threatening danger, do not rise as one man to prevent it, our day of grace is gone.

We can only defeat them by united action. We must therefore, be organized. At last this is likely to take place. On a sound Tory basis, carefully declining the co-operation of any who are tainted with the dark Liberalism of the present day, the proposed organization must be securely founded. We must have no half-hearted Conservatives, like the selfish managers of the Saturday Review, or sham Tories like the Dean of York who voted to turn Conservative members out of the Council of the E.C.U., but staunch hearty supporters of the policy of our lost and revered leader, men who have minds to think and hands to do. Then only may we reasonably hope to awaken people to the dangers existing, or at all events to point them out. If after that, led by the ignis fatuus of Liberalism towards the noxious bog of Ecclesiastical Ruin, they find a certain destruction, only themselves will deserve credit for having brought about the catastrophe.

PROMOTING THE TRUE INTERESTS OF RELIGION.

IN Mr. Gladstone's Letter to Lord Shaftesbury, acknowledging the Memorial of the Church Association against Dr. Temple's appointment to Exeter, the ugly leg and hoof are altogether undraped. There is no pretence at covering them. We know to whom they belong and what they symbolize. Here is the sentence in which the Prime Minister's intention is set forth :-"With a sincere respect for the motives of those who are parties to the Memorial, and a full admission of my own responsibility for the advice tendered to the Crown, I beg to assure your Lordship that that advice was not given without a full consideration of the topics urged in the Memorial and a firm conviction that the appointment of Dr. Temple to the Episcopate would tend to promote the truest interests of religion."

This

After this we do not want any voluntary testimonials from Dr. Pusey or Dr. Any-body-else as to Mr. Gladstone's personal religion. His personal religion is not our concern; for it is of little matter to us whether he is a fire-worshipper or a Comtist. His public declaration, however, in which he expresses a firm conviction that the appointment of Dr. Temple will tend to promote the truest interests of religion, is one that ought to open the eyes of Church-of-England people to his political needs as well as to our own present position. Let these be looked at from every point of view, and then if the abject and degrading policy of the E.C.U. does not disgust five-sixths of its members, the salvation of the Church of England is beyond the sphere of hope. Here is what was openly declared by the quarterly organ of the Infidels. is what the Westminster Review said of the Essays and Reviews : 'From one end of the book to the other ... facts are idealized, dogmas are transformed, creeds are discredited. In their ordinary, if not plain, sense there have been discarded -the Word of God, the Creation, the Fall, the Redemption, Justification, Regeneration and Salvation, Miracles, Inspiration, Prophecy, Heaven and Hell, Eternal Punishment, and a Day of Judgment . . . a doubt thrown over the Resurrection and Ascension, the Divinity of the Second Person and the personality of the Third. . . . It may be this is a true view of Christianity, but we insist in the name of Common Sense that it is a new one. Surely it is a waste of time to argue that it is agreeable to Scripture and not contrary to Canons." Let us look, furthermore, at the craven conduct of the High Church Radical press. Inspired by Mr. Gladstone's allies, the conductors of the Ritualistic organs have simply and literally thrown overboard all their principles and eaten all their words. The people who have written against scepticism, now advocate Dr. Temple's nomination. One print which for good and sufficient reasons first pretended to be Conservative, grown as coarsely Radical as the Telegraph, and far more vulgar, now writes exultingly as follows:-"The Temple controversy is

being carried on under difficulties. With few exceptions the more eminent of the High Church Clergy and Laity are more or less in favour of the Crown nominee."

High Church newspapers which have advocated Church independence crow loudly when "the Dean of Exeter, &c., &c., with prayerful preparation, &c., &c., for the love of the truth of the Inspired Word, &c., &c."-votes for Dr. Temple ! The blowers of the penny trumpets of Ritualism who have pretended to maintain the independence of Convocation, its spiritual authority, and the importance of its vigorous action, now bid their deluded and blinded followers ignore its solemn judgments altogether and side with the editor of Essays and Reviews. Surely, a fact like this must be patent even to the Ritualistic shopman-if any facts can be patent to the class. But our dangers thicken, because men have so completely lost all faith and have flung their once cherished principles to the four winds of heaven.

