censure of Ward, but the Proctors prevented this by exercising their right of veto upon the proposition, and were thanked by 554 Members of Convocation for taking this most unusual course.1 The patience of the great High Church leader had, however, been overstretched; his leadership of the party came to a close, and he transferred his acute intellect into the ranks of the Roman Catholic sect, where he was soon-happily, perhaps, for the Church of England-as completely extinguished by authority (though by a different process) as in the University of Oxford.

Meanwhile the same party which had driven Newman out of Oxford was lying in wait for Pusey also, and in the year 1843 the ViceChancellor, Wynter, suspended him from his office of University Preacher for a sermon on the Holy Eucharist. This step did not drive Pusey from Oxford, or from the Church of England, and for more than thirty years afterwards he was conspicuous in both as the most learned English theologian of the age. But it considerably accelerated the fashion of "secession" which had set in, and during the next few years some hundreds of recruits were added to the ranks of the Roman Catholic dissenters; the "seceders" consisting chiefly of impressible undergraduates, young ladies, and young ladies' curates. This secession acquired a factitious importance in after years, when it was joined by Archdeacon Wilberforce, a very able theologian; Maskell, a Ritual scholar; and Archdeacon Manning (afterwards the schismatical "Archbishop of Westminster"), one of the most gifted preachers of the day. Wilberforce died shortly after his secession, and, with the exception of Newman, none of the other seceders were persons of any great theological weight either as a loss to the Church which they left or a gain to the sect which they joined.

It might have been expected that the defection of so great a leader as Newman would have broken up the High Church party and stopped the movement which it had begun. Instead of this it went on rapidly increasing in numbers and influence, and, in spite of most vigorous opposition from Low Churchmen, statesmen, newspapers, and the thoughtless multitude, it became in a very few years the dominant party in the Church of England. This result was owing, in a large degree, to the controversies which were raised on the subject of Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.

For these controversies a most effective preparation had been made by the "Library of the Fathers" (commenced in the year 1838), which had attracted the attention of the clergy to Patristic Theology, and by Isaac Wilberforce's admirable work on the Incarnation (published in the year 1848), which formulated the ideas of the clergy on the subject of the Sacraments to an extent that can hardly be appreciated by a generation which has received such ideas by inheritance in their already formulated condition.

1 A similar veto was exercised in the case of Bishop Hampden.

The Baptismal Controversy was brought to a crisis in 1848 by the refusal of Bishop Phillpotts to institute a clergyman named Gorham to a benefice in the diocese of Exeter, to which he had been presented by the Lord Chancellor. The litigation which followed turned substantially upon the following three questions, which were placed before Gorham in an examination to which the Bishop of Exeter thought it necessary to subject him before deciding whether or not to admit him for Institution :· "Q. V. Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that every infant baptized by a lawful minister, with water, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is made by God in such Baptism a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven? Q. VI. Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that such children, by the laver of regeneration in Baptism, are received into the number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life? Q. VII. Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that all infants so baptized are born again of water and of the Holy Ghost?" It is only necessary to say respecting the answers made to these questions by the candidate for Institution, that it was to the effect that the benefits of Baptism are suspended until baptized persons shew themselves worthy to receive them; and that the Committee of Privy Council considering that it was not unlawful for a clergyman to hold such an opinion, Gorham was instituted by Archbishop Sumner in the year 1850. It is of more importance to add that the storm of controversy raised by the "Gorham case" so cleared the atmosphere of the clouds by which the subject of Baptismal Regeneration had been obscured, as practically to put an end to all discussion about it; and a later generation wonders how such a discussion could ever have arisen when the language of Holy Scripture and of the Prayer Book is now seen to be so singularly plain and dogmatic.

