the reader to Bingham's discussion of the subject in his eighteenth book. Quoting from Daillé, and adopting his conclusions, he points out a series of considerations which prove conclusively the utter absence of the slightest Primitive and Catholic' authority for this practice. Daillé, he says, shows that whereas the priests in the Roman Church are nicely instructed in the business of auricular confession, and teach and minister it daily to the people as the noblest act of their officeexactly what is done in the 'Priest in Absolution '—there is nothing of all this to be found in the genuine writings of the ancient Christians. Finally, he shows there was a change introduced into the ancient discipline in the ninth century, when private penance, enjoined by the priest, began to be pretty frequent and common. Such considerations, it will be observed, are conclusive against any system of habitual auricular confession, and their force is independent of the special peculiarities of the Roman doctrine. Once more we find ourselves brought back by the Ritualists not to Primitive or Catholic' practice, but to that of the very darkest ages.'

We ask, then, if we are not appealing to the most settled principles of the High Church party, when we call upon them to separate themselves formally and absolutely from the Ritualistic School? The vigorous and firm language of the Archbishop of Canterbury in Convocation the other day, denouncing a conspiracy in our body against the doctrine, the discipline, and the practice of our Reformed Church,' will be echoed by the great mass of the English laity. The time has more than fully come when it is necessary to proclaim that priests who inculcate doctrines and practices such as those of the members of the Society of the Holy Cross have no rightful place in the Church of England; and unless her communion can be purged of such corruptions, the great edifice of the Establishment will either be shaken to its foundations by public indignation, or be left to fall unsupported amidst public indifference. There is only one hope of averting some such doom, and that hope rests upon the course which may even yet be taken by the moderate High Churchmen. It rests with them, beyond any other body of men, to make the nation feel that that which is really Primitive and Catholic' is also really Protestant, and to expose the false pretensions of the medievalists who now shelter themselves under their protection. A similar appeal may be addressed to the laity. A settled aversion from religious controversies disposes them to leave such subjects alone until their interposition is absolutely im

perative,

perative, and they thus often present the appearance of a neutrality which they do not feel. But such of the laity as are attracted by Ritualism are marked by all the zeal and activity of converts to a new faith; and they make up in demonstrativeness what they lack in numbers and in weight. In this respect, also, the time has more than come when the laity who desire to see the Church of England maintained in her traditional position, as the national representative of primitive and Protestant principles in religion, should make their voice heard with the overwhelming preponderance which really belongs to it. Could we, indeed, but appeal to that 'living voice of the Church' of which so much has been heard of late, the comparative insignificance of this Ritualistic conspiracy' would be at once apparent. But the only way in which this appeal can now be answered is by the Laity, no less than the Clergy, speaking out in public meetings, in Parliament, and in Diocesan Synods, and giving the fullest and most public support to the Bishops in adopting towards the Ritualists the most decisive measures of repression at their command.

This appeal to the living voice of the Church' leads us to say one word, in conclusion, on the claims for constitutional liberty,' and for a greater degree of self-government being granted to the Church, which are urged so vehemently by men like Canon Carter. It will, indeed, be evident that if the positions we have maintained in this article be true, the existing Judicial and Legislative authorities of the Establishment have not imposed on the Clergy, in any material particular, a single disability inconsistent with their allegiance to really primitive and Catholic authority. There is, therefore, no urgent grievance now requiring redress; and when new liberties for the Church are demanded in order to secure better opportunities for introducing superstitious and corrupting practices, the demand is certainly made at an inopportune moment. But, as we have already said, we should appeal with the greatest confidence to a real representative assembly of the Church of England—an assembly representing Laity and Clergy alike, and we admit that there would be many advantages in being able, from time to time, to adjust minor points of ceremonial by reference to such an assembly. We own, for instance, that the present legal prohibition against mixing water with the wine in the Holy Communion cannot reasonably be maintained. The custom is

unquestionably primitive, and it is also harmless. If it be thought desirable to enter upon the consideration of such alterations in the present relations of Church and State, we shall

T 2

not

not shrink from the task. The Archbishop of Canterbury, in his valuable reply to Canon Carter's first pamphlet, has said that he will gladly bear his part in any well considered and wise reforms by which our Church's efficiency may be increased, by which the help of the Holy Spirit may be better secured to it, and our whole system brought into more complete conformity with the model of apostolic purity.' But he warns his correspondent that 'great humility and caution is required' before we plunge into unknown organic changes. The task indeed is one which can only be safely undertaken with great deliberation, and without reference to any immediate controversy. To attempt to reorganise our constitution in Church and State for the purpose of deciding a controversy like that of Ritualism would be to exclude the possibility of wise and temperate deliberations. There is no need for any such grave measures in order to settle the present dispute. The Ritualists are aliens from the Church of England, and are as foes in her household; and all the traditional parties in the Church-High, Low, and Broad-Laity and Clergy, must combine to expel either them or their doctrines if they desire the Church to retain that position in the nation which is her due. We fully recognise the personal excellencies which in many instances characterise them, and we do not doubt that in many cases their labours and their selfdevotion have borne valuable fruits, particularly among the poor. But precisely the same may be said of Roman Catholic priests, and it would be no argument whatever for admitting such priests to hold office in the Church of England. The theological, moral, and disciplinary system of the Ritualists is practically identical with that of the Church of Rome; and the English people are profoundly convinced that in its ultimate results it is utterly pernicious and disastrous. We cast it off completely at the Reformation, and our whole national life ever since has been based upon the great protest then made. The time seems to have come for that protest to be renewed, and no tenderness for individuals will debar us from such a renewal of it. The Ritualists boast that they are not Protestants; and none but Protestants have a right to a place in the ministry of the Church of England.