We must dwell here-in order to prove our assertion-on the action of Convocation, because it is a point of great importance, which is conveniently passed over by the High Church Radical prints. On June 21, 1864, a little more than five years ago, the formal Synodical sentence of the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury was delivered in the following terms:-"The Upper House of Convocation having received and adopted the report of the whole House appointed by them to examine the volume entitled Essays and Reviews, invite the Lower to concur with them in the following judgment: That this Synod, having appointed Committees of the Upper and Lower Houses to examine and report upon the volume entitled Essays and Reviews, and the same Committees having severally reported thereon, doth hereby Synodically condemn the said volume, as containing teaching contrary to the doctrine received by the United Church of England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church of Christ.' -Chronicle of Convocation, p. 1683.

The Lower House, even more earnest in the matter than the Upper, concurred in the condemnatory sentence, as follows:"That this House respectfully and heartily tender its thanks to his Grace the President and the Bishops, of the Upper House for their care in defence of the faith, and that this House does thankfully accept and concur in the condemnation of the book by the Upper House to which their concurrence has been invited by the Upper House."

So that the book itself, as well as the principles of the book, was condemned. Moreover, let it be noted that the Upper House in the resolution already quoted speaks of having "received and adopted the report of the whole House." That Committee reports among other things as follows:-"That the book contains false and dangerous statements and reasonings at variance with the teaching of the Church of England and deserving the condemnation of the Synod."

"The grounds of their judgment are as follows:-'They consider that a tendency to unsettle belief in the Revelation of the Gospel pervades the book, especially on the following points:

"The possibility of miracles as historical facts and the purpose of miracles, as evidences of the truth of revelation, appear to your Committee to be absolutely denied in the following among other passages. (Here follow the passages.)

"The Committee regret to add that the argument of [Dr. F. Temple in] the first Essay (p. 24, 25), by denying the probability of the recognition of the Divinity of our Lord in the more matured age of the world, appears to them to involve a similar denial of all miracles as historical facts; for it is asserted that the faculty of faith has turned inwards, and cannot now accept any outer manifestations of the truth of God" (p. 24).-Chronicle of Convocation, pp. 1656, 1657. To this may be added, that the original Report of the Committee of the Lower House on the book, which was presented June 18th, 1861 (and on which the House resolved

(June 21), "That in the opinion of this House there are sufficient grounds for proceeding to a Synodical judgment upon the Book," contained as many as four extracts from Dr. F. Temple's Essay, selected as worthy of condemnation. Vide Chronicle of Convocation, Lower House, June 18, 1861; pp. 681, 684, 685, 686.

Thus we see, therefore, that Dr. Temple's Essay has been unquestionably condemned. What a contempt must he feel for Bishops, Deans and Proctors who first condemned him, and now, in order to do Mr. Gladstone's bidding, are ready to give him episcopal consecration and welcome him as a guardian of the faith and defender of the Catholic tradition. We are not surprised that Liberal and Infidel papers rejoice over the severe blow which Mr. Gladstone bas inflicted on the Church. They are most reasonable in so doing. Nor does it cause us wonder that the Editor of the Weekly Register, whose wish is the father of his thoughts, can write as follows on the subject:

"The Church of England, as an Establishment, cannot last; its death-blow will be the nomination of Dr. Temple to a Bishopric. Once that it ceases to exist, does the most sanguine of those who hold the Branch' theory imagine that, as a Church, it will include within its pale all those who are now there? Is it possible that, when the thong called Establishment is cut, the bundle of sticks will not fall asunder? Can Dr. Pusey and Dr. Baring, Dr. Tait and Mr. Liddon, Dr. Temple and Canon M'Neile, remain members of the same denomination? It is utterly impossible they can ; and the result, so far as man can see, will be a very large influx of Anglicans into the [Anglo-Roman] Catholic Church."

;

What we do wonder is that those of the High Church party who profess to venerate the Church of England consent to remain under the dominion of half-a-dozen fussy adventurers, spiritual touters for the "Liberals," who pull the strings, move the puppets, and make the proper noise which is needed but who are surely rooting up our foundations and successfully destroying our stakes. For no man in his inmost heart could hold that the Essays and Reviews can in any way be made to harmonize with the dogmas of the Church of England. If they can the Church of England is no Church at all, but a transparent sham and a corrupt imposture. If the latter is to be corrupted and betrayed by traitors, poisoned by heresy, and her nest be-fouled by a crew of dirty birds from Germany and their allies, the sooner we get a sight of the complete programme-the policy of destruction-agreed upon, the more easily we shall be able to act on the defensive, and maintain that which at once we so reverence and love. To know our real enemies, though in the garb of friends and crying "Peace! peace! when there is no peace" is the first step taken in a successful defence.