The Eucharistic Controversy, raised by the sharply definite teaching of the Tractarians respecting the Real Presence, was of longer duration. It was brought before the Courts in the "Denison case," in which the Archdeacon of Taunton was deprived by Archbishop Sumner (sitting at Bath as President of a pro-Diocesan Court) on October 22nd, 1856, for having preached three sermons in Wells Cathedral, in the years 1853 and 1854, in which it was alleged that the Body and Blood of Christ are given to all, without exception, who receive the consecrated Bread and Wine administered in the Holy Communion. This was practically a statement that the sacred Substance of the Blessed Sacrament is present in the consecrated elements before they are received by the communicant, and cannot be dissociated from them even by unworthy reception. The sentence of deprivation was reversed by the Court of Arches on preliminary technical grounds; and the accuser having appealed against the decision of the Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the decision of the Arches Court was confirmed on February 6th, 1858.

The question of doctrine did not come before either of the Courts above, and no opinion was expressed upon it by either of them.

Sir

Ten years later, issue was again joined in behalf of opposite schools of thought respecting the Holy Eucharist by the prosecution of Bennett, Vicar of Frome, by one of his parishioners named Sheppard. In this case the clergyman was accused of using language respecting the Blessed Sacrament which expressed the same doctrine of the Real Presence in the Elements as distinguished from the Presence of Christ in the faithful receiver of them, and which also embraced the question of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Robert Phillimore gave judgment in this case on July 23rd, 1870, the substance of his decision on the real point at issue being contained in the following words :-" Upon the whole it will appear, I think, from an examination of the Formularies, and from the language of the authorities which I am about to cite, that they were intended to set forth, and do set forth, the doctrine of a real Spiritual Presence in the Holy Eucharist. It may be said with truth that on some formularies this doctrine is more doubtfully, or more faintly, expressed than on others; but the result which I have stated is not only the legal inference from the construction of all the formularies, but also especially from those which are in their nature the most important and, as a matter of history, the latest in date. Though, indeed, that there is a change in the Holy Elements after consecration, and that they then convey in a divine ineffable way the Body and Blood of Christ, seem necessary inferences from the language of the Communion Service alone. . . . I say that the Objective, Actual, and Real Presence, or the Spiritual Real Presence, a Presence external to the act of the communicant, appears to me to be the doctrine which the Formularies of our Church, duly considered and construed, so as to be harmonious, are intended to maintain" [Phillimore's Rep. of Judgm. 117]. This judgment was appealed against, and (although some of the expressions used by the Judge were censured as extra-judicial) it was not altered by the Committee of Privy Council when they gave their more than usually careful decision in 1872. Thus the High Church view of Eucharistic doctrine was declared finally to be that of the Church of England: it may be said that the conclusion of the Eucharistic controversy completed the justification of the Tractarian movement, establishing the fact that the main principles on which that movement was founded, those of "the Sacramental system," are as truly Anglican as they are truly Catholic.

THE RITUALISTS. The revival of ecclesiastical learning, which was so conspicuous a feature of the Tractarian movement, necessarily made the clergy better acquainted with the Primitive Liturgies and with the ancient Service Books of the Church of England. Palmer's Origines Liturgicæ, Maskell's Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, and Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiæ Anglicane, with Neale's Tetralogia Liturgica, laid the

foundation for many smaller works on liturgical subjects, and thus spread among the laity, as well as the clergy, a larger amount of information respecting the principles and practice of Divine Service than had been possessed by any modern generation of English Churchmen. Contemporary with this revival of liturgical knowledge, there sprung up also a widely diffused taste for ecclesiastical design in the fabric and furniture of churches; a taste which was greatly promoted by the works of Augustus Welby Pugin, and by the formation of the "Cambridge Camden Society" in the year 1839. This study of "Ecclesiology," as the science came to be named, was soon brought to bear upon the restoration of old churches and the construction of new ones; and as men of taste could no longer be contented with such churches as were built in the eighteenth century, so the educated clergy and laity were beginning to revolt against a type of Divine Service in which it was represented almost entirely as intended for the edification of those who took part in it. Theological knowledge and an intelligent spirit of devotion were combining to raise a general feeling that there should be more recognition of the fact that Prayer, Praise, and the Holy Eucharist are offered to God, as well as used for the spiritual advantage of man. It was out of such circumstances, and under such influences, that what was afterwards called "Ritualism" took its rise.

