did not for the most part object to conform to a Church founded on New Testament truth, but they were obliged to decline conformity to a semi-papal Prayer Book. So they were cast out! Many of these men were almost seers, for they saw what in future days would be the outcome of these germ-buds of Catholicism; they saw the little slit in the lute which would some day spoil all the Protestant music of the Establishment. One effect of the Catholic Revival will be to show that the Puritans of two centuries ago were not fanciful, unaccommodating, impossible sort of persons to deal with, but were men of clear judgment and of clean consciences. Nonconformity will yet save the Protestantism of England; and it will be daily more and more seen, that with all the faults and failings of the Evangelical sects, they are not companies of contumacious men who love to be singular, but men who have been ardent lovers of the Reformation faith. This fuller revelation of their principles, brought about by the Catholic Revival, will be no light boon to the Free Churches of Christendom. In the Report of the Conference of the Church Association, held in Willis's Rooms, 26th and 27th Nov., representative of the Evangelical section of the Church of England, Dr. Miller is reported to affirm—“I hold that the Lord's Supper is, to the faithful people of Christ, a sure and effectual means of grace. I hold that whoever goes there in faith does really in his heart hold communion with his Lord. But I most distinctly deny, and abhor, every approach to the notion, that the elements are anything more than the simple bread and wine which were then placed

upon the table. That they have been set apart for holy use, and that I would not use them afterwards for common purposes, I most distinctly affirm. But that there is consubstantiation or transubstantiation— that there is anything more than the real bread and wine-I utterly deny, and my whole preaching on the subject would be directed against it; and if we in the Church of England are to have any authoritative enactment by which the Church is involved in complicity with this doctrine-I am not speaking of the vagaries of any particular gentlemen, but of the authority of the Church-then the Evangelical clergy may be in a position analogous to that of the Reformers of old. We may not have the stake or the Inquisition before us, but there will be only one course left to us. If the Evangelical clergymen of the Church of England, after that Church has become involved in this complicity, acquiesce in it, they are utterly unfaithful to the memory of those martyrs who have died to preserve the truth. There are those present, and there may be some outside, who think it unwise to hint at such an extremity as this. But I think the time has come for plain speaking, and we are not to tone down the utterances of the Conference by that nasty little virtue' called prudence."

The Rev. Edward Hoare, of Tunbridge Wells, said he was unwilling to appear to differ from a dear and honoured friend, but "I did not like to hear the word 'Secession.""

Now the disputable point of Dr. Miller's argument is this "If we are to have any authoritative enactment by which the Church is involved in the doctrine." In reply to which

I would ask these few questions :-If we have not authoritative custom which sanctions it? Were not the words in the Communion Service, "The body of our Lord which was given for thee, preserve thy body," &c. (words eliminated by the Reformers from the Second Prayer Book of Edward) re-introduced by Queen Elizabeth in order that the real presence of the Lord's body in the sacrament might not be thought to be denied? Does not Heylin say, in his

66

History of the Reformation," that as these were restored so other passages were expunged which offended the Papists (vol. ii., p. 286)-" and also to come up the closer to those of the Church of Rome it was ordered by the Queen's injunctions that the sacramental bread (which the book required only to be made of the finest flour) should be made round in the fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary?" Were not also those very altars now standing in many old English churches restored to their places, and the festivals ordered to be observed, "by which compliances and the expunging of the passages before mentioned the Book was made so passable amongst the Papists, that for ten years they generally repaired to their parish churches without doubt or scruple."

Dr. Miller's words might have some relevancy to the case if the Prayer Book had been purified, or if afterlegislation had altered the state of things. SUCH, HOWEVER, IS NOT THE CASE. We owe it to our Puritan fathers, and to their faithful successors in the succeeding generations, to show that they knew the Church of England had complicity with Romish doctrine, and that

they left her fold, not in a spirit of proud self-sufficiency, or as lovers of a quasi-liberty, but from a conviction deep, true, and earnest, that loyalty to Christ demanded a "secession" from a Church of compromise with Rome.

The Catholic Revival is bringing out, in a sharp and welldefined way, the honesty of our forefathers' character, and the stern necessity of continued Nonconformity in the after times.

