in question not as regards Christianity in general, nor yet as regards the Christian Churches taken together, but specially as regards the Church of England.

Of course, we shall be obliged to disregard this limitation, in so far as that it will be necessary to discuss the subject under its more general aspects previous to narrowing down the consideration of it to the single head of enquiry above referred to. Nevertheless, our ultimate object is to determine the relation of negative opinion to the Church of England, and therefore, as we just now said, the question arises as to the nature and extent of this limitation. Now, obviously the Church of England and other religious denominations stand in many respects on the same footing as regards those who deny, or who are indifferent to, the Christian faith in its received form. Churchmen and Nonconformists profess to maintain in common a certain residuum of belief which, though probably incapable of being defined to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, is yet, so far as it goes, a very real uniting bond between them as against those who are otherwise minded. Most Christian believers would regard even this mode of statement as inadequate; they would prefer to say that, quite independently of their being or not being members of different denominations, there was a truth accepted by them in common.

At the same time, though all Christians stand theoretically on the same footing as regards those who are not Christians (or who are assumed not to be such), each society of Christians, each Church and each religious denomination, exhibits itself to those outside its pale in some peculiar way, and elicits a reaction correspondingly peculiar in each case. It is no mere

difference in the externals of doctrine or ritual which is the cause of the different impressions thus produced and of the different reactions thus occasioned. To all such merely external differences between religious denominations, the undenominationalists and antidenominationalists are for the most part blind. These

classes of men do not, as is sometimes supposed, become what they are owing to their observation of the differences and inconsistencies existing between rival sects and parties, each of which claims the name of Christian. That observation leads more often not to denominational indifferentism, but to Romanism (or at least to some system based on an extreme assertion of authority), and it has been with a view to facilitating this latter result, that apologists of the Church of Rome have always laid special stress on the "variations” of Protestantism. On the other hand, the men we are referring to, think more of the likeness than of the differences amongst those from whom they are themselves parted. They are indeed often more alive to the existence of a common element amongst orthodox Christians, than these latter are alive to it themselves, and the fact that orthodox Christians disagree on minor points amongst themselves, is to them quite secondary to the fact that all orthodox Christians are agreed on the fundamental points of their religion as against those who are not orthodox. Hence, it is not the differences between religious denominations, as these differences are ordinarily understood, which we require to bear in mind in considering the relation of any given denomination to the classes in question. But there is over and above these commonly assigned differences, and far more important than any of them, a peculiar way of presenting religious truth distinctive. of each Christian society or Church, and which gives to each such society its character in the eyes of outsiders.

Now in respect of persons who have been brought up altogether undenominationally (who, however, amongst the educated classes are relatively few in number), the character of each Christian denomination, qua its particular manner of presenting religious truth, is a matter of trifling importance. In such cases, all denominations are commonly lumped together as equally deluded, and the only difference recognised

between them is the more or less reactionary attitude assumed by some of them in comparison with others. Nor again in respect of persons alienated-whether formally or in spirit-from some one or other of the Nonconformist societies by reason of divergences in respect of theological belief, is the character of the denomination in question, qua its manner of presenting religious truth, a matter to which as a rule great importance attaches, however much it may do so in some cases. On the other hand, the alienation from the Church of England, on theological or anti-theological grounds, does not necessarily, or usually, involve the withdrawal of all interest in the Church's manner of presenting religious truth on the part of the persons so alienated. There are two reasons for this.

(1) The breadth, comprehensiveness, and indeterminateness of the Church's terms of communion (her articles and formularies), not less than her practical liberality as regards the enforcement of those terms. Not that, on the strength of these considerations, the theologically alienated classes imagine that there is now, or that by any hocus-pocus of Church Reformers there is likely to be, room enough for themselves within the Church's theological boundaries. If they thought that, they would not remain in a state of alienation. Still, though no idea of that kind is entertained by these classes-at all events with regard to the present generation-they cannot lose their sympathy towards an institution which meets them in so many respects half way, which is never one-sided, and which if, on the contrary, approximating too closely to a mere loose. and haphazard combination of divergent tendencies, may yet for that very reason be placed in a unique position for reconciling what now seem opposites. Yet at this point it must be observed, that the sympathy of these classes on these grounds towards the Church of England, is reserved for the more general and more old-fashioned conception of the

Church, rather than for the recent manifestations of Anglicanism resulting from the Oxford Movement. The Church of England, as formed on this latter model, is regarded by alienated Churchmen with the same indifference which is felt by alienated Dissenters towards the denomination from which THEY have come out. This, however, is only in passing.

(2) The ethical influence which the Church of England does not cease to exercise on those who have become alienated from her in matters of belief. This of course is far greater in the case of the Church of England than in that of any other English ecclesiastical institution, in proportion as the Church extends further and is more deeply rooted, and in proportion as the associations which attach to the Church are more attractive, more varied, and more national than any others which can be brought into comparison with them by other religious communions.

It is then under these two heads that the manner of presenting religious truth characteristic of the Church of England, discloses itself to those who have become alienated from her communion on theological or anti-theological grounds. These are the two

sources from which the influence of the Church of England in respect of such persons is derived. Here therefore we have an answer to the question we asked at starting as regards "the nature of the limitation we impose on ourselves by examining into the position of the classes in question, specially as regards the Church of England.” The limitation consists in this, that the two above-named considerations must always more or less enter into the discussion of the relationship existing between the Church and the classes alienated from her. Consequently, these two essential characteristics of the relationship will constantly assert themselves in the course of what follows.

It is time however now to enquire more particularly of whom these theologically alienated or disaffected classes are composed.

Conceivably, the description of these classes might begin either from that point where the separation from orthodox Christianity has reached its furthest limits, or it might begin from the opposite side and consider first, the case of those who are least far removed from orthodoxy, consistently with the fact that they are removed from it. There are advantages in both methods, but we intend here to confine ourselves to the second. Before, however, going further, let us explain what we mean by the difference between "those who have gone furthest" and "those who have gone least far." By the first class, we do not mean necessarily those persons whose opinions are the most extreme, nor by the second class do we mean necessarily those persons who hold opinions only slightly at variance with traditional beliefs. Those who have gone furthest, those who are the most advanced, we rather understand to be those whose negative opinions are the most thought out and formulated, whose conclusions are most the result of personal observation and reflection. It does not follow that because a man's negative position is in this sense more advanced, it is therefore in the other sense more "advanced" than negative opinion in general. That may or may not be so; but it is not so necessarily, nor is it as a matter of fact always the case.

We propose then to start from negative opinion in general, the opinion of ordinary men of education, whose views tend in a negative direction. The class of men to whom we refer are those who have at least some tincture of culture, and who, both on personal and public grounds, are interested in religious questions, though they are without any special knowledge either of theology or natural science. growing alienation of this class of men is a far more significant, and a far more serious, consideration at the present time than is either the practical heathenism. of large sections among the working classes, on the one hand, or than the anti-orthodox opinions of

The