Reviews of Books.

I. A FEW WORDS ON REUNION AND THE COMING COUNCIL
AT ROME. By Gerard F. Cobb, M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge. 8vo., pp. 79. London: Palmer, 1869.
"" NOT "SCHISM:" A PLEA FOR THE
II. "SEPARATION
POSITION OF ANGLICAN REUNIONISTS. By Gerard F. Cobb,
M.A., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Svo., pp. 47.
London: Palmer, 1869.

In a

tions, have to come upon the stage afterwards, and the whole moral value of the novel proposition first set forth becomes materially weakened.

Mr. Cobb enunciates his own ideas on the subject of Corporate Reunion in the following passage :—

Their attitude as Reunionists is a very simple one. Finding no satis faction in that theory of Revelation which, whilst admitting infallibility to reside in the Church, nevertheless practically limits God's gracious purposes in this respect to the first nine centuries, and supposes that the ecclesia docens has formally ceased to act throughout one half of the Christian era, a half too which humanly speaking has witnessed in the shape of religious doubs and controversies, as well as in the successive developments and growing needs of the natural mind of man, quite as imperative occasions for the voice of God to be heard on earth, as its predecessor: finding it impossible to reconcile this theory with anything like a reasonable view of the Church as God's organ of utterance to man, or with an adequate fulfilment of Christ's promises with regard to it, they have been led to regard that body which is in communion with the Apostolic See as in the fullest sense of the words the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If, they say, God teaches at all through His Church, that Church, as "the witness and keeper of His Truth," must be one identical body, continuously existing, patent and known as such in all ages to all mankind; it must be as a city set upon a hill, as a light placed on a candlestick, easily discernible at one glance by the eyes of the inquiring world: and that one body, as an organic society, visibly One, visibly spread throughout the world (Catholic), and visibly (i.e. demonstrably) descended as one visible body from the Apostles of our Lord that one body the whole outside world with one consenting voice proclaims to be the Church in communion with the See of St. Peter. The Holy Eastern Church as such, i.e. in its differentiating feature as one not in communion with the Apostolic See, its own title deeds proclaim to be but nine centuries old. As such, therefore, she is not Apostolic. Her geographical boundaries again could hardly be considered at the outset of her individual existence as Catholic, neither has she shown since that most unhappy separation such missionary zeal as would justify us in describing her as the Church of the whole world. As for our own Communion, i.e. in her differentiating capacity, as one separated from the Apostolic See, no one pretends for a moment to raise such claims on her behalf. If therefore we are to believe in a visible Church at all, and if the notes of the Church as given in our Creeds are to be construed in that sense, there can be no doubt as to what the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is. Whilst on the other hand if these notes are to be construed in an invisible sense, then the ordinary Protestant theory of the Church as "the totality of regenerate souls," and of the Bible as the one ecclesia docens, is as likely to be right as any other. Neither history, nor logic, as it seems to them leave any safe via media between these two alternatives. Those of us therefore who hold this view are ready boldly and openly to profess our belief in the Church in communion with the Apostolic See as the one infallible organ by means of which the "faith once delivered to the saints" is preserved in its integrity, and (as each successive occasion may demand) emphasised, illustrated, expanded, and applied for the benefit of the human race Pp. 2-4).

And as further explaining this view, and defending the Roman authorities for the line which has been popularly and generally adopted as regards the Church of England, he writes as follows

:

It is said that the Pope has acted in a most un-Catholic manner; that he has "un-Churched" us, and classed us with Protestants; that our Episcopate has been studiously and designedly ignored. But is this entirely the case? and if it is, have we no share in the fault of it? or again, is there no other way of explaining the situation of things save that currently adopted?

Let us take the first charge. The Pope, we say, has acted in an unCatholic manner in doing what he has done. This really means when we come to look into it that he has acted on his view of Catholicity, and not on ours. Could we, however, fairly expect him to act otherwise? Is our complaint against him reasonable? Would it be allowed to be so in the ordinary relations of life? Should we for a moment admit it to be so as against ourselves?

