PROBLEMS AND PRINCIPLES
 
 PROBLEMS 
 AND PRINCIPLES 
 
 BEING PAPERS ON SUBJECTS 
 THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL 
 
 BY 
 
 THE LATE R. C. MOBERLY, D.D. 
 
 REGIUS PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY 
 
 AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH 
 
 AUTHOR OF "MINISTERIAL PRIESTHOOD," "ATONEMENT AND PERSONALITY" 
 "CHRIST OUR LIFE," ETC. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 THE REV. R. B. RACKHAM, M.A. 
 
 LONDON 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET 
 
 1904
 
 PREFACE 
 
 BY one of those dispensations of Providence 
 which are so mysterious to us, Robert 
 Campbell Moberly was taken away from the 
 Church on earth last year, just at a time when 
 he seemed to have attained a position and an 
 opportunity of offering her the greatest services 
 by his doctrine and counsel. He had indeed 
 left behind him solid monuments of his teaching 
 in his two greater works, Ministerial Priesthood 
 and Atonement and Personality. But there are 
 many matters of practical policy which the 
 Church will have to face in the next few years 
 wherein we should greatly desire to have the 
 help of his counsel and judgment. Failing, then, 
 the living voice, we can at least gather up " the 
 fragments which remain," that is to say, the 
 various utterances or papers which from time 
 to time he found occasion to print and publish. 
 In these papers thus collected together we shall 
 happily find, on the one hand, that he has 
 expressed his opinion very clearly on many of 
 the serious problems which are likely to vex the 
 Church in the immediate future, such as the
 
 vi PREFACE 
 
 question of disestablishment, the educational 
 problem, the autonomy of the Church, and the 
 marriage laws ; on the other hand, his theological 
 papers form a series which serves to illustrate the 
 larger work on the Atonement, and adds em- 
 phasis to the more characteristic points of his 
 teaching on the subjects of the Personality of 
 God and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The papers have been practically reprinted as 
 they first appeared, with a slight exception in 
 the case of the paper on the marriage laws, where 
 some small verbal changes have been made with- 
 out any alteration in the sense. As the papers 
 cover a space of twenty years, to republish them 
 in this manner may be liable to a charge of un- 
 fairness towards their author, as making no allow- 
 ance for development of thought or change of 
 opinion. But the date of each paper is given 
 at its head ; and further, as Dr. Moberly was 
 never wont to form an opinion on an important 
 matter until he had thoroughly reasoned it out, 
 so when he had thus made up his mind he was 
 not one lightly to change it. So, in fact, we 
 find that the strong opinion on marriage with 
 a deceased wife's sister to which he gave utter- 
 ance (in the above-mentioned paper) in the year 
 1884, he expressed with no less insistence in the 
 lower house of Convocation in 1901. The pam- 
 phlet on the Independence of Church Courts, 
 which did not attract much attention in the year 
 when it first appeared (1886), he reissued in 1899
 
 PREFACE vii 
 
 without alteration, but prefixing a letter to the 
 Dean of Christ Church. 
 
 The collection has been entitled Problems 
 and Principles, because Dr. Moberly's great aim 
 was to get at the right principles underlying the 
 matter in hand, compared with which he con- 
 sidered that the details are of small importance. 
 He was deeply convinced of the vast influence 
 that is exercised upon mankind by ideas, and 
 that right thinking must in the long run win the 
 victory fortis est veritas et praevalet ; and with 
 this conviction he fearlessly assailed the problems 
 that face us, whether in theology or in ecclesiasti- 
 cal politics. Further, the fact that his writings 
 are concerned with principles gives them a per- 
 manent value reaching beyond the particular 
 circumstances which were their immediate occa- 
 sion. Including nearly all his printed utterances 
 outside his books, the form of these papers is 
 varied some are sermons, some pamphlets, some 
 papers read at meetings ; but under the diversity 
 of form lies a fundamental unity of thought and 
 method. In arranging the papers attention has 
 been paid to their subject-matter and logical con- 
 nection rather than to the chronological order of 
 their composition. 
 
