obvious meaning they require an exactness of belief as necessary to salvation far beyond the mind of the Church of England. The very fact that the advocates and admirers of the creed proposed a declaration, shows that even in their judgment it needed explanation to make it really useful in the public service. It rather obstructs than promotes devotion and impedes rather than encourages a sincere and cordial belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is said by some that the last clauses attest the danger of misbelief as well as unbelief, but one of the effects of its being read in the services of the Church is to produce unbelief. Some defend the objectionable clauses with the words of Scripture He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.' But there is no correspondence between the two cases. Scripture does not say, must thus think, after a minute explication. The sharp and peremptory words are alien from the tone of the New Testament. They are painful to many Christian minds, are evidently the product of an unhealthy age and too much resemble the polemics of the fifth century.

Hawkins was much opposed to the movement which was identified with the names of Newman and Pusey. He objected to the use of eóтOкos as applied to the Mother of Jesus, but he disliked still more the ordinary English, French or Latin translations of this word. The ideas and phrases which were becoming common in Oxford were wholesale importations from French Roman Catholic writers.'!

Thomas Arnold 2 was also of Oriel, but left Oxford to be Master of Rugby. He was famous as a schoolmaster, a church reformer, and a liberal churchman. He advocated the rights of the Roman Catholics, even at the expense of the Established Church in Ireland. The first principle of his religion was to do what is right. To be unjust for the sake of what we may think truth, is to show a want of faith in truth. It is, moreover, impolitic; the more, for instance, we deny the Roman Catholic what is due to him, the more devoted he becomes to his superstition. It is because Ireland has been persecuted that it has remained Roman Catholic. The persecuted naturally hate the religion of their persecutors.

1 ! Sermons on Scriptural Types and Sacraments, 1851.

The reforms proposed for the Church of England were extensive. The attack on the Church was violent and unreasonable, but the same was true of the Church's defence. Some of the reforms proposed were the commutation of tithes and the remodelling of the Episcopal order. Bishops were not to be translated, and their incomes were to be more equalised. Dioceses were to be divided, new districts formed, and clergy who neglected their duty, or were incapable of performing it, to be speedily removed. The phantom uniformity was no more to be pursued. It only allured men from the attainment of what is a real and substantial union. The Church was to be made wide enough to comprehend the great body of those who at present were Nonconformists. The chief difficulty would be with Quakers, Roman Catholics, and Unitarians. It was also desirable that the Church should not be identified with any one class of society, but that all should be represented. To be truly national, every class should have a share in its government. The Scotch Church had failed in not reaching up to the level of the aristocracy, and the English Church in not coming down to the level of the working people. Changes in patronage were also recommended, so far, at least, that unfit persons might not be instituted.1

Dr Arnold contemplated a work which he did not finish, in which he was to carry out the idea of Hooker, and in some respects of Coleridge, that the State and the Church were the same body under different aspects. The principles of the gospel were to be the guide in civil legislation. Next to Popery, one of the greatest devices of Satan has been to advance his own kingdom by keeping Christian principles out of civil society. The Church had been identified with. the clergy. This was the first and fundamental apostasy. Church and State in their ideals have one object, that is the highest welfare of man. To accomplish this the State must act with the wisdom and goodness of the Church, and the Church must be invested with the sovereign power of the State, these being in reality not two societies but one. What Arnold seems to mean is that there should be a closer alliance

obvious meaning they require an exactness of belief as necessary to salvation far beyond the mind of the Church of England. The very fact that the advocates and admirers of the creed proposed a declaration, shows that even in their judgment it needed explanation to make it really useful in the public service. It rather obstructs than promotes devotion and impedes rather than encourages a sincere and cordial belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is said by some that the last clauses attest the danger of misbelief as well as unbelief, but one of the effects of its being read in the services of the Church is to produce unbelief. Some defend the objectionable clauses with the words of Scripture He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.' But there is no correspondence between the two cases. Scripture does not say, must thus think, after a minute explication. The sharp and peremptory words are alien from the tone of the New Testament. They are painful to many Christian minds, are evidently the product of an unhealthy age and too much resemble the polemics of the fifth century.

