g 4-10 gGTGa ■ A A rn 1 i — i 2 7 GIONAL ■pa mm ^ LIBRA iMq ■< \ n{8 ACIL BHi 9 ■ ITY THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OE CALIEORNIA LOS ANGELES OBJECTIONS TO THE EDUCATION BILL 1906 IN PRINCIPLE AND IN DETAIL By CHARLES GORE, D.D.. D.C.L. BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM LONDON JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET 1906 I 28 OGl- X0 '^olitic^'--'-' OBJECTIONS TO THE EDUCATION BILL 1906 IN PRINCIPLE AND IN DETAIL By CHARLES GORE, D.D., D.C.L, Bishop of Birmingham /CHURCHMEN are finding themselves in an ^"-^ attitude of most strenuous opposition to what is for this year the leading measure of the new Government — the Education Bill introduced by Mr. Birrell on Monday, April 9th. To the writer of these lines, with many other Churchmen who had hoped, and do still hope, so much from the new Government, such an attitude cannot but be profoundly distasteful ; and though, doubt- less, many others will be explaining the grounds of their objections to the proposed measure, I also must attempt to explain, especially for those who in some sense value the name and principle of Liberalism, why I feel bound to offer a radical and thorough opposition to the Bill in principle and in detail, as being a Bill not only liatly contrary to the religious convictions of those with whom I agree, but also, in its whole conception, 40G105 4 OBJECTIONS TO contrary to the very idea of Liberalism, and to the fundamental principles on which alone modern social progress can be expected. I. First of all, then, the Bill " establishes " one particular kind of State religious teaching in the State schools at the expense of every other — the kind called " Undenominational," and mis- called " Simple Bible Teaching." I would respectfully but urgently ask that this latter phrase might be banished, in the sense which it is at present made to bear, from among our popular terms. It is utterly misleading. You can teach children the Bible or religion simply only by teaching positive religious opinions in an uncontroversial manner, without giving the reasons /r(? or con. which justify or are supposed to justify the opinions. That is what is called teaching dogmatically — " dogma " meaning the established religious truths which are taken for granted in some religious society. The dogmas may be Unitarian, or Roman Catholic, or Ana- baptist, or Anglican. You can teach the Bible simply — though not, of course, in my judgment equally truly — on the basis of any of these positions ; or you can conceive an agreement EDUCATION BILL 5 among religious bodies to teach only certain religious truths which are common to all of them. 'v^But in all cases you can only teach religion simply By teaching certain defined religious truths. To teach without any such standard means inevitably to teach either vaguely, which is just what is most fatal to teaching the childish mind, or argu- mentatively, giving the various opinions without deciding between them, which is, by general consent, the wrong way of teaching children. The only way to give simple Bible teaching of any kind is to teach dogmatically. I defy anyone to teach the end of the sermon on the Mount, or the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, with any degree of reality, or in such away as to make any impression on a child's mind, without teaching that Jesus of Nazareth, who spoke these words, claims to be the Lord and final judge of all men, in their secret as well as their public lives ; and for my part I cannot conceive teaching a child this without explaining why one man can make this stupendous claim over the whole human race. No one, again, can make a child realise the meaning of the clause in the Lord's Prayer, " Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," without explaining that there are angels in heaven who do God's will ; or the clause, " Deliver us from the 6 OBJECTIONS TO evil one " (granted the right translation, as given in the Revised Version), without teaching that there is an evil spirit, called the devil, who tempts children and all men (including politicians). If I am not to teach these dogmas, I cannot teach children these famous passages of Scripture " simply " at all. I can only hurry the whole passage over, or involve it in a fog, and evade somehow the enquiries of the children. Let us have done, then, with the idea that "simple" religious teaching for children can be undogmatic. But a certain kind of religious teaching — simple or vague — the kind commonly called undenomina- tional, is by this Bill to be "established" as the State religion in all the schools of the State. That means that, for the first time, it and it alone is to be given at the public expense by the teachers generally. What is this undenominational teaching ? It is the same professedly as has been given in Board schools or " provided " schools since 1870. But the Board school teaching might be, to start with, as dogmatic as any other, provided that no formula distinctive of a particular religious body was used. Board school or provided school teaching has often been strenuously dogmatic EDUCATION BILL 7 teaching. For instance, the head teacher in a provided school recently taught the children that there are three Gods. And as this proposition is not contained in any formula distinctive of the Church or other denomination, I suppose he was within his rights in giving this dogmatic instruc- tion. Often provided school teaching has been, unlike the specimen just quoted, both dogmatic and (in my judgment) also