Since the earlier of these pages were written, the value and importance of the declarations of the Lambeth Conference have received a signal exemplification in the action of the Irish bishops in reference to the Archbishop of Dublin's scheme for the consecration of a bishop for the Reforming Congregations in Spain and Portugal. The exact character of the movement that has so deeply engaged the interests and sympathies of the Archbishop we cannot discuss in this place. It is enough to say that the body of the Irish bishops were long doubtful as to the expediency of the course proposed by Lord Plunket, and wisely resolved to defer action till they were able to ask counsel of the Lambeth Conference. The Lam

1 We extract the following account of the Resolutions referred to from our excellent contemporary the Guardian of February 27, 1889:

'A special meeting of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Ireland was held yesterday week to consider the application from the Spanish Reformed Church for the consecration of a Bishop. There were present the Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin, the Bishops of Meath, Limerick, Derry, Cashel, Cork, Ossory, Kilmore, Clogher, and Down. The following Resolutions were passed :

"1. That, in reply to the memorials presented to us by the Reformed Episcopal Churches of Spain and Portugal, a message be sent to the following effect:—

"That we, the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Ireland, continue to watch with unabated interest the efforts in which memorialists are engaged, and cordially appreciate their desire for that further Episcopal organization without which their work of Church reform must remain incomplete.

"But, while willing to aid them so far as we legitimately can in securing the object which they have in view, we cannot shut our eyes to the wide difference of opinion which exists among the members of the Anglican Communion generally, and even among ourselves, concerning many questions, some of principle, to which the prayer of memorialists has given rise; and, more particularly, as to how far a compliance by the Irish Episcopate with that prayer would be in accord with the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference, to which body this matter was formally submitted at our instance. Nor can we ignore the doubts entertained by some as to whether the consecration by us of a Bishop for a foreign Church, and the use for such a purpose of a service differing from that prescribed in our own Ordinal, are within our competence.

"Under these circumstances we are compelled, in the interests of unity and peace throughout our own Church and the Anglican Communion at large, to inform memorialists that we cannot see our way to comply with their prayer. But, while so saying, we would express our hope that they may, before long, succeed in obtaining the aid for which they seek from some source where the difficulties which embarrass us do not exist, and sincerely do we trust that they may secure thereby even a larger measure of sympathy and support than, in the event of our compliance, they might have reason to expect."

"2. The Archbishop of Dublin having intimated to us his intention of shortly visiting Spain and Portugal, we hereby request him to convey to memorialists the message contained in the foregoing resolution."

beth Conference took the matter into consideration, and after deliberation gave its deliverance. How the Archbishop of Dublin was able to satisfy himself that the judgment of the Conference did not condemn or discourage his proposal of an immediate consecration of a bishop it is not for us to speculate. But his brethren of the Irish episcopate were unable to adopt his Grace's interpretation of the words of the Lambeth Resolution and Report, and they have in a large measure for this particular reason declined to give effect to his wishes. Thus has the Lambeth Conference saved us from what many would have regarded as little short of a very great scandal.

ART. II.-CERTAIN GRAVER ASPECTS OF THE

ROMAN POSITION.

1. Compendium Theologia Moralis P. Joannis Gury S.J. et Antonii Ballerini ejusdem Societatis adnotationibus locupletatum. 2 vols. (Romæ, 1882.)

2. Theologia Moralis S. Alphonsi de Liguorio. Curavit P. MICH. HEILIG, C.SS.R. 6 vols. (Paris, 1845.)

3. Theologia Moralis Universa, auctore P. SCAVINI. 4 vols. (Paris, 1867.)

4. Institutiones Theologica, auctore J. B. BOUVIER, Ep. Cenoman. 6 vols. (Paris, 1881.)

5. Theologia Moralis. AUGUST. LEHMKUHL, S.J. 2 vols. (Friburg, 1883.)

6. Apologia pro Vita Sua. By JOHN HENRY, CARDINAL NEWMAN. (London, 1881).

7. Petri Privilegium. By HENRY EDWARD, ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER. (London, 1871.)

8. Authority. By LUKE RIVINGTON, M.A. (London, 1888.) 9. Roman Catholic Claims. By CHARLES GORE, M.A. (London, 1889.)

MOST thoughtful readers of works by Romanist controversialists (of those, at least, which treat directly of the fundamental claim of the Roman Church) must be struck by a singular fallacy, more or less underlying their entire argument. It is almost invariably taken for granted that the churches of the Roman Communion constitute-to the exclusion of course

of every other Christian body—the visible kingdom of Christ upon earth, and that the religion held by them is consequently the representative form of the Christian religion. Assent to this claim, moreover, is frequently represented as requiring what Roman divines call an act of supernatural faith,' and not as being within the sphere of human reason and permissible discussion, and preliminary in fact to the bestowal and exercise of faith properly so called. The mischief arising from this confusion of ideas, apart from its gross unfairness on the part of those who must be aware of it, arises precisely from its peculiar subtlety. It is not one which the ordinary reader is likely to detect, still less be able to sift. Take an average Roman Catholic of the middle class who is fairly educated: he no doubt is taught, and possibly will hold more or less intellectually, that the entire practice and teaching of his Church