ART.

ART. IX.-1. The Progress of Russia in the East: an Historical Summary. London, 1854.

2. Correspondence respecting the Treatment of the Members of the United Greek Church in Russia. Presented to the House of Commons by Command of Her Majesty, in pursuance of their Address, dated March 5, 1877.

3. Letter of the Earl of Derby to Lord A. Loftus, May 1, 1877. (Parliamentary Papers, Turkey, No. 18.)

4. Letters of the Earl of Derby to Count Schouvaloff, and of Prince Gortschakoff to Count Schouvaloff. May 6th and 18th,

1877.

5. Parliamentary Debates. Hansard. Sessions 1853-1855. 6. Parliamentary Debates. Hansard. Session 1877.

A

LONG with the other references at the head of this article, we have placed, side by side, the records of our Parliamentary debates at what are unquestionably the two most notable epochs of our recent history, because, in addition to a strange parallel, they present us with a still more striking lesson. They serve to teach us, if the lesson were still needed, how quickly the memory of recent history is effaced from men's minds. In 1853 the ambition of one Power alarmed (we do not for the present say, whether justly or unjustly) every national interest in Europe. That ambition elevated itself in the specious guise of humanity, and professed to be directed only to the satisfaction of the general sentiments of mankind.' In the untoward circumstances of a neighbouring military empire, composed of conflicting elements, compelled for centuries to maintain itself as a sort of standing camp amidst hostile surroundings, embracing within its range antagonistic creeds and uncongenial races, and which from all these chances combined was a prey at once to anarchy and misrule, and to their natural consequence in unreasoning panics—in the circumstances of that neighbouring empire this ambitious Power found, as it had often found before, a pretext for interference ready to its hand. The crusade of religion, which it proclaimed, repeated all the bitterness of rancorous hate which history has taught us to expect as the sure fruit of religious wars. The mission of humanity, which it coupled with that crusade, was one which all the past history of that Power belied. But it was minutely attentive to all that might soothe those who were not on the alert to guard the interests of Europe. There was no lack of Proposals, of Vienna Notes, of schemes by

which

which a European concert might be maintained. There was but one obstacle to the success of all these proposals; and that was, as the result showed, that they were not intended to succeed. For a time, however, specious professions and spontaneous repudiations of ambition did their work beyond expectation. Our own Government was divided and hesitating; the respectable sympathies of the bulk of the nation shrank from an alliance with a Power like that of Turkey, that had stained its hands with the atrocities of the Lebanon. The unaggressive temper of the English people was slow to credit the existence of an ambition which seemed alien to all the instincts of modern Europe. Dreams of arbitration and international disarmament, the fruit of nearly forty years of peace, were delusions which it was hard to dispel. But this lasted only for a time. At length the disguise became more thin, and the danger of Russian ambition became clear to all, except a narrow section of the people committed to a conscientious paradox on the duties of a policy of peace independent of any considerations of national concern. Then came the massacre of Sinope, and the voice of a common indignation against the disturber of the peace made itself heard in every corner of the land. We may take the expression of the national feeling from a source where it may be hard for a reader of to-day to believe that it could be found-from the columns of the Times.' 'It would be unworthy of the position we occupy in the world,' says the Times' in December 1853, 'to hesitate when the course is clear before us. The English people are resolved that Russia shall not dictate to Europe, or convert the Black Sea, with all the various interests encompassing it, into a Russian lake. They desire that a course of consummate hypocrisy should be punished by a signal defeat, and that a stop be put to this aggression.'

We were forced to forget the scandals of Turkish misrule in the presence of an ambition which seemed to threaten, not England only, but all those interests, far beyond the pale of her own territory, of which England is the custodian. Treacherous professions and the men who trusted, or who fancied, or pretended that they trusted them, had held our hand and tied our tongue too long. When the struggle came, it came with a tenfold weight for the mistake of that delay. What it cost us it is for the historian of the Crimean War to tell; the least part of the price was the hundred millions that it added to our national debt.

But at least, one would have thought, it had given to us a lesson not to be soon unlearnt. Before any crisis, which re

sembles,