actional growth and spread of orthodox doctrine since the first apparently fatal decision in the Gorham case, is by far the most remarkable feature of the whole case. We suppose there never yet was an opinion arrived at which flew in the face of that common-sense which all mankind possess, which did not recoil with ludicrous and disastrous effect upon the heads of the dishonest persons who professed to have formed it. We confess that we were not surprised at the humiliating confessions made in the House of Lords only a few weeks ago with regard to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Common-sense had been outraged, and she resented her rights; and perhaps the ludicrousness of the whole affair reached its climax when a noble lord admitted that though the whole thing had been silly, he was not ashamed of the part he had taken in it, because it was a necessity of the moment. In the same way, the outraged doctrine of baptismal grace has been ever since vindicating its claim in the eyes of English Churchmen. That which Dissenters without a particle of knowledge in theology proper have all along seen and reprobated in the English Church, the inseparable connexion of the outward and visible with the inward and spiritual, has come at last to be recognised, in some modified sen-e at least, by nearly all who have studied their Prayer-books. The Gorham case has secured an extended acquiescence in the true doctrine of baptismal grace, and has perhaps also been the cause of its subsiding into its proper place in the analogy of the faith, just at the very time when there seemed to be some danger of its occupying comparatively too large a share of persons' thoughts in the economy of grace. It is premature to prophesy what will be the probable effect of the decision in the case of Mr. Wilson and Dr. Williams. But at least there are no symptoms of any considerable party acquiescing in the non-inspiration of Holy Scripture, though of course the teaching which explains away the punishment of sin has affinities which attach it very closely to the natural instincts of the sinner. We will say no more here of the latter awful doctrine, as its discussion scarcely befits an article such as this, but we may hope that the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture may also fall into something like its proper place, now that the minds of people have been directed towards its consideration. One thing is certain, that the general tone of theology in the English Church has been rising each time there has been any change in its formularies and authorized prayers, and that this improvement has been going on with a rapid acceleration during the last few years. Any one who has lived a few years either in the colonies or on the Continent, must have marked the changed aspect of our churches and their services on his return. Dr. Manning has, in another part of

this volume, attempted to discuss this amelioration of tone; but he has, as might have been expected, done it but partial justice. He has commented upon the increased number of Celebrations and other services, but he has said less than it merited on the subject of the devoted and self-sacrificing lives of the English clergy; and so long as these present the marked contrast which is visible between them and the mode of life adopted by, alas! many of the converts to Rome, we think the cogency of the Archbishop's representations, or misrepresentations, will be alike unavailing.

6

And this leads us on to notice the third of the pamphlets in this volume, which consists of a letter to Dr. Pusey, on 'The Workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church of England.' The marvellous gifts of God's grace that have been of late years developed in the Church of England, certainly have to be taken into consideration by both friend and foe, in any argument which touches upon the question whether she is or is not an integral part of Christ's Holy Catholic Church. It may, indeed, be scarcely possible for friend and foe to view the subject in exactly the same light, and Dr. Manning bridges over the difficulty by laying down the axiom that The operations of the Holy Spirit of God 'have been from the beginning of the world co-extensive with 'the whole human race.' This axiom, which is fortified by references to Suarez, and other great authorities, is brought closer home to the point by the admission of the validity of the baptisms of members of the Church of England, in whom, therefore, more than in heathen nations, will be manifested the fruits of the Spirit. These preliminaries being settled, the author is enabled at once to be liberal, and to allow, what of course is undeniable, a large visible amount of the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church of England, at the same time that he peremptorily refuses to admit these as in any degree evidencing that it possesses the character of a Church.

But, after all, Dr. Manning does not at all grapple with the supposed case of the Church of England. He is not intentionally unfair; for he himself allows that this argument of the workings of the Holy Spirit outside the pale of the Church is as applicable to Dissenters as to members of the Establishment. Yet the heading and title of the whole letter is eminently calculated to mislead. We were led to expect that some account would be given of the singular beauty of character developed of late in the Church of England; a beauty which admits, as far as we have been able to judge, of no parallel or resemblance at all, amongst bodies of Nonconformists. There may be perhaps two accounts to be given why the grace of humility, for instance, or that of self-sacrifice, has shone so conspicuously amongst

those who have been educated in this system. But Dr. Manning has not given us the account which, on his own showing of denying it to be any part of the Catholic system, he was bound to give, if these graces truly appear in Anglicanism in a more exalted form than amongst other bodies of schismatics. He does not indeed in terms deny the fact that we are alleging, but he virtually ignores it, when he says that he is far more able to assure himself of the invincible ignorance of Dissenters as a mass, than of Anglicans as a mass. And surely if the comparison he is instituting on this ground is really between Dissenters and Anglicans, specially so called, the following assertion can only be explained on the supposition of a very confused and illogical mind in the writer. He says they, i. e. Dissenters, are far more deprived of 'what survived of Catholic truth; far more distant from the idea ' of a Church; far more traditionally opposed to it by the pre'judice of education; I must add, for the most part, far more simple in their belief in the person and passion of our Divine Lord. Their piety is more like the personal service of disciples. 'to a personal master, than the Anglican piety, which has always 'been more dim and distant from the central Light of souls.'