For how stands the matter? The Pope has a theory with which we disagree. He acts upon this theory, and we take offence and say he ought to have acted thus and thus. But to say this is simply a petitio principii, and brings us once more to a state of hopeless irreconcileability, and a permanently divided Christendom. It is the theory surely at which we ought to take offence, not the action based upon it; and if this be so, why do we not take the opportunity which the Council presents for endeavouring to come to some mutual understanding as regards the point at issue. If when an occasion presents itself for a discussion of differences we refuse to avail ourselves of it because the invitation to do so contains that with which we do not agree-what possible hope is there of ever having those differences discussed and solved? We shall never come to an understanding at all unless we are ready to forget our quarrel for the moment in order that we may thereby

until you can swim.

Again as to our being "un-Churched." Is the fault here so entirely on one side? Have we taken any such special steps towards obtaining from our Roman brethren a different determination of the question of our lawful Church organization, as might fairly be expected of us in a matter of such infinite importance to ourselves?

The case stands thus. There is a communis sententia among the Bishops in communion with the Apostolic See to the effect that we Anglicans have not retained the Apostolic ministry. Excepting in the case of a few Anglo-Roman controversialists of the present day, who endeavour to argue the matter on other grounds, this communis sententia which subsequent research has proved to be about as near an approach is purely traditional, and owes its origin to a statement of the case to historical fact as the fable of Pope Joan. We profess on the other hand to be in possession of documentary evidence amply sufficient to reverse this traditionary verdict. Yet what have we done to lay it before them and obtain a reversal? We surely do not expect them to "Church " us again by the light of nature! Nor ought we to be surprised if they construe the fact of our not having done this into a proof either that we have no such evidence, or that we ourselves regard it as somewhat too shaky to pass muster with their theological jury. If in a case of this kind our defence has not been forthcoming, what reason have we to blame the Roman Episcopate if we suffer judgment by default (pp. 14-17). He records certain changes which have taken place here in the direction of Reunion with accuracy and in well-chosen language. Thus :—

It is impossible to help recognizing this turn of the public tide towards reciprocity with Rome: it is equally impossible to stem it. Let us take courage from all this to shake off our former very natural hesitation and reserve, and openly and steadily to proclaim that we will have peace with Rome. We have now reached that point at which all diffidence, all compromise, all timid half-measures should cease. Let us hope to have seen the last of those prudential saving-clauses, those neatly-balanced manifestoes wherein we have been wont to compensate what we profess to hold, with safe repudiations of what others hold, or rather are popularly, yet most erroneously supposed to hold. The times demand a simpler, stronger course. It is in the interest of the whole Church of Christ, it is in the interest of political order, it is in the interest of the peaceful civilization and harmonious development of the human race, that these estrangements in the Christian family should cease. Our cause is good. We have no need to be ashamed of it. Let us frankly and fearlessly avow it to be ours (pp. 44-45),

Now, from these considerable extracts something of the tone of this curious brochure may be correctly gathered. To appreciate the full force of the theory and arguments, however, it should be read from end to end with its Appendices. Its speciality is distinct from that of any other writer. The founders of the A.P.U.C., Provost Fortescue, Dr. Lee, and Mr. Perry, are left miles behind in the background. Mr. Cobb is in the very forefront, saying all sorts of sweet things to the Papists, and handing them rich saccharine potions of butter and honey. He has just discovered that the Church of Rome, that is, the Church in visible communion with the Pope, is the teaching Church (Ecclesia Docens) and that Anglicans ever since the Reformation have been, and still are, visibly separated from that Church, and form no part of it. He maintains, however, that somehow or other they are still part of the Church Universal; notwithstanding that the Church Universal and the "teaching Church" are not identical. All this he holds, strange as it may seem, in perfect good faith, states it charitably, and appears astonished that it is not generally accepted in the Church of England. Now, the teaching Church, it should be noticed, may inherently possess

the power and right to teach, and yet may not exercise them for a large number of years. Even on Mr. Cobb's pro-Roman theory the teaching Church has not taught since the Council of Trent; i.e., for more than three hundred years. If her power of teaching may be in abeyance and lie by for three hundred years, why not for thrice that period?

For ourselves we regard Mr. Cobb's theory as clever, ingenious, but simply preposterous, and without any sound foundation either in history or morals. The Church Catholic is the Ecclesia Docens, nothing more nor less, and if the Church of England is not a part of the teaching Church, she is certainly not a portion of the Church Catholic. So vice versa. The argument lies in a nutshell, and does not want two minutes' consideration. Mr. Cobb's cloudy theory is a mere theory-far-fetched, impracticable, and unworkable. It is not Catholicism, nor Anglicanism, but Cobbism-the last "new thing" in Anglican developments.

