enactment passed in a year of vengeance by zealots drunk with royalism. No man with any particle of spirit-no man with any breath of divine aspiration—no one ever likely to confer lustre on his church, will endure to confess to himself so mean and base an object of study. Academic theologians of any consideration are of course animated to their labours by a thirst for truth. They see by their sides other ardent minds--a chemist, an astronomer, a geologist, a historian, a Greek critic--each in his own sphere, developing not only truths of greater or smaller beauty, but, what is much more, the laws and conditions for the attainment of truth. Nothing can convince them that while it is possible now to attain clearer knowledge of Greek history and of the remains of Greek literature than was possessed by scholars two centuries back, it is nevertheless impossible to improve upon their knowledge of Ecclesiastical History, and of the fragmentary literature called Old and New Testament. And, with all deference to the learning of the eminent judge before whom two of the recent trials have come, we still must assert that his estimate of the relations of history to theology is very deficient. In commenting on the seventh Article against Mr. Wilson, he avows that he can find no repugnance to the Articles and Formularies in denying that "Jesus revealed his religion as a historical faith." From a lawyer this may be intelligible; but in his judgment concerning Dr. Williams, who (as alleged in Article XIII.) had used historical reasoning to disprove the Church-doctrines of baptismal regeneration and original sin, Dr. Lushington goes farther: "I am of opinion that the passage is essentially historical, and cannot be truly construed as a maintaining of doctrine." Yet it is notorious that in a historical faith (and such is Church Christianity) no confutation of a doctrine can be more decisive than by showing its recency and its origin. The passage from Dr. Rowland Williams which was impugned is thus quoted by the judge:

"The first Christians held that the heart was purified by Faith: the accompanying symbol, Water, became by degrees the instrument of purification. Holy Baptism was at first preceded by a vow, in which the young soldier expressed his consciousness of spiritual truth; but when it became twisted into false analogy with circumcision, the rite degenerated into a magical form, and the Augustinian notion of a curse inherited by infants was developed in connexion with it."

No better example is needed to illustrate the folly and the cruelty of establishing a school of learned theology and expecting those who study in it to keep their belief conformable to a

standard of faith enacted 200 years ago. It is impossible to read ungarbled Ecclesiastical History without discovering Infant Baptism to be a rite long posterior to the Apostles. Augustin himself, though son of a pious Christian mother, was not baptized until full manhood. His success in his controversy with Pelagius established in the church the theory of blood-pollution inherited from Adam, and of infant baptism as its necessary cure. No student can arrive at a conviction that these are facts of history without seeing that the whole basis of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is overturned, and that the Church Service on this rite is (what Dr. Williams indirectly calls it) a magical superstition. To forbid historical studies, to put into an Index Expurgatorius the works of Neander and Gfroerer, would in some sense be a mercy to Oxford and Cambridge divines; but actively to encourage such studies, while dictating to what conclusions they shall lead, is a cruelty and an indecency. We cannot be blinded—and we are sure that English statesmen are not blinded-by the arbitrary and false assertion, that it is beyond the powers of the human mind to examine the evidence and the origin of this and all the other ecclesiastical dogmas. One and all, their historical development is on the surface of history. Gibbon has made widely known the assertion of Petavius, that all the pre-Nicene Fathers are heretical on the doctrine of the Trinity. To assert or to deny the fact does not now concern us: it suffices to insist that the inquiry what doctrine was taught on this subject by Justin Martyr, by Hippolytus, by Irenæus, by Origen, by Cyprian, by Athanasius, is as strictly historical and human, and not at all more difficult, than the inquiry what Anaxagoras, Plato and Aristotle taught; and for an English Parliament to enact to what results the historian shall come, would in both cases be equally absurd, in the former far more pernicious. For if any one, on inquiry, find the assertion of Petavius to be true; if he find that the Ecclesiastical Trinity is a doctrine gradually built up in five or six centuries; that the last creed is falsely called Athanasius's, and is nothing but a Latin creed; that it has a clause violently offensive to the Greek Church; that the Nicene Creed has been garbled into partial and apparent conformity to it it is no longer possible for him to give assent and consent, ex animo, to the Anglican doctrines. The whole weight of the so-called Christian Evidences (which are assumed to outweigh "conscience and devout reason") depends on the traditional descent of the doctrines from the Apostles and from Christ. If

historical testimony cut the links of this tradition, the doctrine which is shown to have a later origin falls to the ground. It is then nothing short of tyrannical to found institutions for ecclesiastical study, and then punish the students as criminals, ejecting them from their positions, their connexion, and their honourably earned emoluments, if their conclusions militate against the prejudgments of the Legislature. The injustice and folly are the more remarkable, because the same men who are zealous against the least relaxation of legislative dogmatism, also treat it as a sin if any one, as Dr. R. Williams, deny the religion of Jesus to be a historical faith. Yet if it be such, in whole or in part, it is in the same proportion amenable to disproof from the facts of history. The Legislature would be ashamed of itself if it were surprised into an enactment which dictated to a chemical or astronomical professor, or to a Greek historian, to what conclusions he shall arrive; yet it is not ashamed of having so acted towards ecclesiastical historians and students of sacred literature.

