counterpart of the Anglican position. The Donatists objected to their name and claimed that of Catholic, by the usual Protestant argument that every true Christian is a Catholic, and they called the other party by the name of Cæcilianists, just as now Catholics are called Romanists or Papists.

The Fathers argued against these Donatists that they were schismatics and outside the pale of the Church Catholic. The very fact that they were merely a national Church, not holding communion with the churches in other lands, was clear evidence of their being in a state of schism. They could not be the whole Catholic Church for they were only in Africa. They could not even be a part of the true Church, for the Church is one and not divided. St Augustine with patristic logic and patristic interpretation of Scripture proved that the Church was one, for in Abraham's seed all nations were to be blessed; the Messiah was to have the nations for His heritage and to rule from sea to sea.

The Donatists defended their separation on the ground of the corruptions of the Catholic Church. This was and is the common plea of schismatics. The Churches in other lands had also been Traditores, and so the whole world was contaminated. The Book of Homilies, in like manner, spoke of the corruptions of the Church before the Reformation. But St. Augustine answered them both by showing from Christ's promises that the Church should never fail. This Church consists of the aggregate churches of all lands, and any one out of communion with them is in schism. Securus judicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum, 'The entire world judges safely that they are not good who separate themselves from the entire world.'

There are yet other points of parallel between the Donatists and the Anglicans. They both soon divided up into sects, each claiming that it alone had a true baptism or true doctrine. Augustine said to the Donatists 'You have no difficulty in deciding that these different sects seceded from you and not you from them.' Primitive Donatism saw different sects prevailing in different provinces, Rogatenses in Mauritania, Urbanenses in Numidia, and so forth, just as in England in some counties Methodists prevail, in others Quakers, and in

can point out the sects that have separated from it in England, and so the Catholic Church those who have separated in any part of the world. It is one, and cannot embrace a multitude of heterogeneous churches, like the unity of the Tract writers, who make a Catholic Church of those whose faith is as different as Greek, Syrian, Anglican, and those of Rome. Cresconius, a Donatist, while claiming communion with the Catholic world said that the East did not communicate with Africa, nor Africa with the East, to which Augustine answered that the East did not communicate with the chaff of Africa, that is the Donatists, but with the Catholic wheat over the whole world. The Catholics in Africa might be few, but they had active communion with the whole Church. So with the few Catholics in England; while the National Church was only in England, Catholic bishops had letters of communion when they travelled in foreign countries, but what Church would receive such letters from an Anglican bishop? Not one in Europe, China, India, Syria.

Another evidence of Catholicity to which the Tractarians do not even pretend is communion with the Church of St Peter. St Optatus proves the Donatists to be Schismatics because they were separated from the Roman See. The English Church in 1534 disowning all connection with the Church of Rome, from that moment ceased to communicate with it. It thus ceased at the same time to communicate with the whole Catholic world. The Fathers in their defences of the unity of the Church as the aggregate of Churches throughout the world, did not admit the possibility of any case that could justify such separation.

Once more, as among the Anglicans, so among the Donatists there sprang up a High Church party. The leader of it was Tichonius who demonstrated the absurdity of excluding numerous churches dispersed all over the world from being the true Church, yet he was blind to the fact that his own Church was in schism, and that it was his duty as an individual to become a Catholic. It was not necessary to name the leader of the Tractarians who answered to this Tichonius. It was enough to mention the Faussets and Shuttleworths of our day who had their counterparts among the fellow

pushed to their legitimate consequences, would necessarily lead to the abandoning of Africanism and the embracing of Catholicity. Donatists called Catholic bishops intruders as Anglicans do now. They allowed themselves to be called Africans or the African Church, just as Tractarians are called Anglicans and the Anglican Church. The Donatists were severe against the sects that separated from them just as the Tractarians are against the Dissenters. The Donatists denounced the Maximianists for their separation, as the Tract Writers denounce Wesleyans and Quakers. They see the mote of schism that is in the Dissenters' eye, but not the beam that is in the eye of the Anglican.1

Another branch of the Tractarian question was discussed in a subsequent article 2 attributed to Dr Lingard. The title was 'Did the Anglican Church reform itself?' The position controverted was that of William Palmer in his Treatise on the Christian Church,' and of Dr Hook in his famous sermon before the Queen.3 Hitherto it was the received opinion that the Church of England had been reformed by the State. The old bishops of Mary's time were deprived when Elizabeth came to the throne, the new installed, the Mass abolished, and the Liturgy substituted by the authority of the civil power. But now on this subject from Oxford has come new light. The illusion of the past is dispelled, and it is found that the civil authority did not reform the Church, but simply enabled the Church to reform itself. Thus to use the favourite simile of Dr Hook, 'it was the same Church with its face washed.' She had been before the Reformation the daughter of the Scarlet Lady,' 'the foul, filthy old withered harlot,' as the Homilies call the Church of Rome, but now she is washed and made clean.