true. There is nothing in this Bill to alter the condition of things. But there has been growing a general understanding that the religious teaching is to be " undogmatic," or " undoctrinal," or "merely ethical." Now the ethics of the Bible are involved in doctrine about God and man in one inseparable whole, and therefore "merely ethical" teaching cannot be simple Bible teaching. What, however, is apparently intended is that what shall be given in all schools (where the local education authority sanctions religious teaching being given) is Bible lessons, omitting as far as possible the distinctive Christian doctrines, which, as I have said, must mean Bible lessons of a kind untrue to their subject-matter, and not calculated to gain a hold on or to impress the childish mind. At any rate, the teachers in all schools, with the permission of the local education authority, OBJECTIONS TO are to be encouraged to give some kind of religious teaching which does not involve any reference to the standards or institutions of a religious body, such as the Church. Now the Nonconformists appear to be generally satisfied with such religious teaching. I have just been reading the life of R. W. Dale, and what he would say about their present attitude it is easy to conjecture. But I am not concerned to criticise this attitude, only to observe it. The un- denominational teaching, the religious teaching without reference to standards, satisfies most of the Nonconformists. But it profoundly dis- satisfies most Churchmen or many Churchmen, all Roman Catholics, and some Nonconformists who inherit the traditions of Dale. I will explain very soon why it is so profoundly unsatisfactory to a Churchman. I am here only emphasising that the Government establishes as the only kind of religious teaching which the State teachers are normally allowed to give, and which alone may be given in all schools, a kind of religious teaching without standard, which is agreeable to Nonconformists and is contrary to the feelings and principles of Anglicans and Roman Catholics, with some others. Hitherto this kind of teaching has been allowed side by side with other kinds of EDUCATION BILL 9 teaching. Half the schools have been denomina- tional. There has been therefore, on the whole, a broad sort of justice. Now the undenominational is given a manifest supremacy as being alone taught by the public teacher at the public expense. This is, therefore, a measure of establishment — the establishment in the schools of the country of the religious teaching approved by the Nonconformists. It is by this very fact a measure depriving those who in this respect disagree with the Noncon- formists, and who equally with them are ratepayers and citizens, of equal justice. It is a measure of religious inequality. Now there is nothing which has been more constantly taken for granted than that modern Liberalism was bound up with religious equality, with the principle that the State should be impartial in its attitude towards religious differences. This, therefore, is a measure flatly incompatible with Liberal principles. II. Secondly, the religious teaching thus " estab- lished " is of so unreasonable and unsatisfactory a character that its exclusive or preferential establishment can only result in bringing religion into disrepute. I fancy that in Germany the inhabitants are lo OBJECTIONS TO much more ready than we are to accept their religious differences as facts, and to base their pubHc policy upon a recognition of their existence without enquiry about them. In England it is not so. We are broadly Anglican Churchmen, or Nonconformists, or Roman Catholics, or Jews, or Unitarians, or non-believers. Practically, so far as concerns the classes who receive elemen- tary education in State schools, we have Roman Catholics and Jews mainly grouped together in certain districts in towns, and over the country generally the problem is to deal almost only with Anglicans and Nonconformists— Unitarians and non-believers being too few to reckon with. Now one would have supposed that an English Govern- ment and an English public would have accepted the differences between Anglicans and Noncon- formists as inveterate, and would have based its public policy upon a recognition of their existence without argument. But that is not at all our way in England. On the contrary. Churchmen are challenged to explain why they are so bigoted and unreasonable as to object to undenominational religious teaching, all the more as there are a few reasonable people among them, like the Bishop of Carlisle and Canon Henson, to teach them better. Now I find myself gasping under this EDUCATION BILL ii accusation of bigotry and unreasonableness. I have tried to study modern historical criticism applied to the Bible, and especially the New Testament, and I thought it had one plain and luminous outcome. I thought it tended to reach one clear conclusion in writers, orthodox and rationalist, of all nations — viz., that the New Testament as it stands, as a volume of sacred books considered as having final religious authority for Christians, is quite inseparable from the Creed and the organisation of the Church.