were at least twice that sum, or £10 per child, that would leave an ample surplus for the purchase of ground (including land to cultivate if in a cheap district), and for a general school-room with appropriate dwellings for the teachers, in each little colony. We recommend a general school-room, agreeing with the advocates of large schools, that, in all that relates to mere school teaching, large numbers are desirable. It is when the school is also a home that such numbers are fatal to success. Some change in the law, limiting, or even for a time abrogating, the authority of parents over these children is equally essential to their well-being, as breaking them up into small groups. But this is no new principle. It is already in action as regards the inmates of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, who, as we have seen, belong to the very same class; and with safeguards to prevent the removal of his children being a relief to the parent, instead of a deprivation, this principle ought, we submit, to be extended to the offspring of the pauper. At the very least, parents who have cast the burden of their children on the State should not be free to interrupt their being made good citizens, for evil purposes of their own. Before regaining possession of them they should be bound to show they have the means to provide for them honestly, and intend to do so. We cannot conclude this article without expressing the satisfaction we feel at the notice bestowed upon the Boarding-out System in the last Annual Report of the Poor-Law Board. It there receives a careful consideration, and is recognised as an important experiment; and. no facility for its favourable trial, in the power of the department to grant, is withheld. It has indeed just been officially announced that an Order will in a few days be issued (we conclude, before our own remarks upon it will have appeared), by which the rules of the Board will be modified to allow pauper children to be sent beyond the limits of their own unions, thus enabling the Guardians of town parishes to board them out in country homes. This was the prayer of a Memorial signed by more than 4,000 ladies, and presented by a deputation from their number in May last to the President of the Poor-Law Board. In seeking this concession, they accepted the responsibility it involves; and whenever the little ones are sent forth, those who suggested the plan will be ready to co-operate with any official organization that may be deemed expedient to ensure the safety and well-being of these Children of the State. FLORENCE HILL. *Letter to Miss Preusser; Times, August 23rd, 1870. ULIUS JULIUS Essays, chiefly on Questions of Church and State from 1850 to 1870. US HARE used to say, "Children always turn to the light; Oh, that grown-up men would do likewise!" If we were to attempt a description of Dean Stanley's characteristics, we should name first, and chief of all, his intense love for the light. His is not the half-despairing cry of Goethe for "more light," but the happy radiant hopefulness of the child, whose great joy is "to go out and see the sun." He hails it with incense in the morning. He basks in its rays at noonday, and he watches its departing glories at the sunset hour. He opens every door and every window to let in the light. He is all eye and all ear, quick to receive all knowledge from whatever quarter it comes. He has learned to "Seize upon truth where'er 'tis found, On Christian or on heathen ground. His "Essays on Church and State" might be called the epic of "the Thirty Years' War" in the Church of England. The subject is the three great battles which each party in the Church has had to fight to maintain its existence. Other subjects, collateral and subsidiary, are discussed as occasion offers, coming in, as it were, "by way of episode." The lesson or moral of the whole is that the three parties are to tolerate each other, and to continue the union of Church and State because that union softens the bitterness of party feeling, controls the fierce spirit of ecclesiasticism, and prevents the Church being cut off from the Divine progress of the world. The first Essay in the volume is on the Gorham Controversy. It was published twenty years ago in the Edinburgh Review. We have not at present any intention of tracing the history of the rise of modern High Churchism. We shall really avoid the usual platitudes about the "godless" eighteenth century. We shall not speak of the "frost" under Bishop Butler, and the "thaw" under Dr. Pusey. The complacency with which some men in our time condemn the last century is amusing. The common denunciation of the immorality of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers implies a tolerably well-satisfied opinion of our own progress. To connect the Oxford movement with the repose of the last century is to trace the Trojan War to Leda's eggs; and in both cases the amount of fable is about equal. We start with the well-known fact, that in the fifth decade of the present century the High Church party thought they had sufficient strength to thrust the "Evangelicals" out of the Church of England. The decisive battle was fought between the Bishop of Exeter and Mr. Gorham. The subject of their difference was of significance only as it indicated the different tendencies of the two parties represented by the Bishop and the Presbyter. Dr. Philpotts said that every baptized child was "regenerated" by the act of baptism. Mr. Gorham denied that by that act a baptized child was necessarily "regenerated." The judgment was against the bishop. It declared Mr. Gorham's doctrine tenable in the Church of England, and compatible with a fair interpretation of the formularies. This judgment Dean Stanley receives as the charter of our ecclesiastical liberty, the legal authorisation of differing dogmas in the Church. A great part of the baptismal controversy is manifestly a mere battle about a word. The most zealous advocates of baptismal regeneration differ among themselves as to what "regeneration" means. With some it is an actual sanctification of the baptized. With others it is merely fœderal, signifying nothing more than admission into the Christian