as he to-day sees and knows it—is true, simply because it is hers. He probably knows little or nothing of the distinction which the theologians of his own Church make between the 'Preamble of Faith,' as they call it, and Faith itself properly so called. He has a sort of general notion-not altogether without support from the ordinary teaching he receives in books and from the pulpit—that his assent, from first to last, is an exercise of divine faith,' a use of that supernatural illumination of the intellectual faculties which his Catechism describes as a supernatural gift of God, which enables us to believe without doubting whatever He has revealed.' That, no doubt, is a perfectly intelligible position; it has, moreover, other attractions, especially to minds of a certain order—those, for instance, who have neither the taste nor the time to inquire into the motives of their religious belief or practice, and prefer that all such matters should be settled for them. Such persons constantly mistake this attitude of mind for intellectual submissiveness, and take credit to themselves for having, as they imagine, brought 'into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.' They mistake intellectual indolence for docility in reality they are refusing to accept one of the very first conditions of the life of faith, which is that we should in our present state'know only in part, and see di' šσóπтρov žv aiviypari. Still the position is intelligible, and so far forth logical. It is its starting-point, its fundamental postulate which we attack. If Christianity be indeed a divinely revealed religion, assent to its teaching must obviously be given mainly

1 Thus Mr. Rivington clearly speaks of his acceptance of the Roman claim as the result of the 'gift of gifts,' the 'gift of Faith.'--Authority, p. 59.

on that account. The representative form-whatever that may be-of Christianity must, equally obviously, be an infallibly true religion. But the claim of the Roman Church to be this representative form must in the first instance be capable of rational proof; it cannot surely be less so than the claim of the Divine Founder of Christianity Himself to be a teacher sent from God. Assent to His teaching, as His, subsequent to and consequent upon acceptance of His claim to authority would obviously preclude discussion of the merits of that teaching in itself. It is quite otherwise with the previous claim to be a Divine Teacher. The proofs of that, not only those which He Himself deigned to furnish, but throughout the entire New Testament, are in fact a sustained appeal to the ordinary reasoning faculties. There is no suggestion whatever that they are the object of a subjective and spiritual sense vouchsafed to a favoured few; they deal with facts of human history, and are within the cognizance of all. The fulfilment of prophecy, the testimony of miracles, the failure of then existing systems to give either consistent or effectual moral teaching are adduced over and over again, and the sin of rejecting their evidence is insisted on. How do Roman controversialists, as a rule, treat the precisely analogous fundamental claim put forward by them on behalf of their Church? Almost invariably in one or other of two ways: either they simply take it for granted at the outset, or they place it among the truths certainly revealed by our Lord (and, therefore, according to their own hypothesis taught by their own Church), and as such to be accepted without discussion as a 'mystery of faith' which supersedes demonstration and 'triumphs over history.' But surely the claim of the Church of Rome to be a divine teacher, in virtue of her being the representative form of the Christian religion, must be judged by the very same criteria to which our Divine Master's own claim appeals; that it is, therefore, within the cognizance of those very faculties which find repose in accepting Him as a Divine and infallibly true Teacher and Guide.

Let us suppose the case of an intelligent and thoughtful man who had been led by independent inquiry and research to have fully admitted that claim. We are of course only supposing such a case, in which the conclusion arrived at-viz. that our Lord was a Teacher sent from God-would have been the result entirely of private and independent research and reflection, of personal and spontaneous efforts to arrive at the truth, unaided, on the one hand, by any previous bias in the natural order of things, and, on the other, by any direct VOL. XXVIII.-NO. LV.

D

supernatural and subjective insight. Such a conclusion would obviously be fully within the scope of the man's natural reasoning faculties. It would follow as a consequence in the mind of that man that the religion which Christ taught must be an infallibly true religion, and, in fact, the divinely given and authentic revelation of God's truth to mankind.

But here a further question would inevitably arise, viz. Which conception of Christianity is the true one? That is to say, among the various forms of that religion, and the different bodies professing the faith and name of Christian, and all, though in different ways, claiming Christ as their teacher, which may be said to be most strictly representative of His teaching and in harmony with the purposes of His coming? Is there, in fact, now upon earth any one Christian body which not only claims to set forth His doctrine in its purest and fullest form, but even to teach in His Name, and with His authority, in virtue of a commission directly received from Himself, of which the proofs, accessible to all alike, are forthcoming in the earliest records of Christianity-which is, in fact, His lawful representative in the world, and as such, in one word, representative Christianity? Now it seems clear that the answer to this question, as well as the mental process by which it is arrived at, must be within the reasoning faculty of any ordinarily intelligent man. It must be capable of rational demonstration. It cannot be assumed to be a point of doctrine received without question on the authority of that body, and it is simply a begging of the whole question to treat it, as Romanists frequently do, as such. Subsequent, no doubt, to its acceptance, such an answer, if assumed to be the right one, might be conceived as supported, enlightened, increased in certainty by the added light of supernatural and divine faith. But, as Cardinal Newman himself admits, we must begin with private judgment.' There is no question here as to how far it is either logical or reverent to exercise that judgment upon the teaching given, after we have accepted and admitted the claim to teach. All that we contend for is that the original claim must be within the cognizance of the natural reasoning powers, and that it can only be admitted in virtue of the right and power inherent in those faculties of exercising the private judgment on questions of fact.1

1 Cardinal Newman himself admits this in Loss and Gain (edition of 1848), p. 182. His well-known analogy of the 'stable lantern,' therefore, does not apply, as we are supposing a man looking for the house, not criticizing it from within. He might, however (such things have happened in London), rave found that he had got into the wrong one, and was among strangers! How then?