This sentence either indicates a most disgraceful ignorance of facts, or a prejudice which is more disgraceful than ignorance; whilst in the instances which are brought to support the assertion, we do not know whether the statement of the facts, or the relation in which the seventeenth century is made to do duty for the nineteenth, is the more comical. 'Witness Jeremy Taylor's 'works, much as I have loved them, compared with Baxter's, 'or even those of Andrewes, compared with Leighton's, who 'was formed by the Kirk of Scotland.' The Archbishop is certainly in an awkward dilemma. It would have been quite safe to allow the superior piety of Anglicans to Dissenters, for he himself admits that Anglicanism contains more of truth than Dissent does; but if every effect must have a cause, he is certainly bound to explain why the contradictory of this proposition holds good, as he asserts it does.

Further on, in answer to the harmless idea put out by one who had criticised his former pamphlet, that he wanted to reduce things to the alternative of Catholicism or Atheism, Dr. Manning appears entirely to misunderstand the accusation. He must have read the Analogy,' and no one would think it a disparaging description of that work to say that it was intended to take away the logical defence of Deism, and drive the Deist into Atheism. Bishop Butler knew that people cannot rest in Atheism, but they will try to rest content with Deism, and probably a more convincing argumentum ad hominem was never penned than that celebrated treatise. Had Dr. Manning intended to show that he

who could not embrace Roman Catholicism, ought consistently to go on towards Atheism, the argument would have been perfectly legitimate, though probably it would not have been very convincing. 'It would be,' he says, 'both intellectually and morally impossible, to propose to any one the alternative of 'Catholicism or Atheism, and that apparently because the Holy 'See has pronounced that the existence of God may be proved by reason and the light of nature. That it can be so proved, surely affords the very best reason why it may be safe to push a disputant to a position which is so utterly untenable.

We really cannot understand either the arguments or the illustrations of the Archbishop of Westminster. He makes the supposition of a believer in Christianity who rejects Catholicism, and says the position is an inclined plane, on which, if individuals may stand, generations cannot.' This is the first instance we have ever met with of an inclined plane on which the force of gravity requires time to initiate motion in a body placed upon it. We have before noticed the strange anomalies of this writer's metaphorical language. As we shall not recur to the subject, we may just observe that light culminating to a focus' is also a

new idea to us.

The remainder of the letter is devoted to an examination of the opinion that the Church of England is in God's hand the great bulwark against infidelity in this land.'

6

Dr. Manning neither sees that it is the bulwark, nor will he admit apparently that it acts as a breakwater. He can only regard it as 'the mother of all the intellectual and spiritual aberrations which now cover the face of England.' Who, or what, then, we ask again, is the parent of all the infidelity of the continent of Europe? Anglicanism is the source of all religious error in 'England, because it appeals from the voice of the Church throughout the world, and so sets the example to its own people, of appealing from the voice of a local and provincial authority. The description of Anglicanism (as it exists, that is, in Dr. Manning's mind) follows. It is in these words: The whole 'idea of theology, as the science of God and of His revelation, has been broken up. Thirty-nine Articles, heterogeneous, disjointed, and mixed with error, are all that remain, 'instead of the unity and harmony of Catholic truth.' Here, then, are two statements brought into close connexion, forming part of an argument against the Church of England, of which we shall make no other remark than that the first is unproved and that the second is manifestly false. The writer would be the last man consciously to attempt anything unfair, but his bias is so strong that he is absolutely unable to be fair. And here again we meet with a recurrence to his favourite topic, of the comparison of

Nonconformists with Anglicans, only here the Archbishop contents himself with placing them on an exact level, with a slight hint, that if anything a preference is due to the Nonconformists, because they have not produced any works like the Essays and Reviews,' nor criticised the Bible in the style of the Bishop of Natal. One may perhaps be excused for suggesting the doubt whether the particular style of education, or rather of want of education of Dissenters, has had anything to do with so remarkable a result.

We remember being especially struck by hearing a lecture on the Essays and Reviews,' by one who has deservedly obtained a great reputation for knowledge of language, and we suppose may be regarded as a first-rate intellect among Nonconformists: we mean Mr. Craik of Bristol. And it was evident that he thought that he was fairly answering Dr. Williams' and Mr. Wilson's essays; but it was equally evident to any one versed in controversy, that he did not so much as understand the terms that these writers used, when speaking of the doctrines of antiquity as compared with what has been held by modern Protestants.

At the conclusion of his letter, the Archbishop of Westminster, without becoming unkind and possibly without becoming egotistic, becomes somewhat personal. The remarks under this head are drawn out by Dr. Pusey's letter of Feb. 17th, 1864, to the Record, calling on all true sons of the Church of England to repudiate the judgment of the Court of Appeal, especially that part of it which concerned the denial of the eternity of future punishment. The Archbishop had commented on this as not in harmony with Dr. Pusey's ancient practice, and provoked some notice from Dr. Pusey. Of this he says: 'You say in 'your note (page 21), kindly but a little upbraidingly, that my 'comment on your letter to the Record was not like me in those 'days; forasmuch as I used then to join with those with whom even then you could not.' And so Dr. Manning speaks of his old friend as having drifted backward from his old moorings, whilst fully admitting that he has himself been carried onward in a totally opposite direction. It is too delicate a subject to say much of in a Review. It would hardly be safe to speak of individuals and their characters, or to estimate the consistency of their conduct under altered and trying circumstances. We may, however, without uncharitableness say, that we see in Dr. Manning's history of his past career, an illustration of his present attitude. He has moved from one position to another, and all his vehemence is directed to prove the untenableness of the last post he occupied before quitting the Church of England. He certainly is not liable to the charge of saying hard or unkind things of those from whom he now differs, but to judge from