The earliest form in which it was manifested was that of introducing into parish churches customs which recent generations had known only in connection with cathedrals, minsters, and college chapels. Instead of the old "parson and clerk duet," carried on with occasional interludes of "Brady and Tate," or even "Sternhold and Hopkins," performed by a few singers in a distant gallery, choral services were established; choirs, analogous to those of cathedrals, being formed, clad in surplices, and placed beside the officiating clergy.

The second stage of the Ritualist movement consisted of attempts to follow out with exactness the rubrics of the Prayer Book; when the ritual customs of the existing book were soon found to be supplemented to a large extent by those of the "First Book of Edward VI.," the Prayer Book of 1549, to which reference was supposed to be made in the "Ornaments Rubric " prefixed to Morning Prayer. This development of ritual was promoted by a work entitled "Hierurgia Anglicana, or documents and extracts illustrative of the ritual of the Church in England after the Reformation," which was published in 1848. In the preface to this the editors said, "We take our stand on the ground held by Andrewes, Bancroft, Laud, Wren, Montague, and their fellow confessors, and we claim, with them, for the English Church, the revival of all the vestments and ornaments to which it can be proved she is justly entitled." This principle was fully developed at several churches in London, Oxford, Leeds, and elsewhere, during the next few years; the development of it at St. Paul's Church,

Knightsbridge, and the more recent Church of St. Barnabas, Pimlico (which had been opened in 1850 for the purpose of carrying it out completely and honestly), leading to litigation which ultimately brought the advocates and the opponents of ritual to issue before the Privy Council in the year 1857. Some portions of the furniture of those churches were considered, by those members of the Privy Council who constituted the tribunal, to be unsanctioned by the existing law; but the principle then contended for by the Ritualists was affirmed by their interpretation of the "Ornaments Rubric," respecting the varying forms of which they decided that they all obviously mean the same thing, that the same dresses and the same utensils, or articles, which were used under the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. may still be used" [Brodrick and Fremantle's Eccl. Rep. 131].

66

The third stage of the Ritualist movement began to develope itself soon after the "St. Barnabas case" had been decided, and was originated by a younger school of clergy and laity on the principle that the ritual standard of "the Ornaments Rubric of the Prayer Book" is the practice of the Church of England in the second year of Edward VI., which is interpreted to be that of pre-Reformation times adapted to the English Prayer Book, and including a much larger amount of ceremonial than that which is actually ordered in the rubric of that book. The practical use of such a standard was set forth in a volume entitled "Directorium Anglicanum, being a manual of directions for the right celebration of the Holy Communion, for the saying of Matins and Evensong, and for the performance of other rites and ceremonies of the Church, according to ancient uses of the Church of England," edited by the Rev. John Purchas, and published in the year 1858. A full development of ritual usages on the principle thus indicated was established at St. Alban's Church, Holborn, built about 1861, and at a later date at a Brighton Chapel, of which Mr. Purchas became incumbent ; while at many other churches the ceremonial of Divine Service was raised to a much higher standard than had been contemplated by the elder school of Ritualists. There was much, indeed, to provoke opposition in the ritual adopted by this younger school of Ritualistsvery inferior in learning to their predecessorsfor it was chiefly copied from modern Continental customs, and was mixed up with a sentimentalisin about candles and flowers, as well as with an excessive minuteness in regard to postures and gestures, which made it easy to charge the school with trifling and want of manliness. Prejudices thus excited, led to the prosecution of Mackonochie, the Vicar of St. Alban's, and Purchas, the Incumbent of St. James's Chapel, Brighton; and their cases were eventually carried, on appeal, before the Privy Council. A surprising want of knowledge respecting ecclesiastical history and ritual on the part of the Privy Councillors, enabled them to condemn such ancient and Catholic customs as the use of the mixed Cup and

of Eucharistic lights. But the general tendency of the judicial decisions which were given, was— notwithstanding Mackonochie, the Vicar of St. Alban's, and Purchas, the Incumbent of St. James's Chapel, Brighton, were both prosecuted, and some of their practices were condemnedto raise the limit to which the ritual of the Prayer Book may lawfully be carried far higher than it was before placed: and there was consequently a corresponding movement throughout the country in the direction which the Ritualists had taken; even Bishops resuming that use of copes which had been dropped in the middle of the eighteenth century. Thus the danger of a narrow reaction which had been provoked passed away, and a revival of ritual such as kept pace with the revival of devotion and taste received the sanction of authority.

