own particular sentiments by a position which symbolically inculcates those sentiments, and is so by him intended.

And there is another aspect of this question of toleration, in regard to the Eastward position, which must not be overlooked. Much might be said, and much is said in this book, both by the author and by the Bishop of St. Andrew's and Mr. Kennion, whose papers he has appended, concerning the danger of aggravated divisions and increased party spirit which would result to the Church from an authoritatively optional use of this ceremonial act. The separation between the Church of England and the Nonconformists would be made greater than it is at present; and these are not times when it is wise to increase this separation. The doctrinal balance of the Church would be disturbed; for, on the hypothesis, it would become allowable to express by ceremony what the Prayer Book now refuses to express in words; hence the Church would be no longer precisely what it has been since 1662. But, above all, it would be divided into two hostile camps. Moderate men, who adopt the Eastward Position without being Ritualists, would not keep the country in peace, but would aggravate the war; for they would give to the extreme men that momentum of numerical strength which is precisely what they want. Ordinary observers do not distinguish narrowly among those who adopt the same outward symbol. Mere disclaimers of doctrinal significance, even if made officially by Bishops and Convocations, would have little effect; for, in times of excitement, the meaning of words and actions 'depends not on authority, but on popular acceptance.' With minds so inflamed, and parishes so divided, it is difficult to see how the Church of England could be preserved.

But to turn from the dismal prospect of what might happen on a very improbable hypothesis, we would make a general remark on those principles of true toleration and liberty which have been in our thoughts throughout the writing of this article.

In any community there seem, in point of fact, to be only two leading methods of securing the liberty of the governed. Either, on the one hand, we may assign to them a large share in the making and administration of the laws under which they live; or, on the other hand, we may give them but little of such power, and may, in fact, render any change of law difficult; but, per contra, we may lay down, once for all, a well-considered constitution providing by detailed enactments for the rights of all, and may rigidly bind the ruling part of the community to their observance. The former method represents the Presbyterian and Congregational systems; the latter is more descriptive of the present condition of the Church of England. Either system may work

work fairly well and secure toleration for all. But a tertium quid, which, while continuing the practical administration of affairs in the hands of a special class should loosen the fetters which bind that class to the precise observance of the laws originally laid down, would obviously be to break up the foundations of Liberty, and leave the governed at their mercy. Yet this is what is now claimed under the specious title of Toleration, whereas toleration for the caprices of the governing class means unconditional despotism over the governed. It will be very difficult to persuade the general body of English Churchmen, that the best guarantee for liberty is not to be found in the observance of law.

We cannot, however, conclude without reverting to that more general view of the whole question which we presented to our readers at the beginning of this paper. The dispute in the Church of England between the party of innovation and those who wish to retain the long-established form of worship has now attained an importance, of which we wish we could adequately express our sense. The argument, we venture to think, is closed, and the time is come for every faithful son of the Church to choose his course of action. We look with especial anxiety to the decision of that great central party, which, whatever its tendency to extreme views of clerical authority, has always been true to the essential doctrines of the Church, always earnest in the effort to preserve her national character by sound policy as well as by fidelity, and always jealous for the great principles of the Reformation. The tendency to confuse High Church' and 'Ritualism'-due partly to the æsthetic element of the 'revival,' and partly to the magnifying of the Priests' office-has grown into a danger, but only, we trust, in its first stage. It follows from their own deliberate avowals, that there is among us a 'Catholic' party, who virtually adopt the ritual and the doctrines of the Roman' Church. We readily acknowledge the force of the temptation in past days to join in the earlier march of a movement which revived and dignified some elements of truth and worship, and more recently to make a united stand against dangers, which we will not stay to examine, on the common lines of High Church' principles. But all history bears witness to the fate of those unnatural alliances which make common fears and antagonisms the ground of a false and fatal union between men of discordant convictions.

·

6

The enthusiastic sense of a new light and life, and of a new hold upon aspects of the Church's privileges and doctrines that had been obscured, received a rude check when a few distinguished leaders, and many weaker followers, sank through the

treacherous

treacherous crust on which they had ventured over the still smouldering embers of Romanism. Others still press forward, proclaiming that the path is right and free from danger; and there seems to be a strange attraction in the example of their boldness, in the feeling of former companionship, and in sympathy with brethren under the weight of the public censure which it is forgotten that they have wantonly defied. Is it not full time to ask whither they are leading, and how far their company is to be kept? Or rather, dropping all metaphor, we make the plain appeal to the Anglican Churchmen who are still sound at heart, whether, through mistaken kindness, or from motives which may seem to them worthier and more urgent, they will give their sanction to those Romanising practices, to which the whole traditions of their party are opposed, and of which they themselves in reality disapprove. Some plain mark of their decision at the present crisis, even their mere abstinence from the show of sanction to the innovating party, might effect a grand example of one of those mighty moral forces which often turn the tide of human affairs.

On this great party it is especially incumbent to preserve the loyalty which has been so long and affectionately cherished by the English laity for their Church. Not the least sign of that loyalty is the very slowness to rise in open resistance to the clergy, which has been mistaken for connivance with Ritualism. Even in politics, and much more in religion, the English people are slow to plunge into a contest of which none can see the issue, and are more wary than the clergy who teach the lesson that the beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water.' But the rising flood only presses with a heavier strain till the moment when some wanton hand tampers with the gates, or till the strongest patience and love of peace can no longer keep them shut. The deep, true Protestant feeling of the laity is alienated the more surely the more they keep in that discontent, the final explosion of which will come not only upon the innovators, but upon their abettors and apologists with the reduplicated fury of surprise and indignation. Moderate men, among the most steadfast in their allegiance to the Church, and their conviction that its national character is the best safeguard for its freedom, already feel, and not without justice, great alarm; but there is no need to resort to any desperate measures. Only let the Law be steadily enforced, and if the extreme Ritualists cannot conscientiously obey it, we will bid them God-speed to any region where they can find sincere followers without abusing their sacred office to entice the unwary.

INDEX

HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIRST VOLUME OF THE
QUARTERLY REVIEW.