Hawkins was much opposed to the movement which was identified with the names of Newman and Pusey. He objected to the use of EóтOKоs as applied to the Mother of Jesus, but he disliked still more the ordinary English, French or Latin translations of this word. The ideas and phrases which were becoming common in Oxford were wholesale importations from French Roman Catholic writers.'!

Thomas Arnold 2 was also of Oriel, but left Oxford to be Master of Rugby. He was famous as a schoolmaster, a church reformer, and a liberal churchman. He advocated the rights of the Roman Catholics, even at the expense of the Established Church in Ireland. The first principle of his religion was to do what is right. To be unjust for the sake of what we may think truth, is to show a want of faith in truth. It is, moreover, impolitic; the more, for instance, we deny the Roman Catholic what is due to him, the more devoted he becomes to his superstition. It is because Ireland has been persecuted that it has remained Roman Catholic. The persecuted naturally hate the religion of their persecutors.

1 Sermons on Scriptural Types and Sacraments, 1851.

The reforms proposed for the Church of England were extensive. The attack on the Church was violent and unreasonable, but the same was true of the Church's defence. Some of the reforms proposed were the commutation of tithes and the remodelling of the Episcopal order. Bishops were not to be translated, and their incomes were to be more equalised. Dioceses were to be divided, new districts formed, and clergy who neglected their duty, or were incapable of performing it, to be speedily removed. The phantom uniformity was no more to be pursued. It only allured men from the attainment of what is a real and substantial union. The Church was to be made wide enough to comprehend the great body of those who at present were Nonconformists. The chief difficulty would be with Quakers, Roman Catholics, and Unitarians. It was also desirable that the Church should not be identified with any one class of society, but that all should be represented. To be truly national, every class should have a share in its government. The Scotch Church had failed in not reaching up to the level of the aristocracy, and the English Church in not coming down to the level of the working people. Changes in patronage were also recommended, so far, at least, that unfit persons might not be instituted.1

Dr Arnold contemplated a work which he did not finish, in which he was to carry out the idea of Hooker, and in some respects of Coleridge, that the State and the Church were the same body under different aspects. The principles of the gospel were to be the guide in civil legislation. Next to Popery, one of the greatest devices of Satan has been to advance his own kingdom by keeping Christian principles out of civil society. The Church had been identified with the clergy. This was the first and fundamental apostasy. Church and State in their ideals have one object, that is the highest welfare of man. To accomplish this the State must act with the wisdom and goodness of the Church, and the Church must be invested with the sovereign power of the State, these being in reality not two societies but one. What Arnold seems to mean is that there should be a closer alliance

between religion and the State, that the Church should not be a mere clerical body over against the State and separate from it, but a power to maintain the supremacy of public righteousness. This, and not systems of worship, is the aim of Christianity, and the national forms as the organs of public righteousness are to be used as its main instrument.

Arnold's views of the Bible and Revelation are found in an essay on the 'Right Interpretation of Scripture." He starts with the principle that what holds good of natural gifts holds good also of Revelation. We must apply ourselves to it with a sound understanding, and a sincere and teachable heart. Some read the Bible as if it were like the Koran, all composed at one time and addressed to people similarly situated. But a command given to one man or to one generation of men can be binding on other men and other generations, only in so far as the circumstances are the same. God's Revelation to man is gradual, and adapted to his condition in the different periods in which it was made. Commands were given at one time which would not have been given at another time. In every revelation of God to man there must be accommodation, unless it pleased God to change man's state from that of imperfection to perfection. A command from the Infinite to the finite must be in accordance with the views of the latter. Complete knowledge could not be given on one point without extending it to other points, so that the knowledge conveyed must be adapted to our ignorance.

Henry Hart Milman, though not of Oriel, may be classed with the Oxford Noetics. He was Bampton Lecturer in 1827, when he argued for the truth of Christianity from the character and conduct of the Apostles.3 The argument was conducted after the manner of Paley, and the theology was at least as orthodox as Paley's. A great revolution had been effected in the world by the preaching of a few men gathered together in an upper room. They changed the whole constitution of society, and their work is as remarkable for its permanence as for its extent. This was due to the inherent

1 Preface to Sermons.

2 B. 1791, d. 1868.

3 The Character and Conduct of the Apostles considered as evi