Philosophical Anglicanism differs from ordinary formalism in this, that whereas the ordinary formalist is condemned to life-long silence because he dares not say what he thinks, the philosophical Anglican, whilst accepting all the forms like the other, has assumed complete liberty of utterance. In short, he is a formalist who is tired of being gagged. How he reconciles his liberty of thought and speech with the old submission to forms and names it is not my business to explain. The remarkable peculiarity of the case, and its special interest, is that in the leaders of the movement there is no hypocrisy. Even Mr. Tollemache, who admits a certain _ésotérisme inévitable_, takes away that ground for the accusation of hypocrisy by putting the secret into print. All is clear and above-board with the leaders, but it may be suspected that with many of their followers the _ésotérisme inévitable_ is carried so far in prudence that their position is not morally different from that of the everyday English formalist, already so familiar to us. Therefore, in spite of the really admirable honesty of Mr. Arnold and Mr. Tollemache, I am not sure that the movement is favourable to honesty in the rank and file, who will not feel under the same obligation to take mankind into their confidence. And with respect to the clergy the examples of Dean Stanley and Mark Pattison are even less encouraging, since in their case the _ésotérisme inévitable_ must assume still larger proportions. What they thought I do not profess to know, as we have not any clear and brief statement of their views, but they were certainly freethinkers in the sense of not being deterred by dogma. Subject to correction from their admirers, I should say that their opinions did not differ essentially from those of Renan. They may have accepted the _moral_ side of the Christian religion, but even in that they would probably reject what obviously belonged to an early stage of civilisation. The danger of their example consists in encouraging a class of freethinking clergymen, who must necessarily defend an essentially false position by the most disingenuous arts. [Sidenote: Liberal French Protestantism.]