To crush the principles of old Churchmanship was not, however, a task to which the rising intellect of Oxford would lend itself; it retired and left that work to others; or it strayed into German literature, whither the popular hatred had not yet learned to track it: and now the wail goes forth from “Charge” after “Charge,” that men of higher minds have fled, or turned “neologians!” Is there no Nemesis here?—A few years since, the Church’s rapid descent from her position of ancient learning was regarded with a quiet despair by some even of our most thoughtful men. A late dignitary even expressed “thankfulness” on one occasion at some moderate-looking promotion that had been made in high places, and he was remonstrated with by one who knew the entire ignorance of theology of the clergyman who had just been honoured. “Why, he is wholly ignorant of Christianity!” was, I believe, the exclamation. “Yes,” was the answer, “but he is not _hostile_ to it.” But will any relaxation of “Subscription”—will the destruction of the Articles, or the Revision of the Liturgy by “the Association” set up of late, bring back Theological learning, or tempt the “higher minds” into the Church’s ranks? No one can imagine it. A great misfortune has happened to us, and the way to repair it is not easily seen; but it is something to see the evil itself. The Romanizing movement was a great misfortune: we all deplore it, even those who know that it was provoked by the narrow-minded treatment which it received. But the loss of Theology and high intellect is a greater misfortune by far; and this will be yet found, when the dulness of a coming generation has to defend the Bible apart from the Church. The Athanasian Creed. (4.) In discussing the “practical evils” of Subscription, I observe that Dr. STANLEY occasionally singles out parts of our “Formularies,” as involving special difficulty, and embarrassing “subscribers” in a more painful way than others. More than once he mentions the Creed of St. Athanasius as a peculiar hardship. In the first place, he somewhat roughly and unfairly charges _falsehood_ on the Article for calling it St. Athanasius’s (p. 13); but surely he would not mean to charge falsehood on the Prayer-book, for speaking of the “_Apostles_ Creed”—and yet the Apostles did not write it,—or of the “_Nicene_ Creed,” although the latter part of it be not Nicene? The meaning is so plain and easy, that I own that I wonder at the tone of Dr. STANLEY here. {32} The Creed “commonly _called_ Athanasian” is surely a good description of a document which expresses well the truth which Athanasius defended, and the Church, by saying “commonly called,” expressly refrains from certifying his authorship. But the admission of the Creed itself is the evident grievance, and so there is anger at the very name. To this, then, I will address myself.