adopted on quite other grounds.  The epigoni of the Catholic revival are not learned; they know even less of the Fathers than of their Bibles.  Their chief literature consists of a weekly penny newspaper, which reflects only too well their prejudices and aspirations.  On the other hand, they are far busier than the older generation.  The movement has become democratic; it has passed from the quadrangles of Oxford to the streets and lanes of our great cities, where hundreds of devoted clergymen are working zealously, without care for remuneration or thought of recognition, among the poorest of the populace.  Of late years, the more energetic section of the party has not only abandoned the ’Church and King’ Toryism of the old High Church party, but has plunged into socialism.  The Mirfield community is said to be strongly imbued with collectivist ideas; and the Christian Social Union, which is chiefly supported by High Churchmen, tends to become more and more a Union of Christian Socialists, instead of being, as was intended by its founders, a non-political association for the study of social duties and problems in the light of the Sermon on the Mount.  This attitude is partly the result of a close acquaintance with the sufferings of the urban proletariat, which moves the priests who minister among them to a generous sympathy with their lot; and, partly, it may be, to an unavowed calculation that an alliance with the most rapidly growing political party may in time to come be useful to the Church.  Their methods of teaching are also more democratic, though many of them make the fatal mistake of despising preaching.  They rely partly on what they call ‘definite Catholic teaching,’ including frequent exhortations to the practice of confession; and partly on appeals to the eye, by symbolic ritual and elaborate ceremonial.  Their more ornate services are often admirably performed from a spectacular point of view, and are far superior to most Roman Catholic functions in reverence, beauty, and good taste.  The extreme section of the party is contemptuously lawless, not only repudiating the authority of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but flouting the bishops with studied insolence.  A glaring instance is to be found in the correspondence between Mr. Athelstan Riley and the Bishop of Oxford, which followed the Report of the Royal Commission on ritual practices.

Doctrinally, the modern Ritualist is prepared to surrender the old theory of inspiration.  He takes, indeed, but little interest in the Bible; his oracle is not the Book, but ‘the Church.’  What he means by the Church it is not easy to say.  The old Anglican theory of the infallible undivided Church is not repudiated by him, but does not appeal to minds which look forward much more than backward; he is not yet, except in a few instances, disposed to accept the modern Roman Church as the arbiter of doctrine; and the English Church has no living voice to which he pays the slightest respect.  The ’tradition