town-no doubt a far more suitable place. We quote the lines from Mr. Worth (p. 276): 'Covld Grace or Learning from the Grave set free, It is surprising, by the way, that thorough-going Calvinists like the Independents of that day could tolerate the astounding claim made on behalf of 'works' in the fourth line. We could have wished to go on and notice the interesting account given of the little town of Ashburton, and of the steps by which the original Guild Chapel of S. Lawrence,' the noble gift of Bishop Stapledon (1308–1327) developed into the free school' and then into the grammar school, which boasts not a few distinguished men among its pupils. Three are recalled with especial pride-John Dunning, first Lord Ashburton; Dr. Ireland, Dean of Westminster, founder of the Ireland Professorship at Oxford for the Exegesis of Scripture, and of the Ireland Scholarship; and William Gifford, an able critic and translator, and first editor of the Quarterly Review. Curiously enough, all these three were in a sense contemporaries, and the school would seem to have exhausted its energies in the production of three important men all together; for we have not heard of its repeating the exploit. One particular (perhaps it is the only one) in which modern Devonshire has 'bated somewhat' of its former fame is the manufacture of woollen cloths. At one time Devonshire was a chief centre of this industry. The woollen was the staple manufacture of Devon, and so continued until its decay in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Mr. Worth frequently quotes records of this place or of that, showing the wide diffusion and great scale of this profitable industry. From Exeter alone, woollen goods to the value of half a million pounds annually were, we are assured, exported to foreign countries-Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, and Holland. Still older and more famous was the woollen manufacture of Crediton. It is supposed to have been planted in that little town by Bishop Grandisson; and so skilful were its weavers that 'as fine as Kirton (Crediton) spinning' was a well-known proverb; and 1 This seems to have been a favourite dedication for Guild and Chantry Chapels in the West country. We have known others similarly named in those parts. Westcote asserts that a hundred and forty distinct threads of woollen yarn spun in that town were drawn together through the eye of a tailor's needle, 'which needle and threads were for many years together to be seen in Watling Street in London, in the shop of one Mr. Dunscombe, at the sign of the Golden Bottle.' The extensive pastures then belonging to the Canons of Crediton nurtured innumerable sheep and a fine staple of wool, so that the manufacturers of Crediton had not far to go for their raw material. Barnstaple, or Barum, again, which lies at the heart of a dense network of the ancient roads or 'track ways,' shows the existence of a similar trading industry in North Devon. But Pilton, a suburb of Barnstaple, had a somewhat 'shoddy' reputation in consequence of its make of coarse cottons for linings. 'Woe unto ye, Piltonians!' quotes Westcote, 'who make cloth without wool.' The manufacture here is in part due to certain French Huguenot refugees who settled in the town after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. A dramatic account is given by Mr. Worth, apparently from local tradition, of their reception in the town. "The party left Rochelle in a small crowded vessel, and had a very tempestuous passage. At length they found themselves in Barnstaple Bay one Sunday morning, sailed over the bar and up the river, and landed on the quay during divine service. Utterly destitute, they ranged themselves in the Market Place, and thither flocked the townsfolk when they left the churches. Happily, neither the Good Samaritan nor his spirit was wanting. An old gentleman, whose name unfortunately is not preserved, took a couple of the refugees home to dinner, and recommended his example to his fellow townsmen. In a few minutes the Huguenots were distributed throughout the town, their immediate wants supplied, and the foundation laid of a new period of commercial prosperity for the hospitable borough. Intelligent and industrious, and specially skilled in the woollen trade, these poor French folk proved well able to repay their benefactors. The Corporation gave them the Chapel of S. Anne as a place of worship; and there French services continued to be performed until 1761, when the immigrants had become absorbed in the general population. Their descendants can still, however, be traced here, as at Exeter and Plymouth and Stonehouse, in the last of which towns a French congregation continued to meet until the present century' (p. 121). Barnstaple, again, has a notable grammar school, held, like Ashburton School, in a sequestrated chantry chapel, originally named from S. Anne, and which counts many distinguished men among its scholars, Bishop Jewell and Thomas Harding, the Romanist assailant of the Apology of the Church of England, Jonathan Hamner, one of the most famous of the ejected divines of Devon, John Gay the poet, Brancker the Rosicrucian, and 'the learned Dr. Musgrave,' being among the number. Many more interesting and important notitia of Devonshire, and of Devonshire men, might be culled from Mr. Worth's volume, but we forbear. Not a few readers, we hope, will be incited by our few excerpta from its pages to consult a work which will well repay perusal. It can now no longer be said, as by a recent critic, that 'no satisfactory or accurate history of Devonshire exists.' We confess that, as we have already hinted, we should have regarded a spice of romance and sympathy with the marvellous element in Devonian tradition as in no wise impairing the writer's fitness to be the historian of 'our Dævon,' the classic land of 'pixy' and of giant, of the exploits of Arthur the flos regum, and of the gigantic Ordulf, the founder of the abbey of S. Rumon at Tavistock. Him, by