* The three are part of the same growth. I thought that what contradicted all the tendency of modern criticism was to maintain the New Testament in the old Protestant way, as an authoritative reli- gious volume, apart from the organisation and Creed of the Church, with which, and as part of which, it in fact came into being. Moreover, when I look into the New Testament for myself, I see as plainly as I can see anything, that all the books presuppose the teaching Church and * The critic, of course, as such, simply treats the books of the New Testament as so many separate Hterary productions ; and, if he holds rationalist opinions, he freely rejects their statements, both of fact and of belief. I am speaking above of the New Testament considered as having religious authority. I believe that such authority it can, and ouyht to, retain. But, if it is to retain it, it must be treated as part of the l.ving society, the teaching of which it constantly presupposes. 12 OBJECTIONS TO a certain initiatory doctrine, such as our Church Catechism — which is as "simple" a document as a Catechism can be — attempts to give. The books of the New Testament were written, one and all, for those who had already received the primary teaching of the Church, and who were practically members of the Church, having been baptised and received the laying on of hands, and who were partakers of the teaching and fellowship of the body. To detach the Bible from the Creed and Sacraments of the Church, and to treat it as self- explanatory and capable of standing alone, is to treat it in a totally unhistorical way, is to treat it as it was never meant to be treated ; that is to ay, is to treat it unscientifically. If any scholars can be found to deny this, I will endeavour to prove it. Meanwhile, I must be content to state it. But henceforth the established religion for the children of the English State is to treat the Bible as self-explanatory, or as needing no corporate standard to interpret it. The individual teacher is to interpret it as he pleases, or as best he can. Now, hitherto the teachers have been very largely bred in Church Training Colleges ; they have inherited, consciously or unconsciously, the standards of historical Christianity, the traditional EDUCATION BILL 13 view of Christendom. Henceforth this is to be altered. More and more the teacher is to represent '* the average man " in respect of his rehgious opinions. Moreover, hitherto the standard of provided schools has been con- sciously or unconsciously affected by the more defined standard of the non-provided or denomi- national schools. Such concurrent standard, with its definite influence, will now be removed. No State teacher — except in the rare cases where denominational teaching is to be retained — will teach by any standard or creed. More and more what is to be taught will depend upon the private opinion of the teacher, an opinion which no one is to inquire into, or to sift, or to test. Can any system be imagined more utterly irrational, or unjust, or better calculated to bring religion into contempt ? Some thirty years ago there was a sort of " Protestant religion," with a doctrine of the Trinity, of Heaven and Hell, of Atonement and Judgment, of Resurrection and Eternal Life — which for good or evil could be more or less assumed. Such a standard has gone. I seriously doubt whether nearly half the grown men of the country could seriously say that they believed that Christ is God, or that He really rose the 14 OBJECTIONS TO third day from the dead. It is not that they have become Unitarians. It is that their religious opinions are in complete chaos. To take the teacher from among the " average man " ; to give him no scientific or systematic training in the Christian Creed ; and then to set him to teach religion out of the Bible, by no standard such as the New Testament assumes, simply as he pleases, with the vague understanding that he is not to teach it "doctrinally," is to give the preference in the schools of the country to a religion which rests on a basis of sand, a religion which we can only be content to "establish," if we care about the name of religion rather than the thing. A religion which is worth having for the mass of men must be a religion, such as Scotch Presbyterianism, or Roman Catholicism, or the Churchmanship of the Catechism, or Wesleyanism — a religion of membership, with definine beliefs and definite moral duties and definite religious obligations. It is the exact opposite of this that we are now establishing in our schools, not as a mere expedient for filling up the gaps where nothing better can be provided, but as the kind of religious teaching to which we give the pre- ference, which, as I say, we make the established religion of our schools. EDUCATION BILL 15 I repeat, then, I object, as a Churchman and as a Liberal, to the Government Education Bill — first, because it violates the principle of religious equality by establishing in the State schools one kind of religious teaching, that approved by Non- conformists and objected to by Churchmen and Roman Catholics ; secondly, I object to it because the kind of religious teaching which it establishes, Biblical teaching without standard, is unhistorical, unscientific, and likely to become more and more worthless. III. Thirdly, I object to the present Education Bill of the Government because it proceeds on lines which, by keeping the religious controversy alive, not only in the political, but in the municipal sphere, must serve to hinder social progress of all kinds, for social progress can only proceed effec- tively under our present modern conditions if national and municipal politics are kept as free as possible from religious questions. Englishmen are extraordinarily fond of re- proaching Christians with their controversies, which, however, are the inevitable result of that refusal, right or wrong, to submit our judgments to one