Apart, however, from the theological relation of the Catholic Revival to ourselves, what is its religious relation? We may not think so at first sight, but there is a strong resemblance in kind in the religious life of ultra-Ritualism and ultra-Puritanism ; they both favour asceticism-the one the asceticism of the convent, the other the asceticism of what is called anti-worldliness! Now it is very wise and proper to eschew the world, if by that we mean covetousness, grasping, malice, envy, frivolity, lust, and license, and doubtless it is difficult to maintain the position of using the world without abusing it. No one has put the case more exquisitely than Dr. Bushnell-" Men undertake to be spiritual, and become ascetic; or endeavouring to hold a liberal view of the comforts and pleasures of society, they are soon buried in the world, and become slaves to its fashion; or holding a scrupulous watch to keep out every particular sin, they become legal, and fall out of liberty; or charmed with the noble and heavenly liberty, they run to negligence and irresponsible living! So the earnest become violent; the fervent fanatical and censorious; the gentle waver; the firm turn bigots; the liberal grow lax; the benevolent

can hold nothing steady!"

The ascetic aspect of Ritualism is most revolting! This is either a beautiful world, full of God-given relationships, and a scene of enterprise, love, and interest, or it is the devil's world and not God's. To look at the cadaverous countenances photographed of some leaders of the Ritualistic movement, one is tempted to think that gladness, and mirth, and beauty, with eagerness of interest in things, are not Divine arrangements, but are mistakes in the human constitution. Who can think of an excellent and gifted youth, or a tender-hearted mysticallythoughtful girl, turned into the grim enclosure of life-long retirement, without a desperate dislike of the system which leads to such misconceptions of true religion, and such misreadings of man's mysterious nature? True, indeed, there are seasons for penitence, meditation, spiritual grief, and heartsearching self-examination. True, a life all seeming gladness is an unreality and a mockery. But Puritanism has had to learn the lesson, that certain negations or not doings of things, is no more religion than immuring yourself within the sullen walls of a convent is shutting yourself out from the world. There can be no doubt that many children amongst Nonconformists have thought their parents hypocrites-most fearful hypocrites for seeming to dislike what in reality they know they do not, and for speaking almost apologetically concerning what they feel to be innocent recreations and amusements. One cannot help feeling, when men are launching their thunderbolts at what they call worldliness, whether the strict

application of their preachings would not ruin nearly all the milliners and half the jewellers in their congregations! True, indeed, it is, that the charge. against Puritanism of over strictness does not hold good now. There is a better understanding of the spirit and genius of Christianity, and we are learning that we can be self-denyingly earnest, tenderly devout, strictly conscientious, spiritual in thought and feeling, and yet give full heart-play to an interest in the scenes of nature and the joys of home.

The Catholic Revivalists are teaching a most unreal, morbid, miserable, view of life. From the cut of their clothes to the caste of their countenances there is a cant about them. We rejoice to think this is as antiEnglish as it is anti-Christian, and we rely more on hearty, honest, English feeling to suppress these mummeries than on all the legislation in the world! Queen Victoria (God save her!) has embodied her feelings well in her interesting autobiography, when, in speaking of Mr. Caird's sermon, she says:He explained in the most beautiful and simple manner what real religion is; how it ought to pervade every action of our lives; not a thing for Sundays or for our closet; not a thing to drive us from the world; not a perpetual moping over good books; but being and doing good-letting everything be done in a Christian spirit. It was as fine as Mr. Mac Leod's sermon last year, and sent us away much edified." The Catholic Revivalists are awaken. ing, apart from questions of dogma, a very marked dissatisfaction with the mediæval miserableness of their views of our common life; and one effect of their teaching will be this

to bring out into strong and bold relief the more excellent way of those who use the world as not abusing it, and who rightly interpret and understand our Lord's intercessory prayer: "I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil."

It is time now to ask in a practical way what relation this Catholic Revival is likely to have in thinning the ranks of Nonconformist churches. The leaders of the Ritualistic movement boast that it does this. Let us

listen! Dr. Payne Smith, in the Ritualistic Commission Room, as the interlocutor of the Rev. W. J. E. Bennett, of Frome, says :-"I think you have spoken of your services as having been a means of bringing back several Dissenters to the Church. Do you consider that Ritualistic services, if I may use that term, are more favourably received by Dissenters than by lukewarm members of our Church?"