 A description of the contents of the volume is 
 subjoined. In connection with this the reader 
 may find it convenient to have before him these 
 dates of the author's life. Robert Moberly (nat. 
 July 26th, 1845) was made Vicar of Great Bud-
 
 viii PREFACE 
 
 worth, in Cheshire, in 1880; in 1892 he was 
 appointed Professor of Pastoral Theology, and 
 Canon of Christ Church, at Oxford. In 1889 
 he contributed to Lux Mundi an essay on "The 
 Incarnation as the basis of dogma." He pub- 
 lished in 1896 Reason and Religion : Some aspects 
 of their mutual interdependence ; in 1897 Minis- 
 terial Priesthood: Chapters on the rationale of 
 Ministry and the meaning of Christian Priesthood; 
 in 1901 Atonement and Personality ; and in 1902 
 a volume of sermons entitled Christ our Life. 
 For the sake of completeness mention should 
 be made of Sorrow, Sin, and Beauty, three short 
 series of addresses, published in 1889, reissued 
 in 1902. On June 8th, 1903, his career on earth 
 was closed. ' Requiescat in pace.' 
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS 
 
 PART I: THEOLOGICAL SUBJECTS 
 
 i. BELIEF IN A PERSONAL GOD is a paper which 
 was read at the Church Congress at Rhyl in 1891. In 
 connection with this paper there is to be noted a 
 change in the writer's mind, not so much in regard 
 of belief, as of phraseology. This we learn from the 
 following note, which is taken from page 237 of 
 Atonement and Personality : 
 
 " In connection with this section of the present chapter 
 [on ' The Holy Spirit in relation to human personality '], I 
 may perhaps be allowed to make reference to an essay on 
 the mutual interdependence of Reason and Religion, in which
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS ix 
 
 I endeavoured, a few years ago, to discuss with somewhat 
 more fulness the true meaning, and the different manifesta- 
 tions, of reason. I refer to it in the main, simply as a more 
 expanded statement of my present meaning. But whilst 
 doing so I should like to take the opportunity of saying ex- 
 pressly that in the opening pages of the last paper which 
 that little volume contains there are a few phrases which I 
 should certainly wish to modify now. The modification 
 would be rather in pursuance, than in contradiction, of what 
 was really the essential thought of that paper. But I should 
 certainly now prefer to avoid, as misleading, any use, in 
 reference to human personality, of any phrase, such as a 
 'distinct centre of being,' which might even seem to con- 
 ceive of it at all otherwise than in its capacity of relation to, 
 and dependence on, God." 
 
 2. REASON IN RELATION TO CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES 
 is an extract from the opening sermon of a course on 
 Christian evidences, preached at Bowdon, in Cheshire, 
 in the early part of 1891. 
 
 3. REASON AND THEOLOGY is a University sermon 
 preached at Oxford on January 2Oth, 1895. In the 
 preceding autumn a proposal had been made by the 
 Theological Board to improve the method of taking 
 the theological degrees. The Hebdomadal Council 
 refused to allow this, unless the existing limitation 
 of these degrees to those in priests' orders were 
 removed ; and in view of this condition the proposal 
 was ultimately allowed to drop. Before this, how- 
 ever, there had been a conference on the matter in 
 November, 1894, at which Moberly took a leading 
 part ; and in the following January he gave full utter- 
 ance to his convictions in this sermon, which is a 
 strong and reasoned argument against the possibility 
 of adopting " undenominationalism " as a principle 
 in the teaching of theology. Some years later, as 
 we shall see, he was moved to write against the
 
 x PREFACE 
 
 same principle in relation to the public elementary 
 schools. 
 
 Nos. i, 2, and 3, together with an essay on the 
 nature and function of the rational element in man, 
 were published in Reason and Religion : Some aspects 
 of their mutual interdependence (Longmans, 1897), a 
 volume which, with the Lux Mundi essay on "The 
 Incarnation as the basis of dogma," forms Moberly's 
 chief contribution to apologetic theology. 
 
 4. A RELIGIOUS VIEW OF HUMAN PERSONALITY is a 
 University sermon, preached at Oxford on October 2nd, 
 1902, and printed in the Journal of Theological Studies 
 for January, 1903. Coming after the publication of 
 Atonement and Personality, it developes the theory 
 of personality therein set forth, especially in relation 
 to the meaning of human personality. 
 