The Tractarians admit that there was a true Catholic and Apostolic Church in England before the Reformation. Now

'Bishop Thirlwall was once impudently charged with being one of those who hounded Dr Newman out of the Church of England, but he was not hounded, he was ferreted, and this was not done by Thirlwall but by Wiseman who unearthed Newman in his last resource, and proved him to be the precise parallel of Tichonius, the leader of the High Church party in the National Church of Africa. See Thirlwall's Remains, vol. ii, p. 353.

2 1840.

3 1838.

there is a Protestant National Church. It is true that the name Protestant is repudiated by the Tract writers, but the law of the land declares that the Head of the English Church must be Protestant. Can a Church be different from its Head?

William Palmer said that 'the bishops and clergy of all England and Ireland determined that the Roman Patriarch had no jurisdiction in these realms.' The Church of England had once delegated jurisdiction to the Church of Rome, but it was now withdrawn. Against this statement are adduced the simple facts of history. The first act in the drama of the Reformation was the recognition of the royal supremacy. The King caused informations to be filed against Cardinal Wolsey for the acceptance and exercise of legantine power, and against the clergy as abettors of Wolsey, though he had placed them under the necessity of obeying Wolsey's authority. The King compelled Convocation to pass an act that he and he alone was supreme Head of the Church of England. Such an act was passed with the saving clause 'so far as is allowed by the law of Christ.' This was not to the King's liking, but it passed. Two years later came the severance of all com. munication with the Papal See. This was the work of the civil power, and apparently without even any consultation with Convocation. Parliament passed an act declaring the King supreme Head of the Church of England, and omitting the saving clause inserted by the clergy. Then followed a royal injunction to the archbishops and bishops to abstain from the exercise of all episcopal functions till the King, that is the King as represented by Thomas Cromwell, had made a visitation of the dioceses. In the Convocation of 1536, the delegate of Cromwell, vicegerent of the King, claimed the first place.

During the reign of Edward, Cranmer was supreme. He now commanded when he seemed only to obey. What the bishops would have rejected, he enjoined in the name of the sovereign. In his name came injunctions about 'images, ceremonies, holidays and church services.' Men of the 'new learning' were put into all vacant benefices and bishoprics. Then came a new Liturgy, a new ordinal, new Articles of doctrine, and if the king had lived, there would have been a

as the supremacy of the Pope was concerned, was changed. The worship, the doctrine were changed, and yet the Tract writers say it was the same Church at the end of Edward's reign which it had been at the beginning of Henry's, though the difference was precisely the same as between the present Church of England and the Church of Rome.

Mary restored the old Church which was identical with that at the beginning of Henry's time, but not with that of Edward's. Elizabeth repealed the acts of former Parliaments and established new ones, not with the approbation but rather in defiance of the Church. Every bishop protested-the whole Convocation protested. Even the House of Lords only passed the Act for the Book of Common Prayer by a majority of three, and to get this majority two bishops had been imprisoned, and four commoners of Reformed principles had been raised to the peerage. These enactments were the basis of the present Church of England, yet the Tract writers say the Church of England reformed itself.

The Romeward tendency of the Tractarian movement was first clearly manifested in Richard Hurrel Froude,1 Newman's earliest Oxford friend and fellow-labourer. The editors of his 'Remains '2 speak of 'the keen courageous searching precision' with which he set forth his ecclesiastical and theological opinions. He was certainly clear and decided, evincing both earnestness and candour. He lived an ascetic life, chastising himself as he expressed it, 'before the Lord,' and he died early. At one time the floor was his nightly bed, and often his fast was not broken till the day began to wear away. He 'adored' Charles I and Archbishop Laud, hated Milton, disliked Wycliffe, and 'admired' Cardinal Pole. The Puritans were his special aversion, but he was somewhat reconciled to them when he found that they maintained a jus divinum for Church polity, though their polity was of the wrong kind. They looked for a divine institution in the Bible to the neglect of history and found nothing better than the Geneva 'platform.' But even this was better than the belief of the Reforming bishops who looked on ordination as emanating from the Queen. Though the Puritans were on