their condemnation the body and blood of Christ against which they sin." The distinction between eating the body of Christ and yet not partaking of it, secures the real presence in a sense different from those who only admit a presence by faith or to the worthy receivers. The rest of the Article is explained with the ingenuity learned from Newman. The sacrament according to this Article 'is not to be gazed upon.' Here Pusey intervenes with the interpretation-it does not say 'it may not.' Again the Article says, 'it is not reserved by Christ's ordinance.' Here Pusey again comes in with 'does not condemn' explaining that the writers of the Articles had in view only the justification of their own practice and , not the condemnation of others. The Church of England was to be united with the Church of Rome by means of Newman's interpretation of the Articles, and the modified representation of Romish doctrines found in Bossuet and Du Pin.2 Pusey defended the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures from the most orthodox standpoint. The Bible critics were unbelievers and their criticism was the result of their unbelief.3

John Keble whose sermon marks externally the beginning of the Tractarian movement, was a poet rather than a theologian. We must often seek his theology in his poetry, where its aspect is brighter than when clothed in the form of dogma; yet he was essentially a dogmatist in the same sense as Newman, relying on outward authority more than on inward realisation. He had not, like Newman, come from the Evangelical School, nor did he speak of any time of conversion. There had been no spiritual or intellectual struggle. Brought up among those who leant on authority, and recognising no Church as of divine institution, or indeed as a Church, if it had not bishops, priests and deacons, he continued in the same faith to the end of life. He was the author of Tract 89, on The Mysticism attributed to the Early Fathers,' which was left unfinished, and he defended Tract 90.5 Like all the party to which he belonged he pre1 Pusey tells an awful story of a woman who partook unworthily, and immediately after became 'possessed.' Life, vol. ii, 519. 3 Pref. to Daniel, 1864.

2 See Eirenicon.

ferred the interpretations of the Scriptures found in the Fathers to those which depended on the learning of modern scholars, and he was so impervious to any lessons from the discoveries of science, that he solemnly believed the world was made in six days, and that the shells and fossil bones in the bowels of the earth were placed there as they are by the Creator's hands. He had a happy spirit of conservative repose. He loved the whole world and hated nothing but liberal politics and progressive theology.

Any approaches which Keble made to the Church of Rome were only in such things as he thought compatible with perfect allegiance to the Church of England. He instituted confession in his parish, believing it prevented immorality. He gave to the Virgin Mary'all but adoring love.' Newman rejoiced at this approach to Virgin worship, but to the last found Keble far off from the Romish faith. He com

plained that Keble did not ascribe to baptism the holiness or innocency of childhood when he spoke of a little child's 'soft sleeping face.' Yet it was presumed Keble really did believe that the innocency of childhood was not due to nature but to baptism. What he may omit to express as a poet, he believes as a dogmatist. That Keble ascribed to the humanity of Jesus the attributes of divinity is only to be expected from His theological position. He could sing of

'The awful Child on Mary's knee.'

It should however be added that he also sung

'Was not our Lord a little child,

Taught by degrees to pray,

By father dear, and mother mild
Instructed day by day?'

a more orthodox view of that humanity which grew in wisdom as in stature.2

Henry Edward Manning, who died Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, was not one of the Tract writers, but he was 1 This was said to Buckland whom he once met on a stage coach. 2 The Dublin Review said of Keble's Sermon on 'Primitive Tradition,' that but for a few sentences in which he tacks his theory to the XXXIX Articles the sermon might have been

As

one of the best representatives of Tractarian principles. in the case of Newman, tendencies can be traced in his earliest sermons which some would say were bound logically to lead him to the Church of Rome. In one on 'The Rule of Faith' he maintained that the Church of England in making the Scriptures the rule of faith, did not teach that they were so clear as not to need an interpreter. Every man was not at liberty to interpret them for himself. It had been argued by Roman Catholics that if the Church is limited by the Scriptures, there is no one to determine if the Church teaches according to the Scriptures. This question other Reformed Churches might answer for themselves, but the Church of England takes her interpretation from Catholic tradition. The rule of faith is retrospective, and the first axiom of Apostolic truth is that whatsoever is new is not of Christ.