 5. THE FULHAM CONFERENCE ON COMMUNION WITH 
 THE ATONEMENT. In the autumn of 1900 a conference 
 of representatives of different schools of theology, at 
 the invitation of the Bishop of London (Dr. Creighton), 
 met at Fulham Palace and discussed the doctrine of 
 the Eucharist. They published a report which elicited 
 a criticism from Moberly in the Journal of Theological 
 Studies of the following April. The special point he 
 selected for consideration, Communion with the Atone- 
 ment, leads him to examine the relation of the Atone- 
 ment to the Eucharist, and makes the article a useful 
 appendix to Atonement and Personality. It may be 
 as well at this point also to call attention to his utter- 
 ances on the same subject in Priesthood and Sacrifice, 
 the report of a similar conference held at Dr. Sanday's 
 lodgings in Christ Church, in December, 1899, in 
 which he had taken part. 
 
 6. THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY GHOST, a Uni- 
 versity sermon preached at Cambridge on Trinity
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS xi 
 
 Sunday, May aoth, 1894, is an exposition of a doctrine 
 which was peculiarly precious to the preacher, as being 
 that which completes the system of Christianity and 
 enables it to become life and power to the individ- 
 ual believer. Compare Atonement and Personality, 
 chapter viii. 
 
 7. The ENRICHMENT OF PRIVATE PRAYER is a 
 Church Congress paper read at Derby in 1882, and 
 published by the S. P. C. K. in 1897. This paper is 
 rather devotional than theological ; but it comes with 
 some fitness after the preceding papers, and especially 
 the last, as an illustration how the writer would trans- 
 late his theology into devotion. 
 
 PART II: ECCLESIASTICAL SUBJECTS 
 
 8. CONSIDERATIONS UPON DISESTABLISHMENT AND 
 DISENDOWMENT is a thorough analysis of the prin- 
 ciples which should guide the Churchman-citizen in 
 taking action either for or against "disestablishment." 
 The pamphlet owed its origin to the agitation in 1894 
 for the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, 
 and in particular to certain circumstances which are 
 alluded to in the prefatory remarks, and an account 
 of which is here extracted from the Guardian of 
 October 3rd, 1894. 
 
 "The Conference met on Wednesday, September 26th, 
 in the Sheldonian Theatre, at 10.30 a.m. . . . 
 ' ' Welsh Disestablishment. 
 
 " The Earl of Jersey moved 'that in the opinion of this 
 conference every effort should be made to oppose the dis- 
 establishment and disendowment of the four Welsh dioceses 
 of the province of Canterbury.' 
 
 "Mr. Arnold Burrowes seconded the motion, . . . and it 
 was carried nem. con. 
 
 "Lord Stanmore, in a somewhat lengthy speech, moved
 
 xii PREFACE 
 
 ' that the formation of a diocesan committee and of parochial 
 committees, as recommended by the two archbishops, is 
 expedient and should be at once undertaken.' . . . The 
 motion was seconded by Mr. Barnett^ of Glympton. 
 
 " Canon Moberly proposed an amendment, the object of 
 which was to retain the diocesan, but to omit the parochial 
 committees. He argued that the cause of disestablishment 
 was, unfortunately, identified with one political party, and 
 that it was not well to marshal the whole array of the Church 
 in a matter on which a Churchman might hold one view or 
 the other without forfeiting his character as a faithful Church- 
 man . . . The amendment [which was seconded by the 
 Rev. Charles Gore] was lost." 
 
 9. UNDENOMINATIONALISM AS A PRINCIPLE OF 
 PRIMARY EDUCATION, a pamphlet published in 1902, 
 was Dr. Moberly's last work. It needs no explanation, 
 as it was occasioned by the education controversy 
 which is still with us. As an argument against the 
 possibility of basing religious teaching upon "un- 
 denominationalism," it should be read together with 
 Reason and Theology: it should also be read in the 
 light of The Doctrine of the Holy Ghost, as showing 
 what a practical bearing that doctrine has upon the 
 problems of human life. 
 