In the year 1867, the Visitatorial authority of the Crown was exercised for the appointment of a Royal Commission "to inquire into and report upon differences of practice which had arisen, and varying interpretations which were put upon the rubrics, orders, and directions for regulating the course and conduct of public worship, the administration of the Sacraments, and the other services contained in the Book of Common Prayer." This Commission was also directed to reconstruct the Tables of Lessons used at Morning and Evening Prayer. Several reports were made by it, and its reconstructed Lectionary was authorized for use by Parliament and Convocation in the year 1871; but no further action was taken at that time on the subject which it was appointed to investigate.

One great work of the High Church party from the Reformation downwards has been that of preserving the substantial catholicity of the Church of England; during the forty years' revival between 1833 and 1873, it was also that of renewing its life and vigour. The High Churchmen of the Reformation age saved the Church from becoming Lutheranized or Calvinized, and carefully preserved its continuity with the English Church of preceding ages. Those of the seventeenth century restored health to the Church of England when it was being fatally cankered by the blood-poison of Presbyterianism; those of the eighteenth century withstood the dangers in which it was placed by the scepticism that in the end overturned the Church of France; those of the nineteenth century have revived ecclesiastical learning and the devotional spirit, and have carried the influence of the Church home to the hearts of rich and poor in face of difficulties arising from very novel conditions of social, religious, and intellectual life.

HINDOOS. [BRAHMINS.]

HISTOPEDES. A name given to the Eunomians with reference to a strange custom which they are said to have practised, of baptizing persons with the head and breast in the water and the feet upright [iorós] in the air. [Epiph. Hær. lxxvi. ad. fin. Theod. Hæret. fab. iv. 30.]

HOADLY. There were two branches of the English Latitudinarian School; the one headed by Cudworth, More, and Smith, the other by Wilkins and Tillotson. The former was distinguished by its Platonism, which imparted a depth and fervour, not without a strain of mysticism, to a theology which otherwise would have been both shallow and cold; the latter lacking this adjunct, and little addicted to patristic study, found no better guide, in the revulsion from Puritanism, than the foreign Arminian divines. Thus, Birch refers the formation of Tillotson's mind first to Chillingworth on the desertion of Puritanism, and then to Episcopius. The writings of Episcopius,' he says, contributed very much to the forming of some of the greatest divines of our country in the last age, and in particular Archbishop Tillotson himself [Life of Tillotson, pp. 5, 219].

The leaders of the Platonists for the most part lived and died in colleges. The latter school furnished the Latitudinarian political bishops by whom the Church was afflicted in the eighteenth century. Of these Hoadly is the most thorough specimen. Tillotson was kept at a higher level by some knowledge of the Fathers, and by his intimacy with Barrow and Nelson. Hoadly followed out his principles to their legitimate results, and produced what Secker called a Christianity "secundum usum Winton."

Benjamin Hoadly, born 1676, Fellow of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, then Rector of St. Peter-lePoer, London, brought himself into general notice by becoming (as the Nonconformist Calamy writes) a strenuous assertor of our civil and religious rights. In a sermon before the Lord Mayor, he represented the public good as the end of the magistrate's office, and asserted the warrantableness of resistance when that end is destroyed. Objection being made to his doctrine, he defended himself in Measures of Obedience to the Civil Magistrate, which was answered by Atterbury in Concio ad Clerum, Lond. 1709.

That passive obedience has its limits few will now doubt; and it is the hardest problem that can be presented to the mind and conscience of a statesman to fix those limits. [DICT. of THEOL., NONJURORS.] Hoadly's error appears to be not of principle but in the application of the principle.