the way, Mr. Worth styles a semimythic hero,' though surely his character and his exploits, as reported by tradition, are (a little exaggerated, perhaps, but) natural and probable enough. The Lyonnesse' series of traditions, again, concerning a large tract of country in the West which was destroyed by an inundation of the sea at the end of the eleventh century (the Saxon Chronicle says definitely in 1099), though belonging almost as much to Devon as to Cornwall, he does not refer to. With the great County Histories of England, which may almost be said to constitute a distinct branch of English literature, this unpretending volume cannot for a moment challenge comparison. But Mr. Worth has had the advantage of coming after a Lysons, a Pole, and a Westcote, and of that advantage he has made good use. Though his narrative is somewhat wanting in colour and verve, though it is a thought too tame and level in style, his book is a conscientious piece of work, and will prove a welcome addition on shelves which have no room for the ponderous tomes of the great County Histories to which we have just referred. ART. VII.-APPARENT FAILURE NO PREJUDICE TO THE VICTORY OF THE CHURCH. Ancient Religion and Modern Thought. By W. S. LILLY. (London, 1884.) IN reprinting and enlarging a series of essays which appeared in some contemporary Magazines Mr. Lilly has produced a work of great interest and value. We think, indeed, that the value of the book would have been enhanced by a more methodical arrangement; but there is force in his plea that many persons will read a series of essays, each more or less complete in itself, who would turn in disgust from a long and formal treatise. It may be said that the main contention of his work is that Christian faith is not unreasonable. This he establishes first by a comparison between Schopenhauer as the prophet of atheistic pessimism and Cardinal Newman, leaving the reader to judge which of these rival philosophers gives the more adequate expression to the facts of man's existence. Perhaps it is not very wise to identify the cause of truth with the genius of any theologian, though it should make a modest atheist hesitate to assume the certainty of his negations when he sees an intellect like Dr. Newman's holding firmly a faith which to him seems foolishness. In a more interesting chapter (the third) are to be found some excellent discriminations between the pessimism of Schopenhauer and that of Buddhathe former a denial of the Gospel, the other a despairing demand, Who will show us any good? In the same chapter are some beautiful instances of the shooting forth of a tender and profound mysticism out of the dry ground of Mohammedanism. With no little skill Mr. Lilly shows how the tendencies, the questions, the aspirations, of heathen religions find their answer and completion in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We fear that we shall seem to act a churlish part if we turn from the many admirable points in this book and devote the rest of our remarks to the one subject on which we differ seriously from its author. But, in fact, it is because we appreciate his work so highly, and would so gladly urge our readers to turn from us to Mr. Lilly's own pages, that we feel bound to couple with our recommendation a warning against what seems to us a possible danger to those who follow our advice. Mr. Lilly writes from the standpoint of a sincere Roman Catholic. We do not know that the plea for the Roman position has ever been put forward in a more generous spirit or with more persuasive candour. This very fact makes him a more dangerous antagonist than a score of fiery controversialists; and, therefore, in commending his book to the attention of all who are interested in the battle between Christianity and agnosticism, we feel it necessary to warn his readers of the point where we must stand apart from our valued ally. Throughout the book one may trace this chain of thought: If Christianity is true it is a revelation. If there be a revelation it is probable that there will be an infallible body or organ of it; but the only body in history which answers to this description is the Roman Church, between which, therefore, and scepticism lies the ultimate choice of the reasonable man. These suppositions seem to us so enormous, and so contrary to the purpose of God in founding the Church, that we are constrained to urge some considerations on the other side. Undoubtedly the chief respect in which the Roman Church is to many souls more attractive than the English is her consistent claim to teach, and indeed to be alone the Ecclesia docens. We may state this view in the words of one with whom it has been operative, who, after admitting many lovable qualities in the English Church, proceeds to say, 'Attachment is not trust, nor is to obey the same as to look up to and rely upon; nor do I think that any thoughtful or educated man can simply believe in the word of the Established Church.'1 We should be glad if we could entirely share the Cardinal's incredulity. We cannot but fear that some Anglicans, and those not ignorant men (was not Dr. Newman himself once among them?), have claimed for the words of the English Church almost the same position of infallible authority which the Roman Catholic ascribes to the definitions of his own communion. But to do so is surely illogical and un-Anglican. Illogical, because it is mistaking a part of the Church for the whole; un-Anglican, because the English Church has always recognized the catholicity of Rome and the East, and the need of their testimony to the truth. For the Romanist, who denies the catholicity of all but his own communion, it is logical enough to say that her decisions are the decisions of the whole Church, and so are to be accepted with absolute assent. He begins (as dreams do) with a huge assumption, but (like dreams) the structure which he bases thereon is logically 1 Newman's Discourses to Mixed Congregations, p. 232, quoted by Mr. Lilly, p. 88. |