ecclesiastical authority, which is the very 1 6 OBJECTIONS TO thing on which we pride ourselves. Grant the value of private judgment in religious matters, and, human nature being as various as it is, and Englishmen as individualistic as they are, we shall certainly differ in religious matters ; and, in proportion as we care about religion, we shall differ seriously and attach value to our differences, and we shall decline to abandon our particular opinions because other people find them somewhat inconvenient. I repeat there is no way out of our religious differences till we either learn to agree by thinking exactly the same, or till we agree, in despair of this, in submitting to one ecclesiastical authority, either the Free Church Council, or the Pope, or the Bench of Bishops, or General Booth. Anglicans are no more to be reproached with holding to their opinions than Swedenborgians or Baptists. These various opinions exist, and many men sincerely hold them, and think them of supreme importance. They will differ strongly, and, because they are men of imperfect temper, they will be occasionally as acrimonious or narrow on religious as on other subjects. The State must simply take these facts for granted ; and, because the modern State ought not to attempt to select one religious opinion to identify itself with, it EDUCATION BILL 17 will show its wisdom by keeping the sphere of political and social progress as distinct as possible from the sphere of religious opinions and dif- ferences. But this Bill makes each local education authority the arbiter of whether any religion is to be taught in the State schools within its area, and also (what is new) the arbiter of whether certain schools within its area are to be allowed to remain, in a certain unsatisfactory sense, de- nominational in respect of the teaching given ; and this must result in introducing religious controversy into every municipal election. It will be vital for Roman Catholics and Anglicans to elect councillors who, as the local education authority, will sanction '* extended facilities," ie.^ the use of certain exceptional schools for denominational purposes, and who will arrange tacitly to let the teachers there be men and women of the denomination chiefly concerned. " Deno- minational " candidates will be run for every ward in every municipality, and the religious cry will interfere with our most obvious and crying social needs, the needs which alone our municipalities are really capable of dealing with, and with which they ought chiefly to occupy themselves. Church- men are thrown into a state of indignation by this Bill, which has not been equalled within our 1 8 OBJECTIONS TO memories. I cannot understand how anyone can doubt that they will combine with Roman Catholics to fight municipal elections in order to secure the necessary majority in favour of " extended facilities." IV. Fourthly, I object to the Bill because it not only violates the principle of religious impartiality, but also tramples specially and emphatically on Churchmen ; and, considering the place which the Church has taken in the national education of the past, treats them with needless and cruel injustice. I do not the least apologise for the mistakes of Churchmen in the past. I have always thought that it has been with us a grievous mistake not spontaneously to offer the best provision possible for Nonconformist children being taught their religion in Church schools where there are none other. I never was able to say that the Noncon- formists had no grievance in single school areas, though I thought that the grievance had been exaggerated ; and though, no doubt, its solution was rendered very difficult by the fact that the Nonconformist bodies showed no such disposition, as the Church has shown, to care for the religious teaching of its own members in elementary EDUCATION BILL 19 schools, still, I think there has been a grievance in single school areas which the Church might have been more alert to rectify. It has liked to ignore Nonconformity, and now it is suffering for this error. But because there has been a griev- ance which the Church ought to have been more willing to see rectified, and on the rectification ot which the State ought to have insisted, and ought now to insist, even at some expense to the country, this constitutes no kind of justification for creating an injustice of far greater magnitude in the opposite direction. I can interpret this Bill in no other way than as an Act of political reprisals by militant Non- conformists who have obtained a command of a political majority. What are the facts ? First in the villages. Owing to the fact that for a very long period the education of the poor was mainly cared for by the Church, and was almost entirely the concern of the parson (or sometimes the squire), with the teacher, it has resulted that the village schools were Church schools, built to educate the children in the principles of the Catechism and associated in the closest way with the Church and the parson. No one who does not know from inside can tell how much of the country parson's work has been ao OBJECTIONS TO with the schools, and (I must add) how very difficult it will be, when you have ousted and alienated him, to find anyone else to interest him- self in the schools as he has done. These country schools are held mostly under trust, or private ownership, for Church purposes. The religious education given has been of a (more or less) Church character, with the safeguard, almost un- used, of the conscience clause. The schoolmaster