from ancient times. The English Church was to be traced not to the Reformation, but to missionaries of the first and second centuries. All her ecclesiastical life was to be credited with an independent vitality, not essentially affected by Romanism at any point in her history.

Certain great points of doctrine were to be insisted upon as marks of catholicity. After antiquity and unity come the doctrines of apostolical succession, baptismal regeneration, the sacrifice of the Eucharist or the Mass, and the authority of creeds and councils.

Apostolical succession requires that there should be an unbroken line of episcopal consecration from the apostles down to the present; a position immensely difficult to sustain by tracing a chain, link by link, through all the vicissitudes of the history of the church in the dark ages or even in the Reformation era. Macaulay in one of his essays gives a trenchant characterization of this theory, from which we select a single sentence: "And whether any clergyman be a priest by succession from the apostles depends upon the question, whether, during that long period, some thousands of events took place, any one of which may, without any gross improbability, be supposed not to have taken place."

Baptismal regeneration depends upon the apostolic authority derived from this succession of the ordaining bishop; the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, upon the same precarious and unprovable theory.

Now, if these, together with the authority of creeds. and councils, indicate the true church, surely the claim of the English Church is far more insecure than that of either the Greek or Roman Church. If she is catholic, they are far more so; for they have more consistently developed on the lines indicated, and have taught these tenets more distinctly and continuously.

4

If the authority of councils be admitted, how will it be

Gladstone on Church and State," Macaulay's Essays, Riverside Ed., Vol. iv. p. 168.

sufficiently shown that the Council of Trent was schismatic and not catholic? Is not he a true catholic who embraces the doctrines of that council, and accepts the dogma of immaculate conception, or even that of the infallibility of the Pope? Certain principles of catholicity once admitted, inexorable logic leads, not to Anglicanism, but to Rome.

Newman, one of the rarest logicians of the age, called by a noted writer "the John Stuart Mill of theology," could not fail to be finally impelled, in spite of all early prejudices, to the inevitable conclusions whither his premises tended. That he was ignorant for years of the destination to which he was being carried, cannot be doubted, nor that he was entirely free from that desire to take proselytes with him to the Romish Communion which Kingsley and others charged upon him.

In 1841 appeared Tract No. 90, in which Newman made a final effort to hold his standing-ground in the Church of England, by arguing that the Thirty-nine Articles, for example, might be subscribed to and interpreted in an entirely different sense from that intended by their original framers, and that essential Romanism was not inconsistent with articles directly prepared as a breastwork against it. This publication created the greatest excitement, and led to the suppression of the series by order of the Bishop of Oxford.

Silenced as a writer, and afterward as a preacher at Oxford, Newman resigned his living, and withdrew to his retired parish church at Littlemore, where he remained in seclusion until 1846, when he formally seceded and united with the Church of Rome.

This final act, which one would think might have been foreseen for many years, called forth a great outburst of surprise and sorrow from many who had gone with him. to the very brink, but could not dare the unknown sea. Not many at first followed him; but gradually more and more of his disciples found their position untenable and

abandoned it to become Romish priests. Faber, the hymn writer, seceded the same year as Newman; Manning, not until 1851. In 1862 three hundred clergymen in all; in the course of twenty years or so later, three thousand clergymen and eminent laymen were counted among the proselytes to Rome. Keble, with his sentimental temperament, on consulting his wife's feelings and testing his own attachment to his parish home, decided that he could never go over to Rome, and many of the other Tractarians showed a like want of logic or honesty. Pusey, prosecuted and silenced in 1843 for two years for teaching transubstantiation, gathered a halo of martyrdom about him, became the only visible head of the disorganized band of Anglo-Catholics, and gave to the after-wave of the whole movement the name of "Puseyism." Gladstone, Samuel Wilberforce, J. B. Mozley, Church, and others, after a little gave new strength to the party, which has enjoyed a series of alternate persecutions and revivals to the present, when we seem again on the rising flood of ritualism both in England and in this country.

The positions of the modern apostles of ritualism differ in no way essentially from the theology of the "Oxford Tracts;" only the approaches to Rome are more carefully guarded and the claim is made, in the words of Dr. Ewer in 1883, that "the Great Revival itself instead of having a drift Romeward, has proved to be a solvent, analyzing Romanism, and separating for condemnation its medieval and modern popery from ancient catholicity."*

But it is evident that the effect of the movement upon such minds as those of Matthew Arnold, Arthur Hugh Clough, and F. W. Newman is not less legitimate and logical than the secession of John Henry Newman and his followers to the Church of Rome.

The lesson of this whole upheaval of thought, it seems to us, is, that faith in God and the Scriptures is based B Pamphlet: "What is the Anglican Church?" F. C. Ewer, S. T. D. "Living Church ", 1883, p. 31.

upon faith in the capacity of the human soul to apprehend truth, and that to distrust the appeal to the human mind under the guidance of the Holy Spirit reverently sought is inevitably to end either in submission and surrender of the judgment to a so-called infallible church, or in the despair of hopeless doubt.

ARTICLE V.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF PERCEPTION.

BY THE REV. professor HENRY N. DAY, D. D., NEW HAVEN, CONN.

THE doctrine of perception was justly recognized by Sir William Hamilton as "a cardinal point of philosophy." He accordingly prosecuted his study of the subject with an earnestness and persistence elsewhere unsurpassed in all his labors. We are astounded at his wealth of learning and bewildered by his dialectic subtlety, but are left, withal, entirely adrift in regard to what we should think of the exact nature and the philosophical significance of this mental phenomenon. His extended discussions of the subject, however, will relieve the student from much wearisome toil in tracing out the history of the doctrine in its dreary succession of stages, as well as in the detec tion and refutation of errors that have crept into the speculations. We may thus take our departure at once from his voluminous expositions, resting in the conviction, that, if successful in grasping the truths in fact and logic which he has established, while shunning the mistakes and supplying the deficiencies that unhappily mar his work, as they do more or less all human endeavor, we shall attain the fullest and the exactest knowledge possible to us in this fundamental department of philosophical research.

PERCEPTION DEFINED.

We may safely start in our study with the summary exposition given of perception by Hamilton in his last utterance. He now defines perception to be "the appre