The House of Commons thanked him for his zeal and recommended him for promotion. Queen Anne did not attend to the recommendation. George I. made him Bishop of Bangor (he never visited this see), and he was translated afterwards to Hereford, Salisbury, and Winchester in quick

1 Burnet says of the Cambridge school that "they read Episcopius much" [Own Times, i. p. 188, ed. 1724]. This was clearly true, writes A. Knox, of such as Wilkins and Tillotson, for no writer, I imagine, is more un-Platonic than Episcopius; nor probably did any more contribute to spoil English theology [Correspondence, i. p. 259].

Compton complained of it in the House of Lords, and was told by Burnet that he ought to have been the last man to complain, for if the doctrine were not good he could not be defended for appearing in arms at Northampton [Life of Calamy, ii. p. 40].

succession. The last bishopric he held twenty. six years. [BANGORIAN CONTROVERSY.]

Hoadly's doctrine proved to be that which vacates the office of the Church, undermines its constitution, denies the power of its ministry and the efficacy of its sacraments. The Church he defined to be "the number of men, whether small or great, dispersed or united, who truly and sincerely are subjects to Jesus Christ alone, as their Lawgiver and Judge, in matters relating to the favour of God and their eternal salvation" [Sermon on Nature of the Church]. There is not a word of the bands which knit men together in one communion and fellowship, but each man, in isolation, stands in immediate reference (it is not said to his Saviour, but) to his Lawgiver and Judge. In this relation of the individual to his Judge it is said that a man's "title to God's favour cannot depend upon his actual being or continuing in any particular method, but upon his real sincerity in the conduct of his conscience:" that "the favour of God follows sincerity, considered as such, and consequently equally follows every equal degree of sincerity" [Preservative against Principles of Nonjurors]. That is, Saul the persecutor, who verily thought he ought to do many things contrary to the Name of Jesus, had an equal title to God's favour with Paul the Apostle.

Further, Hoadly argued that, inasmuch as "the Church of Christ is the kingdom of Christ, He Himself is King," that "in this it is implied that He is Himself the sole Lawgiver to His subjects, and Himself the sole Judge of their behaviour, in the affairs of conscience and eternal salvation. And in this sense, therefore, His kingdom is not of this world; that He hath left behind Him no visible human authority, no vicegerents, who can be said properly to supply His place; no interpreters upon whom His subjects are absolutely to depend; no judges over the consciences or religion of His people." This passage seems to deny (the Committee of the Lower House of Convocation observed) all authority to the Church, and under pretence of exalting the kingdom of Christ, to leave it without any visible human authority to judge, censure, or punish offenders, in the affairs of conscience and eternal salvation.

Hoadly of course denied the existence of a line of rightful bishops. "As far as we can judge of things, God's Providence never yet in fact kept up a regular uninterrupted succession of rightful bishops." "It hath not pleased God in His Providence to keep up any proof of the least probability, or moral possibility, of a regular uninterrupted succession." He holds up to scorn and contempt "all trifles and niceties of authoritative benedictions, absolutions, excommunications:" "human benedictions, human absolutions, human excommunications have nothing to do with the favour of God" [Preservative, fol. edit. pp. 588, 592, 593, 595]. In these trifles and niceties are included all exercise of the power of the keys, all ministries of the Word and Sacraments.

Let it be sufficient to notice how the Holy Eucharist is dealt with. "The phrase of eating

Christ's Flesh and drinking His Blood, signifies the duty of believing and digesting His doctrine; and not any benefits accruing from that eating and drinking." "I now give you this Bread, and call it My Body, in order to shew you that you are to take and eat bread in this manner after My death; and to introduce My command to you to do this, to break and eat bread in remembrance of Me and of My Body broken, after it shall be broken, and after I shall be removed from you." "The Bread and Wine are outward and visible signs or marks, ordained by Christ to call to our minds, and to point out to us, the greatest inward and spiritual grace (i.e. favour or mercy) bestowed on man by Almighty God. They call to mind the death of Christ," &c. [Plain Account.]