or the schoolmistress has been a Churchman or Churchwoman, chosen by the Church, or recently by a board of managers, of whom the majority were Churchmen. It would have been, in my judgment, quite right for the State to insist that, where there was even a small minority of Dissen- ters, provision should be elaborately made for their separate instruction in religion, even if they did not seem, in most cases, to care for it. But by the present Bill all these schools in single school areas, inseparably bound up in their history and associations with the Church, very generally forming one group of buildings with the Church and the parsonage, and secured by trust to the Church, are to be alienated. The Church is to have nothing to do with the appointment of the teacher, which, it cannot be said too often, is the matter of chief importance. The teacher is not EDUCATION BILL 21 to have his religious opinions enquired into. He is to teach only undenominational religion, and the representative of a "denomination," presum- ably the parson, is only to appear from outside to give "special" religious instruction, on not more than two mornings a week, to the children of those parents who ask for it, at the expense of the denomination. It is quite plain that the schoolmaster will not, in most cases, like this occasional intrusion. He will be apt to dis- countenance the parents asking for it, and his influence will be increasingly great. He alone will represent the authority in education on the spot. In any case it is quite certain that the Catechism, or the distinctive teaching of the Church, will appear as an "extra" given by an "outsider" at an immense disadvantage to the " regular " religious lessons. I do not think that anyone who does not know what the life of our English villages has been and the place (as a civilising even more than as a religious agency) hitherto held by the parson and his family in the small society, can realise what a needless outrage on the feelings of Churchmen this legislation, if it becomes legislation, will involve, and what bitterness of feeling it will create. It is nothing less than the establishment, as the religious 22 OBJECTIONS TO teacher of the children of the villages, of the undenominational schoolmaster, in place of the representative of the Church. It is not merely the disestablishment of the Church in the schools which the Church has owned and controlled, and for which it has unceasingly laboured, but the counter-establishment of another religious power in its place. In the towns under our existing system there was one grievance only, and that was the grievance of Churchmen in towns where there were only Board schools or provided schools in which they were not allowed to teach their children in their own way. So far from this grievance, as great as the grievance of Noncon- formists in village districts, being remedied, this Bill intensifies it without any kind of excuse. It establishes the undenominational teaching which we dislike, and distrust in principle, in all schools, except where four-fifths of the parents — a majority which probably can only be obtained in Roman Catholic and Jewish schools, with few exceptions — ask that the children may be given denominational instruction, in which case " extended facilities " are to be allowed by the State, if the local education authority sees fit to grant them. This, as I have already said, EDUCATION BILL 23 Introduces religious controversy into municipal elections in an intensified form, for . it will be all-important to obtain local education authorities who will grant these facilities. But, at the same time, no provision is to be made for the teachers being persons who belong to the denomination specially concerned. You will have a school where Roman Catholic children are to be taught by teachers whose religious opinion the State is not to test, and over whose appointment (which is the most important matter) the denomination will have no control. Moreover, from the Church point of view, the " extended facilities " will be applicable in only a very few cases, for our children in towns are almost always more mixed up with Nonconformist children than will admit of the four-fifths majority. So that we shall lose almost all chance of teaching our own children the faith of their parents by means of teachers for whose con- victions we have some reasonable guarantee at least as part of their education in school. All this represents so gratuitous a violation of religious liberty, so needless a slight to one kind of religious teaching as compared to another, so great an outrage on the feelings of Englishmen, that I cannot interpret the Bill as anything else than an act of reprisals. 24 OBJECTIONS TO " Almost the only danger," wrote Dr. Dale, "incident to the recent extension of the suffrage seems to me to be this — that the people may- forget that, though it is right that the majority of the nation should direct its policy and legislation, there are many things which even a majority has not the right to do. . . . Every man has rights which the State must not presume to touch. . . . You have gained this new power not that yon may use it tyrannically, but that you may extend and perfect the liberties of your country." V. Fifthly, I object to the Bill because it deals with trusts in a most high-handed way. Let the State by all means keep its hands on corporate and on individual property, and see to it that the public rights and advantages are not violated by individual and sectarian ownership. But what justification