"I think the course of the Dissenters themselves shows that, because they are themselves adopting musical services. They are chanting the psalms and introducing organs, all of which they inveighed against at the time when they separated from the Church. They are now returning to all those things which they formerly objected to."

"It may be in favour, or against, it may mean that it exactly suits their level of mind and thought, or it may be, of course, in favour of that practice!"

"The general tone of both Dissenters and others is towards a greater reverence and Ritualistic observance."

Now it is to be noted what a very

cautious answer Mr. Bennett gives to the above queries. It is suppositionary, nothing more; and doubtless from his own parish the reply would be quickly forthcoming, that he at least has not succeeded in winning over many Dissenters to his fold. Doubtless there are other questions somewhat cognate to this, viz. :- -Whether the love of ritual of some kind or other is not inherent in human nature? And whether a thoroughly Protestant Evangelical Church, using very much the same ritual as the Church of England has done during the past fifty years, would not empty half the Nonconformist Churches in the kingdom? Most unquestionably it seems to some of us it would. But we are not discussing that aspect of the case in this paper. So far as the Catholic Revival is concerned, it may be safe, however, to say, if Dissenters are won over, it is more probably through their æsthetical tendencies, their love for ornament and music, than through any marked change in their doctrinal opinions.

The Catholic Revival may lead, amongst Nonconformists, to more even than Mr. Bennett says, it may lead not only to organs, chanting the Psalms, &c., but to a more decent ritual, and to a claiming of the prayers of St. Augustine and others. as the property of no one Church, established or otherwise, but as the property of the Universal Church. Even so! Nonconformity does not mean communion tables with hats and great coats put on them during service time; nor does it mean antagonism to beautiful forms of devout supplication; nor does it mean exclusion of the higher melodies, because, forsooth, they have trembled aforetime

on the lips of pious Romish devotees; nor does it necessarily mean a lank man, with long hair and large white cravat, prominently placed in an ugly deal box, fixed against a chalky chapel wall; nor does it mean the rough analysis of inquirers' states of mind by inexperienced persons; nor does it mean unarchitectural ugliness, or inartistic ecclesiastical arrangements. We can worship in a barn, and love the worship, if there be no better place for us, but when the ability comes, we ought to give to God's service all of beauty which He has made as the God of beauty; all of melody which he has inspired as the God of melody; all of order which he has suggested as the God of order; all of reverence which he demands as the God of majesty; and all of chaste and cultivated arrangement which He who created the mind knew, by its very instincts, it must desire. If the Catholic Revival serves to quicken the taste which Mr. Bennett suggests, so much the better for our churches, and so much the worse for the chances of the Catholic Revivalists themselves.

The Catholic Revival seems certainly destined to create a dislike amongst ourselves of needless divisions. It is true that sects may coexist in harmony and efficiency, and that ecclesiastical unity is in itself no much-to-be-desired boon. Still, no one can look at the needless separations of Evangelical Christendom without a feeling of sadness at the petty causes of divisions. Think of the sects of Methodism itself! Think what a mere piece of formalism separates the Congregational and Baptist communions! Think what hindrances there are to united Church work in

these manifold spheres of sectarian separation! To say that they do not hinder unity of heart-combination of effort is to shut our eyes to patent facts; whilst we can but feel they impede the operation of the great and beneficial influence which was designed by our Lord to be exercised by a united Church on an outlying world. There is a sighing for unity, not, indeed, in the direction of Rome, but in the direction of a comprehension which would not hurt tender consciences, and would leave large room for the arrangements and adaptations of individual Church life.

The Catholic Revival stands related in one more marked way to Nonconformists. If it succeed-if, apart from State enactments to favour it, there be no State enactments to suppress it, then it will be virtually decided that the "Sacrifice" theory of the Lord's Supper is part and parcel of the Church of England. Every Evangelical clergyman will then, according to the admission of the Conference, be a particeps criminis. The position of affairs as between the Evangelical Church clergy and ourselves has in past days been somewhat after this order. Nonconformists have felt aggrieved, that their conscientious adherence to principle has not been appreciated and honoured, by those in the Establishment, enabled to remain themselves conscientiously, where Nonconformists were not able to remain, at the same time manifestly not quite comfortable in their position, as witness the efforts of their party to obtain a revision of the Prayer Book. Nonconformists have said, instead of being looked upon as separatists and schismatics, these clergymen ought surely to have