covenant. The battle was fought on the question of regeneration in baptism, but the real conflict was between the theological system of Calvin and that of High Churchmen, who combine with the theology of Arminius the claims of a hierarchy. We are not sure that we agree with Dean Stanley when he quotes and endorses the words of Bishop Horsley, that on the points of difference between the followers of Calvin and their opponents "the Church of England maintains an absolute neutrality." In one place the Dean says that no Puritan would have written the baptismal service. This is probably true, yet we have not read that the Puritans ever raised any special objection to this service. If by Puritan Dean Stanley means simply a Calvinist, we differ from him altogether. It might have been written by any of the Reformers of Calvin's school. The same mode of speaking of baptism is found in the Calvinistic Confessions of the Reformed Churches. But, on the other hand, no Arminian could have written Article XVII. We try in vain to conceive of this Article as existing in a Wesleyan Confession of faith. Moreover, the whole spirit, tone, and phraseology of the Thirty-nine Articles is Calvinistic. Calvin or his great ancestor, Augustine, turns up every where with a perversity and a pertinacity that are sometimes. .provoking. The only arguments ever advanced against the Calvinism of the Thirty-nine Articles are the two feeble pleas put forward by Archbishop Laurence. The first is that the Articles were compiled from the Augsburg Confession, which is simply begging the question that on these subjects the German Reformers did not agree with Calvin. The second argument is derived from the rejection of the Lambeth Articles. But any one who reads the only authentic account which we have of the Hampton Court Conference will find it plainly stated that the Lambeth Articles were not rejected because they differed from the Thirty-nine, but simply because there was no necessity for them. King James, who decided on their rejection, was himself at that time a strong Calvinist, and the compiler of the Lambeth Articles, Archbishop Whitgift, was a member of the Conference, and the chief supporter of the king. In evidence of the Calvinistic character of the Reformed Church of England we have the theological literature of three generations after the Reformation, forming a "consentient voice" of the Church for seventy years, testifying to the dominion of the theology of Calvin. It may be urged that the moderation of the Articles contrasts with the pronounced Calvinism of the Westminster Confession. But the difference is in degree, not in kind. It is easy to account for the more systematic statements of doctrine coming after the great controversy on the five points in the beginning of the reign of the first Charles. The issue which was raised in the Gorham prosecution was not the admissibility of Calvinism in the Church of England. That had been admitted since the Reformation. Mr. Gorham had on his side the Calvinistic Reformers and their successors, who believed that baptism conveyed regeneration to elect children. But as these were known only to God, the visible Church charitably assumed that all baptized children were among the elect, and, therefore, regenerate. The only foundation which Dr. Philpotts had for his doctrine was by taking literally, in the baptismal service for children, the words which in the service for the baptism of adults, he explained as Mr. Gorham did. In denying the neutrality of the Church of England as to the doctrines of Calvin, we at the same time fail to discover any ground for ascribing to our Reformers the principle of compromise or comprehension. It is possible that the Dean of Westminster only means that comprehension was the result. We cannot find that it was ever seriously intended, much less openly proposed. In the time of Henry VIII. Cranmer proceeded with caution and prudence, as far as circumstances would permit him. Under Edward his action was more decided. If we reckon the Puritan party to have then existed, and to have been represented by such men as Hooper and Coverdale, there was great freedom in that direction. But this reign was short and unsettled. Between Elizabeth and her first bishops there was something like compromise. The bishops conformed to rituals and ceremonies which they would gladly have laid aside. For some years the Queen was allowed to have a crucifix in her chapel, though not without some bitter complaining. For the first five years of her reign the Puritans had great freedom as to the ceremonies. Then began subscriptions and the enforcing of uniformity. The principle of exclusion contended with the fact of comprehension. The same influences that exist to-day were at work then. A Broad Church was the result obtained, but until Dean Stanley's time it never was the end proposed. Ten years after the Gorham prosecution and the cry of war was again raised. The Church of England, in separating from the Church of Rome appealed to the Scriptures. It retained the three creeds, for the reason assigned, that they could be proved by "most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." An appeal to the Scriptures, explain it as we may, is an appeal to reason. It throws men back at once upon questions concerning the authenticity, history, authority, and interpretation of the Scriptures. The inquiry at every step implies the supremacy of reason. There was not probably either in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries one single theologian who carried out this principle to its ultimate and logical results. It was largely developed in Hooker; but he is confused and contradictory when he speaks of the province of reason in religion. Chillingworth went further, and was clearer; but he did not touch the goal. The exigencies of his argument did not require him to go beyond the position, that to start with an infallible Bible was as rational as to start with an infallible Church. The claims of reason were acknowledged more openly by the Cambridge Platonists and by the theologians of the eighteenth century, yet in every case with certain limits. The discoveries in science and the progress in the |