It is quite true that the national Church in England was never really stronger than it now is in the general affections of the country; but it is also quite true that at the present time the impatience felt at the lawless and defiant position of the Anglo-Roman party is becoming almost irrepressible. When a responsible minister of the Crown has to say in the English House of Commons, as he did say not many weeks ago, that he "admitted most fully that it might be necessary for the State to arm the Church, or to take power itself to restrain lawlessness," we may be sure that matters are approaching extremities, and that if the Anglican party do not speedily disavow all connection with the counter-Reformation party, very serious troubles will soon come to the Church of England. At present there seems a willingness still to wait and see whether bishops will firmly do their duty, and whether the great party which has so long over-chivalrously protected extreme men because they hold in common with themselves fundamental truths, at a time when those truths are either explained away or minimized, will now at last leave them to the issues they have themselves wittingly provoked. For this there seems a disposition still to wait; but the time is growing shorter, and the action of the Anglican party more and more a matter of serious anxiety.

For ourselves we believe that the worst is now over, and that a very different feeling, as to the coercion of extreme men, is now prevailing even in the upper stratum of the Church party, compared with what prevailed only a few months ago. If this healthy feeling should continue, the future of the Anglican party, and of Anglo-Catholicism may be greater and more serviceable to the blessed cause of Evangelical truth in England than its past or its present. If those whose whole hearts and souls are really against the Reformation will only follow out logically their principles, and go whither those principles lead them, instead of fruitlessly striving to make the Anglican Church other than it ever has been, or ever will be, then the work that Anglo-Catholicism may be enabled to do for Christ and his kingdom may well be such as to make us look forward with hopefulness and rejoicing. Let us remember that the very work for which the Oxford party was formed has not yet been

done. It was originally formed, as we have seen, at the begin.ning of this article, to check ultra-liberal opinions. Have they been checked? Are they really not stronger? Is it not the feeling of all earnest men that a great struggle is fast coming, that the conflict between the principle of belief and the principle of unbelief must increase and deepen-it may be until He comes?

In the storm and stress of this struggle Anglo-Catholicism may, from the very circumstances of the case, have to occupy a very prominent place. In saying this we do not forget the other great party to which the Church of the Reformation already owes so deep a debt of lasting gratitude. If the great Evangelical party had not quickened the Church there could have been no Oxford movement five-and-forty years ago. Nay, those who most influenced the movement were themselves originally of Evangelical principles, and owed perhaps all their future influence to that depth of personal religion, and that adoring love of a personal Redeemer, which they had attained to when under the teaching of a very different school of Christian thought. The great Evangelical party can never be overlooked in any estimate of the vicissitudes of the Church of the future. Its work, however, in the more immediate future would appear to be less clearly defined than that of AngloCatholicism. And for this reason, that in the conflict with infidelity, which is the conflict now hourly deepening around us, the historical principle, and, under proper limitations, the principle of Church authority-both of them principles with which the High Church party stands in more close affinity than the Evangelical party-must come sharply into prominence.

To the unbeliever there are ever two reasons that can be given for the faith that is in us. First, the subjective, viz., that the Bible-message, and especially the message of the New Testament, does verily, as Coleridge said, " find us," answer our deepest questions, and effectually meet our deepest spiritual needs. But this would be insufficient without the complementary objective reason, that what is so felt and is so believed has been so felt and believed from the earliest days of the Gospel; that it has been formulated in creeds, professed by the Church in every age, borne aloft victorious through all contro

versies, and rests securely, as an Apostle has said, on the upbearing column and broad-based foundation of the Catholic Church.