While Hoadly thus rejected on the one hand all that flows to man through the society of the Church, through her ministers and sacraments, he rejected no less on the other hand those parts of Christian truth which he might have learnt from Leighton, which were soon to form the strength of the Evangelical School. [DICT. of THEOL., EVANGELICALS.] Regarding Prayer, the Atonement, Grace, Justification, and kindred topics, his opinions are scarcely discernible from those of modern Unitarians.1 Destitute of the excellencies of the schools and leading men with whom he was connected, which preserved them from the full effects of their Latitudinarian principles, he has shewn to what those principles really lead, to a system, namely, of prayer without fervour, sacraments without grace, clergy without a calling, and a church without cohesion.

Such is the natural issue of the rationalizing Christianity introduced by Hales and Chillingworth, aided presently by the Dutch Remonstrants. The deterioration of the Arminian divines after the Synod of Dort was rapid. Episcopius drew perilously near to Socinianism. His form of Arminianism, as embraced by the English Latitudinarians, never possessed the Church's sacramental element, and it had rejected or at least neglected the doctrine of the Atonement which had given an evangelical tone to the teaching of Arminius. It set forth Christ as an example rather than as a Saviour. In Hoadly, therefore, Arminian Latitudinarianism became a kind of Protestantism within the Church of England, protesting not only against the doctrinal system of Calvin (for which it might be excused), but against all the vital powers and agencies of Apostolical Christianity. An alleged sincerity of purpose took the place of faith; revelation was to be brought down to human comprehension; all mysteries were to be excluded. All who said that they loved Jesus Christ in sincerity, whatever their creed, whatever their worship, were Christian brethren and (as a necessary consequence of Chillingworth's original dictum) all who held the Scriptures to be the rule of belief and morals were alike members of the Church. Many in the Church of England fell into this state of indif1 Hoadly defined prayer thus: "A calm and undisturbed address to God.

ferentism. They were not Arminians in a truc sense of the word, they were such only because they were not Calvinists. When a revival of religion came there was, besides a recurrence to primitive doctrine through the leading of the English Church, a reappearance also of the distinctive tenets of Arminius and Calvin. Wesley reinvigorated Arminianism, while a fervent and more spiritual Latitudinarianism (of which Leighton remained the unsurpassable type) joined with distinct Calvinistic tenets, revived in Evangelicalism. gelicalism. But the Evangelical School has borne marks of Hoadly throughout its whole course. Its doctrine of the Sacraments, particularly of the Holy Eucharist, fell below Calvin's, and is only distinguishable from Hoadly's by greater devotion. Hoadly's tenet that a man's title to God's favour cannot depend upon his actual being or continuing in any particular method, which, if it mean anything, means first that there is no Church to which God joins those whom He will save, and then that all sects whatever (the Catholic Church being a sect) are equal, remained theoretically in Evangelicalism; with the practical distinction however that dissenters from the Church of England were commonly looked upon as the more godly.

HOBBES. Few philosophical writers who have not written directly against Christianity have had a wider influence in promoting scepticism than Thomas Hobbes: and yet his philosophy is rather one of politics than of religion.

He was the son of a clergyman, was born at Malmesbury on April 5th, 1588, took his degree at Oxford, was private tutor, first to Lord Cavendish, and afterwards to his surviving brother, the Earl of Devonshire, and through his pupils became intimate with Bacon and Lord Herbert of Cherbury. During his absence from England under the Long Parliament he also became acquainted at Paris with Descartes. In the year 1651 he published his principal work, The Leviathan, and shortly afterwards returned to England. Having been for a short time mathematical tutor to Charles II. (though he had not learned the first rudiments till after his fortieth year) he received a pension of £100 a year at the Restoration, and lived to the great age of ninety-two, dying on December 4th, 1679.

Religion received little attention from Hobbes except as a part of government, a matter of police, by means of which the absolute sovereign may be assisted in maintaining order in his kingdom. But the whole of his philosophy is pervaded by Materialism, the foundation of which he thus lays in the first chapter of his Leviathan: "Concerning the thoughts of man I will consider them first singly, and afterwards in a train or dependence upon one another. Singly they are every one a representation or appearance of some quality or other accident of a body without us, which is commonly called an object-which object worketh on the eyes, ears, and other parts of a man's body; and by diversity of working, produceth diversity of appearances. The original of them all is that which we call 'Sense,' for