If there is to be Corporate Reunion on a basis which is likely to last, it will not be brought about by fulsome flattery of the Papists, any more than by cringing to the common herd of Protestant misbelievers. The balance must be held fairly. We must look at all vexed questions as they appear to outsiders. We must at the same time stand up for our rights, and not forfeit our ancient heritage whatever may appear the prospective advantage of so doing. If England has to cry out Peccavimus, and nobody will doubt this, so has Rome. If one is to blame, so is the other. It is a perfect waste of time, energy, and printing ink to saddle one side with all the wickedness and the other with all the wisdom; one side with all the evil and the other with all the good. As long as the old National Church of England, which has never been committed to heresy, is treated as Home and Foreign Papists treat her, so long Corporate Reunion will remain a dream. If the "Father of the Faithful" cannot or will not see how great a moral strength would be imparted to the Church of Rome by Reunion with both the Eastern Communion and the Church of England, on the basis of the dogmatic belief of the undivided Church; if when Infidelity is rampant he is bent on placing such difficulties in the way of Reunion, by enunciating new dogmas and proclaiming the divine nature of new principles, we must leave him to his foolish and short-sighted course, and put our trust in the "Great King of all the Earth," not the Pope, but Jesus Christ our Lord.

2. Mr. Cobb's second pamphlet somewhat modifies and smooths down the rugged excrescences of his first. He has evidently given much thought both to the subject in general which he treats, as well as to the numerous friendly criticisms on his previous publication. But still his theories remain crude, and eminently unpractical. The Church of England, like the Orthodox Church, either is, or is not, a part of the One Visible Family of God. If she is, and a large portion of the Rulers and Heads of the same Family, intend to meet under the protection and the Divine guidance of the Paraclete, for the peace, harmony and greater efficiency of the whole of that Family's work, then the Heads of the English portion of the Family ought to have been regularly, formally, and affectionately invited. Whether they would have gone is quite another question. We write now of the invitation only, and not of its acceptance. The fact that they were not invited but that they were openly insulted by being classed

with Non-Catholics, is sufficient to show the animus of what Mr. Cobb calls the Ecclesia Docens. If it be the Ecclesia Docens, and Mr. Cobb believes it to be so, it is open to anybody to remark that Mr. Cobb ought to be taught by it. He should go to the R.C. Bishop of Northampton, not to the Bishop of Ely. His apologies for not doing so, his counterchecks, subterfuges, excuses and far-fetched theories will surely never go down. A man cannot walk on the edge of a razor, bind his neighbour's arms with a gossamer-thread, or

balance himself on a perpendicular bodkin. Nothing can possibly be gained in the long run, either by feats of intellectual Blondinism or by a mere one-sided glorification of Popery, more especially, as in this case, when Dr. Temple the apostle of scepticism is welcomed in the same breath as a suitable successor of the late Bishop of Exeter by an illogical and inconsistent, but an intellectual and very readable writer. Finally, people will remark that Mr. Gerard Cobb is possibly writing in the interests of the Ecclesia Docens and not of the Ecclesia Anglicana antiqua. And it certainly will not be easy to rebut the charge.

Literary Notices.

In the Union Review for November (Hayes) the only article of first-rate interest is that on "The Future Council," written from an extreme Liberal point of view, with accurate knowledge of the state and aim of parties, and with great discretion and critical ability. Mr. Bainbridge Smith's paper, mainly a review of Mr. George Williams' recent publication, is curious and readable, but the other contributions are dull; while the paper on "The Deprivation of the Marian Bishops" is disfigured by the use of low, slang terms-quite out of place in a theological review. "On Wilberforce's principle, Convocation would have a right to catch a murderer and order him to be strung up (!!)" is hardly dignified phraseology for a presumably high-toned magazine. This kind of writing smacks too much of the vicious style being popularized by the cheap Church press. The "Literary Notices are disfigured, as usual, by epithets applied to Archbishop Manning, which persons of any refinement must be pained to read. Their use is neither Christian nor just.

The English reprints of Messrs. A. Murray and Son, taken as a whole, deserve our warmest commendation. Not the least interesting is a new edition, well edited, with a useful memoir of the author, of John Selden's Table Talk-a book of worth and weight.

GEORGE A. DENISON.