can there be for the compulsory transference of schools secured by trusts for the purpose of education in the principles of a re- ligious body to the purposes of a different kind of religion, when there are abundance of children whose parents desire the first kind of religious education, and abundant opportunities for religious education of a different kind for those whose EDUCATION BILL 25 parents require it ? What justification, indeed, unless we are prepared to justify the plain estab- lishment by the State of one kind of religion in place of another, and the transference of trust property from one to the other ? I speak of com- pulsory transference, for the examination of the Bill leads to the conclusion that this is what it practically comes to. The power given to the three " commissioners " who are to be appointed by the Crown — that is, by the party Government — and " whose decision no court shall have power to review or interfere with," with other provisions of the Bill, seems to me to remove from us all chance even of withdrawing our schools and using them for the purposes of religious education outside the State system at our own expense. But I admit that these clauses require more legal skill to interpret them than I possess, and I leave them to others. I fancy they will cause the gravest alarm to many holders of trust property of all kinds. VI. Finally, except on the hypothesis that in the eye of the English State there is a predominance to be assigned to one kind of religious teaching — that which many of us think to be essentially the 40G105 26 OBJECTIONS TO worst and weakest — over another, I entirely fail to see why the line taken by this Bill should have been taken. The only principle for the modern State to follow if it wishes, as I trust it will always wish, to encourage religious teaching as a part of national education, is to go as far as possible in seeing that children are brought up in the kind of religion preferred by their parents. Lay down the clear principle that the parents are to be encouraged to express their choice, and the State is to facilitate, as far as possible, and with strict impartiality, its execution, and I do not believe that it would have been impossible to rectify the existing anomalies, and repair the existing injustices, and build up a system of national education, without revolution, on a secure basis, in which religious controversy would have gradually died away for lack of any injustice to feed upon. I am quite sure that this Bill does not fail to embody the just principle through any necessary difficulty inherent in the nature of the case. It violates the principle because the Nonconformist policy requires the Government to trample upon those who are for the time politically weak, at the expense of every well-understood principle of Liberalism. For the moment two immoderate claims appear to be triumphant. The immoderate EDUCATION BILL 27 claim of militant Nonconformists, and the immo- derate claim of the State teacher to teach what he pleases to the children of the State in the name of religion. But a party triumph is not always solid gain. If the Church can take the oppor- tunity of the present emergency to form a solid body of lay opinion in defence of its fundamental liberties, especially among the parents of children who use the elementary schools, it will have occasion through a long future to bless the day of seeming disaster, and the reaction from Non- conformist tyranny at the end of the 17th century will be repeated under happier and more liberal auspices in the twentieth. Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. WORKS BY The Right Rev. CHARLES GORE. D.D., BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM. THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD. Bampton Lectures, 1891. Demy 8vo. "js. 6d. WHY WE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN CHRIST The Bampton Lectures. Shortened for Popular Use by the Rev. T. C. Fry. Fcap. 8vo. \s net. THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH. Four Lectures dehvered in the Cathedral Church of St. Asaph. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. DISSERTATIONS ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE INCARNATION. Demy 8vo. ^s. 6d. THE BODY OF CHRIST. An Enquiry into the institution and Doctrine of the Holy Communion. Crown 8vo. ^s. net. SPIRITUAL EFFICIENCY. The Primary Charge delivered at his Visitation to the Clergy and Churchwardens of his Diocese. Demy 8vo. In Paper covers, is. net. THE PERMANENT CREED AND THE CHRISTIAN IDEA OF SIN. Two Sermons Preached before the University of Oxford. Large Crown 8vo. Paper covers. 6d. net. A SERIES OF SIMPLE EXPOSITIONS OF PORTIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Crown 8vo Crecn cloth. 3x. 6 /. each. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. Chea/> Edition, in I'a covers. (>d. net. AN EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. AN EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 2 Vols. EDITED BY DR. QORE. LUX MUNDI. A Series of Studies in the Religion of the Incarnation. By V.^Rlous Writers. Cheap EdiHon. Large Crown 8vo. 2J. 6^. net. Appendix to Lux Mundi. 8vo. ri. ESSAYS ON CHUjRCH REFORM. By a^M/jous Writers Crown 8vo. Cheap Edition. 5^. uet. ^ 4 8 5 7* LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. ■ 1 1949 2 3195r 0EC6 197t Form L9-2o,„-9,'4"(A:)f;]8)444 UNIVERSITY OP CAT.rPnTTVT AT LOS ANGELES U*-LM- TOUIiy UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY LC410.G7 G6 y L 009 530 060 4 -/^ ^