This second, the historic reason, is that around which, it would seem, the controversy of the future will most earnestly be pressed. If the objective facts of Christianity can be shown to be true facts, then all else will follow. And here especially it is that Anglo-Catholicism is of paramount importance. It involves just that element of authority which reason, however enlightened, ever feels it needs, to become completely persuaded itself, and successfully to persuade others. It rests on ages of faith as well as on present argument; and with the majority of minds, especially with those who are, so to say, “standing at gaze," is probably more effective when it thus simply comes forward as the witness than when it takes up the ground of the reasoner and the controversialist. There are many signs at the present time that this libration to authority is increasing; and it is vital to the Protestant Church throughout the world that it should not fail to maintain its position as the primitive and apostolic witness to pure and unchanging truth. If not, Rome will effectually occupy the ground, and will secure to itself those many wearied spirits who now, exhausted by fruitless search, are seeking some final resting-place, some haven where they may cast anchor, and where, even though as yet they believe not fully, they may still wish for the day. The numbers of those who are thus silently joining the Church of Rome are large, and, we believe, year by year increasing.

We look, then, with deep interest, but also with deep anxiety, as to the next developments of the great movement which now, for nearly half a century, has exercised a potent influence throughout the whole Anglican Church. If it now return to its old characteristics, and if, while setting forth, as of old, definite doctrine and sacramental grace, it forget not that third principle, its Protestantism, its loyalty to the Reformation, and its unwavering opposition to the corrupted system of the Church of Rome, then the Anglo-Catholicism of the future may be that special influence by which it may please the great Captain of our Salvation to countervail the strangely mingled super

stition and unbelief of these eventful times. Nor will it then be, as it has been in the past, an influence often countervailed by the rightful jealousy of the Evangelical party for the two great principles of the Reformation-an opened Bible and justifying faith. If it throw off the morbid elements that as yet are commingled with it, if it detach itself from the Anglo-Romanism which we have traced in this article, then the two great schools of thought-the Anglican and the Evangelical-may at last unite in the blessed work of confronting error and infidelity at home, and of bearing the blessed message of the everlasting Gospel throughout all the waiting nations of the hea then world.

These are great and high hopes, but they are not baseless. Already the best and purest spirits of both of the two great parties in the Church are showing some signs of the possibility of hereafter meeting on common ground, and of doing together a common work for their Lord, even while retaining the broad outlines of their religious distinctions. The Evangelical party has clearly advanced in many points towards a higher Church-realization and a fuller recognition of the blessings of sacramental grace. The High Church party, on the other hand, has begun to appreciate and to apply that warm, personal, and individualizing ministry of Christ crucified to each sin-laden soul, which has so long and so blessedly characterized the teaching of the best days of the Evangelical movement. It has also, we believe, at last begun to see in its true light, and is preparing to recoil from that perilous teaching that leaves no clearly defined line of demarcation between the Churches of the Anglican communion and the crring and innovating Church of Rome.

Let us humbly pray to God that this may be so, and that henceforth there may be a truer union in all those that love and that wait for the Lord's appearing, a deeper conviction and a more earnest faith. Let us pray that we may be all one in Christ, and may be permitted by him to share in the holiest work man can do here on earth-preparing for the Lord's kingdom, and hastening the coming of the ages of his everlasting reign.

C. J. GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL.

NATIONAL MORALITY.

HAT a nation in its public dealings should be guided by

THA

the same general principles of moral conduct by which an individual is or ought to be guided in his private conduct, is a truth which seems involved in the very conception of national being. The idea of a nation implies the existence of other nations, nations which, in the natural course of things, will have some kind of dealings with one another. And unless the whole world is to be a scene of unmixed havoc and bloodshed, those dealings must be guided by some moral rule. There must be a right and a wrong in the conduct of nations as well as in the conduct of individuals. But we may go further, and say that the rule of right and wrong which guides the conduct of nations must be the same as the rule of right and wrong which guides the conduct of individuals. To whatever source we may trace those laws of morality which most of us acknowledge, as a matter of fact we do acknowledge them. And we not only acknowledge them, but, as our minds are constituted, we cannot conceive any other laws. In the civilized world of modern Europe and America we take theological and political differences for granted; but we assume a common morality. We need not for our present purpose dispute whether that morality is or is not eternal and unchanging. At first sight, the moral standard of one age often seems to differ widely from that of the age before and after it; the moral standard of one civilized country seems to differ widely from that of some neighbouring country. But such differences are often more apparent than real. They are differences which are quite consistent with the acceptance of all the main principles of a common morality. One age, one