The considerations which we have hitherto pressed do not at all supersede an opposite inquiry-whether the clerical authors of the "Essays and Reviews" are justifiable in the court of conscience for retaining their position as clergymen, when aware that their convictions deviate so widely from the established system. We must not refuse to express ourselves on this subject, but fear that we cannot do it concisely; so many are the topics of excuse, as well as grounds of censure, special perhaps to each essayist. And, first of all, we must urge against every other clergyman the salutary words: "He that is without sin among you, let him first throw the stone." Do the Evangelical clergy sincerely believe the Baptismal Service and certain passages in the Catechism? How many of the High or Broad Church, or indeed of any name, accept the Article on Predestination and Election to Life? How many believe (what the Articles pointedly declare) that Christ carried with him into heaven his flesh and bones? The Apostles' Creed, so often solemnly recited, is not satisfied with the simple statement, Christ died and was buried; but superadds in the next clause, He descended into hell. What is meant by Hell which is not included in Death and Burial, and requires a descent? History answers assuredly, that those who formed the Creed believed in a "Limbo," where "Christ preached to the spirits in prison, who aforetime were disobedient," &c. How many of the clergy believe this, or believe anything at all about the Limbo? Yet they may read of it in the canonical epistles of Peter and Jude, and may get curious illustrations from

the book of Enoch.

We do not at all say that clergymen in general offend against their subscriptions to the extent in which some at least of the Essayists offend. But we do say that the Church Formularies to which all subscribe are inherently incongruous, and such as no one mind can believe. The fact is dimly avowed by many of the panegyrists of the Church, who boast of its many-sidedness and latitude. Notoriously it was in many respects a compromise, and retains copious fragments of great antiquity worked into a conglomerate with many more novel views: Augustinianism, proceeding from Luther and Calvin, has been partially adopted and combined with very different schools of Christianity. Nothing short of a miracle could give real unity and self-consistency to a system brought forth by political and theological struggle. A peer of the last century publicly taunted the Church with having Calvinistic Articles, an Arminian clergy, and a Papal Liturgy. We by no means adopt his epigram as an absolute truth, yet it contains too much truth to be despised. The Articles on Predestination and kindred topics could never have been the product of the same mind as the Baptismal Service and Catechism; and it is notorious that one or other side of the dilemma is sure to be distressing to every clergyman. Of the Homilies we have said nothing; but Dr. Lushington avows them to be a "standard of doctrine" for clergymen. One thing is certain, that they are extremely disliked by the High Church, if ever opened by them. A large part of the clergy manage to remain on good terms with their own consciences by shutting their eyes to a sensible fraction of that which they have subscribed. We sincerely pity their position, and while they assume merely a defensive tone, we have no thought of severity. But when they assume to condemn their fellow clergymen (perhaps abler and nobler souls than they), they force us to consider their own delinquencies in this same matter of subscription.

A second consideration must be urged, not as justifying, yet as largely palliating, unfaithfulness of clergymen to their subscriptions; and this is, the stubborn refusal of the legislature to allow them to lay aside their clerical character when they desire it.* Only last session an attempt was made in this direction; but precisely the same Episcopalian doctrinaires who bitterly assail such men as the Essayists, with equal bitterness insist on retaining them within the clerical order. This will never make it right for a clergyman to carry concealment into hypocrisy, as

The law is since altered.-(Note of 1887.)

it is to be feared that many do; but, as between man and man, it does authorize any clergyman who speaks his mind to say to his brethren, "I shall not abandon my clerical rights or functions, since the law will not allow me to disown my clerical disabilities and responsibilities. And if any prosecute me by law, I will invoke the utmost letter of the law in my favour." To tax such clergymen as breaking a covenant made by them with society, is certainly unjust. And on this point Dr. Lushington appears to us (though on the whole he may seem far too favourable to the accused persons), to overstate the meaning of their subscription. He lays down (p. 11)-" The subscription to the Articles is a declaration by the subscriber of his conviction in their truth, and a promise to abide in them." The last words, as far as we can find, are wholly gratuitous; and the learned judge adds no justification of them, no clue to his reasons. Let it be for a moment imagined, that the subscription had been commanded by law to be made in the following words: "I declare that I from my heart believe, and never will cease to believe, all that is contained in the formularies." We ask boldly: If the legislature had dared to impose this, how many of the existing clergy would ever have made the declaration? Nay, further, if this interpretation be correct, all Fellows of Colleges, all Masters of Arts of the old Universities, and until recently, all members of the University of Oxford (though they may be laymen, and have ceased to belong to the Universities), still are bound for life to believe the Thirtynine Articles. They made the same subscription as do the clergy, and it cannot possibly be prospective to the one, if it is not to the other. Conscious as we are, what a revulsion of feeling, what indignation, every ingenuous young man would feel, on being asked to declare that he would "always hereafter" believe this or that, we seem to have herein a sufficient and decisive disproof of this particular clause of the judgment. But the consideration that no one dreams laymen to be bound by their past subscriptions, and that the judge emphatically announces this, seems to us to put the question beyond doubt. The clergymen who believed when he subscribed, has rigidly observed good faith. To future belief he did not and could not pledge himself.

Nevertheless, this plea is obviously unavailing for the case of those clergymen who are willing at any moment to renew their old subscriptions; whether in order to receive new preferment, or because there is some authority over them which can command the reiteration of the act. It is notorious that the Vice-Chancellor