subject." If Lord Cairns had spoken with out euphemism he would have said that questions as to the legality of ritual or doc trine, depending as they do largely upon historical research, are matters with which secular judges have neither the time nor the ability to deal, he would have been nearer the mark. We shall see the importance of his "fresh light" theory later on. The next move in the anti - ritualistic game was the intro duction by the then Archbishop of Can terbury — Dr. Tait — of the Public Wor ship Regulation Bill, providing for the ap pointment by the Archbishops of Can terbury and York of a secular judge in the Court of Arches, and enabling an arch deacon, a church warden, any three parishioners, or any three inhabitants — being males of full age — of a diocese, to bring before him, with the consent of THF. EARL OF the bishop, any un lawful additions to or variations of the au thorized ritual of the Church, for adjudica tion. After some hesitation, and possibly not without an indication of royal sympathy with the measure, Mr. Disraeli treated it as a government bill. A very curious division of opinion on the subject, both in the Cab inet and in the Liberal opposition, was at once disclosed. The Marquis of Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone for once in their lives united to denounce it as an invasion of the spiritual privileges of the Church. Sir Wil liam Harcourt supported Mr. Disraeli in pressing it forward with the violence of lan-
guage which was then his chief political characteristic, and with a wealth of ecclesias tical learning accumulated at a few days' notice. The honors of the controversy rested with Mr. Gladstone. Although never a Ritualist, Mr. Gladstone has through his long life held with passion ate and unswerving allegiance the High Church position, of which ritualism is one of the outward and Xe.%*. visible signs. The ' ., apostolic succession, |:£>•. the necessity of epis."'■ copal ordination, baptismal regenera tion, the real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, the indis solubility of the marriage tie by any secular tribunal — these and all the other doctrines of the same kind, which are to dissenters a stumb ling-block, and to easy going men of the world foolishness — are in Mr. Glad stone's opinion a catena of gifts and graces fraught with SHAFTESBURY. hope and blessing for mankind. He has criticised the Church of England with faithfulness and severity; he has dwelt on her faults more than some of her children consider to have been either just or generous. But no thought of leav ing her communion has ever crossed his mental horizon. In one memorable pas sage in his "Gleanings from Past Years" he points out that while those who believe that a church is merely a voluntary associa tion of Christians may pass from communion to communion lightheartedly, no such course is open to those who hold the Church of England to be the appointed channel in