In a sermon on the Unity of the Church,' Manning said that all must believe in the one Church. This is necessary to salvation, for out of the Church none can be saved. This was said to warn those of the Church of England who helped sectarian communities or were present at any Nonconformist worship. The unity of the Church was proved from the Fathers. St Cyril said, 'Avoid the hateful assemblies of heretics and cleave always to the Holy Catholic Church in which thou wert regenerated.' It is shown from St Augustine that heretics do not love God, and schismatics do not love their neighbour, and that there can be no love of God outside the Catholic Church.

This idea of the Church implied the conveyance of grace by the Church's ordinances. Regeneration is by baptism literally. By it we are made new creatures. 'Old things are passed away, and all things have become new.' We look upward to a new heaven and stand upon a new earth. It may be that this is qualified by what is said farther on, Those whose lives show that they are not new creatures, in whom old things have not passed away, are still members of His body and have received "that thing which by nature they cannot have." The baptised have a sense which anticipates truth. 1Preached at the primary visitation of the Bishop of Chichester, 1838.

1

They know it before they hear it.' Yet it is added that the multitude of the baptised do not know Christ, do not belong to the Church invisible, are not converted. Baptism then is not conversion, for every baptised soul needs a perfect conversion to God.2 The baptised are made sons, but they are not led by the Spirit, only some retain the spiritual reality. All are not Israel who are of Israel. Notwithstanding the light infused by baptism, new faculties awakened, new powers implanted, there are no outward signs of actual grace.

own.

It is too true that thousands in the visible Church show less love and less compunction than many who are in separation from the unity of the body of Christ,' an admission by the way that scarcely agrees with what had just been quoted from St Augustine. A church with authority and the power of dispensing the divine gifts must have a jurisdiction of its It cannot be subject to the State. It is a divine. kingdom, and in matters spiritual must govern itself. But this government the Church of England has not, and never had since the Reformation. Before that it was independent of the civil power, but the royal supremacy was established in the time of Henry VIII. The Church of Rome was found to answer this ideal while the Church of England failed. When Manning left the Church of England, Julius Hare, who was Archdeacon in the same diocese said of him, ‘Our lost brother is a man whom it is scarcely possible to know without loving him, but you will also feel that the loss is one which the whole diocese must needs deplore. It has been the loss of one who has been author of diverse good works among us, he has been the fosterer of every good work. Nay, the whole Church cannot but mourn over the loss of one of the holiest of her sons. One who had a special gift of winning hearts to God. He has become a victim to the pestilence which has been stalking through our Church.'s

William Palmer of Worcester College wrote a treatise on the Church of Christ', in which he spoke of the perpetuity and unity of the Church as a visible community. It was one, though among the different branches communion might be interrupted. It is constituted by a succession of bishops from 2 Vol. iii, p. 9.

1 Vol. ii, p. 23.

the time of the Apostles. On this theory of the visible Epis copal unity of the Church, it was difficult to defend the Reformation, which resulted in division. But Palmer justified the Reformation and the Reformers in other countries as well as in England. Luther did not intend to separate from the Church Catholic, nor did he really separate. The same with Zwingle. He and his followers did not separate, but they were separated and treated as heretics. The Reformed Churches on the Continent were left without the apostolic ministry. But this is justified on the plea of necessity. Their position was extraordinary, and the result of circumstances which they did not create. The same argument serves for the Church of Scotland. The Reformers of that country were not schismatics. They did not separate themselves from the Catholic Church, but were expelled by the Romish party. They were without Episcopacy, which was their misfortune, but they were not opposed to it. The jus divinum of Presbyterianism was first taught by Andrew Melville.

The Church of England retained the apostolical constitution. The whole body ecclesiastical reformed itself. It is often urged by the enemies of the English Reformation that it was the work of the civil ruler or of the state. But the power of the Pope was not transferred to the King. It was simply suppressed. The bishops received their office through a royal commission, but this only concerned their temporal, not their spiritual duties. The injunctions issued by the sovereign were only confirmatory of those already made by the Church. The kings of England before the Reformation had often issued such injunctions without asking the consent of convocation. All the changes effected in the time of Edward were done by authority of the bishops. The deprivation of some bishops in this reign by the authority of the king could not be justified, yet they were deprived not for heresy but for disobedience.

In the time of Edward there were no variations of doctrine. The Church remained the same as under Henry. The XLII Articles had been compiled, but they were never authorised by any convocation. They were never actually in force. The XXXIX Articles were not sanctioned by convocation