in his judgment is the restoration of the ecclesiastical convocations, which had slept for a century and a half, as the true representatives of the Church in place of the temporal Parliament. In close connection herewith is the strengthening of the Anglo-Catholic conception of the Church in its contrast to that of the papal system. The Anglo-Catholic Church itself in both hemispheres has grown so rapidly that, instead of the sixty-seven bishops at the beginning of the Tractarian movement, it to-day counts two hundred and fifteen. Far greater, however, is the growth of the Church's influence upon the life of the people. The restoration of voluntary confession is the result of the recognition of the pedagogical functions belonging to the cure of souls. The so-called new orders, especially the sisters' homes, are asylums intended to meet and ameliorate social needs. The Catholic name simply stands for what in Germany is comprehended under the name of "home missions": hospitals, schools, Magdalen-asylums, orphanages, convalescent homes, tradeschools and sewing-schools, all the various efforts to enhance the ability for self-support among the female sex, and many other philanthropic agencies.

That within the Church of England, with all the appreciation given to its Catholic character, the spirit of the Reformation has more and more triumphed, is proved, among other things, by the pan-Anglican councils, held since 1867, with their anti-papal decrees. It was by the suggestion of Dr. Pusey that the pan-Anglican conferences took their stand, not upon the first four general councils, but upon the first six, and by that act included in their doctrinal basis the condemnation of an heretical pope by an ecumenical council. To German Protestants a good deal will still appear strange in these formularies. But German Church history knows of similar attempts at union upon the basis of the undivided Church of the first six centuries. The disputes oc

casioned by the Syncretism of Calixtus, early in the seventeenth century, drove many converts into the Church of Rome; but Syncretism became in the end the forerunner of Pietism and of the general reinvigoration of Reformation ideas. Such appears to be to-day the prospect in the Church of England.

WE

E have already mentioned the "restoration of the Episcopal hierarchy" as as coincident with the climax of English conversions; this was the requital on the part of the pope for Catholic emancipation. The consideration of this subject was interrupted in order to trace the Anglo-Catholic movement through its various stages to the final outcome. By so doing we have now been placed in a position to follow the interferences of the Vatican in the affairs of England, not as an isolated phenomenon, but in connection with what went before and with what came after.

Our survey of the progress of papalism couples the history of Ireland with that of England. For we must keep in view the long series of Irish conspiracies, charitably ignored by the Papacy, in order to comprehend the reactionary step which England took when she sent Errington on a mission to Rome (1880). From the establishment of the papal hierarchy by Pius IX. to the secret mission of Errington to Leo XIII. the papal policy runs a straight course.

It was in the middle of October, 1850, when England was surprised by the announcement that the pope in secret consistory had ordered the "restoration" of the "Catholic" hierarchy in England, had nominated the

apostolic vicar Wiseman as archbishop of Westminster, and had divided all England into twelve bishoprics under him. By this "restoration " the Church of England, as by law established, was simply treated as non-existent and given to understand that she, no more than any other schismatic church, could claim any rights over against the authority of the Propaganda.

In view of the care with which the Anglo-Catholic Church had always guarded the apostolical succession of her bishops, there was in this action a much larger degree of assumption than if such pretensions had been made towards bishopless Protestants. The title "archbishop of Westminster" was particularly outrageous, because by it the royal court and the Parliament were submitted to the jurisdiction of the Roman prelate, who at the same time received the title of cardinal.

The consequences of this proceeding were just what had been counted upon in Rome: intense momentary excitement without any real fruits. Every fibre of the national feeling vibrated with excitement. It seemed almost as if all the gains that the papal Church had hitherto made had become jeopardised.

Everywhere there were meetings, loyal addresses were adopted, and impetuous demands made for interference by the government. All non-Tractarian pulpits thundered against the Roman antichrist and the false prophets in their own Church. These sermons were loudly re-echoed by the press. It was a harmless but significant act of vengeance, that on the commemoration day of the gunpowder plot Guy Fawkes processions on a magnificent scale and attended by a general concourse of people paraded the capital. At the conclusion of the celebration the pope, Wiseman, and Pusey were burned in effigy.

Even the ministry was drawn into the popular movement. By a curious coincidence Lord John Russell, the

principal author of Catholic emancipation, stood at its head. The action of the pope was a bitter requital for the trustfulness of those English statesmen who had omitted to take the necessary precautionary measures against papal aggression when emancipation was carried through in obedience to the just demands which the spirit of the times made. They had meekly accepted the policy of the Curia with regard to Ireland. And after the Curia had been suffered to set up in Ireland, against the bishops of the state Church, its opposition bishops with the same titles, a like measure could not be prevented in England. What did it avail that the prime minister wrote a letter to the bishop of Durham (November 4, 1850), in which he spoke with indignation of papal pretensions and promised decided counter-measures? The bishops of the state Church might unanimously re-echo his sentiments, that did not put their rivals out of the way. What real advantage was gained by the ecclesiastical titles bill, which was introduced by the ministry in February, 1851, and accepted by Parliament? It forbade the Roman bishops the public use of their titles, assumed from the cities of England, and it prohibited the wearing in public of their costumes by clergy and monks. But even this prohibition remained a dead letter. And what finally came of the state oversight of the monasteries which was now made law? It remained disregarded, like the numerous older laws that have never been repealed, which have as much validity as ever, but "exist only not to be applied." Too frequently has, since then, this pernicious form of speech been used in Parliament, when motions have been made for the enforcement of the prohibition of the Jesuits and for the investigation of abuses in the monasteries. These motions have always been rejected with derision.

While thus legal measures proved as fruitless as the popular excitement that preceded them, the papal cohort