 10. Is THE INDEPENDENCE OF CHURCH COURTS 
 REALLY IMPOSSIBLE? is a strong argument, based on 
 the practice of the United States of America and the 
 Established Church of Scotland, to show that autonomy 
 of the Church in relation to its judicial system is quite 
 compatible with "establishment." The argument also 
 leads to the criticism of some common but fallacious 
 views of the meaning of the "royal supremacy." The 
 pamphlet was first published in 1886 (Parker), and 
 then reissued in 1899 with a prefatory Letter to the 
 Dean of Christ Church (Dr. Paget, now Bishop of 
 Oxford).
 
 DESCRIPTION OF CONTENTS xiii 
 
 11. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP AND THE LAWS OF 
 MARRIAGE. In the years 1883-4 a determined effort 
 was made to legalise marriage with a deceased wife's 
 sister, which was met by a counter effort on the part of 
 the Church. It was a subject on which Moberly felt 
 deeply, and he did not keep silence. Some of the 
 leaflets of the Marriage Law Defence Association came 
 from his pen, but his chief services were rendered 
 locally. In the winter 1883-4 ne thoroughly examined 
 the Church's doctrine on the matter in four addresses 
 to the members of the Chester Clerical Society, 
 which were afterwards published as The Light of 
 the Revelation of God upon the question of Marriage 
 with a Sister-in-law (Phillipson and Colder). These 
 addresses are not reproduced here, because of their 
 length and because the pith of the argument is 
 presented in a more vigorous and incisive manner 
 in a paper which he subsequently wrote, and which 
 is here reprinted. This paper was read on November 
 yth, 1884, in the Public Hall at Warrington, at the 
 annual meeting and conversazione of the local branch 
 of the English Church Union. It served excellently, 
 moreover, as a popular pamphlet, of which form of 
 literature we have another instance in Undenomina- 
 tionalism. In this short paper little or nothing is said 
 about the arguments drawn from the Old Testament ; 
 but the deficiency was fully supplemented by a speech 
 made by Dr. Moberly in the Canterbury Convocation 
 on May gth, 1901, seventeen years later. This speech 
 is accordingly reprinted in the text, being taken from 
 the Chronicle of Convocation for 1900-1, pp. 207-9. 
 
 12. DOCTRINAL STANDARDS. The question how far 
 subscription to creeds can be compatible with the 
 freedom of the individual conscience is a perennial
 
 xiv PREFACE 
 
 problem. It has been brought before us of recent 
 years in a very acute form, as affecting the very core 
 of the Christian faith, viz. the Apostles' Creed ; and in 
 view of this difficulty these lectures were delivered by 
 Dr. Moberly at Pusey House, Oxford, in the autumn 
 of 1897, and afterwards published as No. i of Pusey 
 House Occasional Papers (Longmans). 
 
 13. THE PASTORAL OFFICE OF THE BISHOP. In 
 this sermon, preached at the consecration of Dr. Gore, 
 Bishop of Worcester, in Lambeth Chapel, on St. 
 Matthias' Day, 1902, Moberly gave utterance to his 
 deep conviction of the need of a great increase of the 
 episcopate to enable both the bishop to carry out 
 the true ideal of his office, and the Church to realise 
 in practice the ideal of episcopal government according 
 to which she is constituted. 
 
 %* Hearty thanks are due to the following pub- 
 lishers and editors for leave to reprint the various 
 papers : more particularly to Messrs. Longmans and 
 Co. for allowing us to extract Nos. 1-3 from Reason 
 and Religion, and to reprint No. 12 ; to the Committee 
 of Direction of the Journal of Theological Studies for 
 Nos. 4 and 5 ; to the Editor of the Cambridge Review 
 for No. 6 ; to the Society for Promoting Christian 
 Knowledge for No. 7 ; to Messrs. Parker and Co. for 
 Nos. 8 and 10 ; to Messrs. Phillipson and Golder for 
 No. ii ; and to the Editor of the Guardian for No. 13. 
 
 R. B. R. 
 
 Ascensiontide, 1904
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PART I : THEOLOGICAL 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1. BELIEF IN A PERSONAL GOD (1891) . . 3 
 
 2. REASON IN RELATION TO CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES (1891) 14 
 
 3. REASON AND THEOLOGY (1895) . . 26 
 
 4. A RELIGIOUS VIEW OF HUMAN PERSONALITY (1902) 48 
 
 5. THE FULHAM CONFERENCE ON COMMUNION WITH 
 
 THE ATONEMENT (1901) , 66 
 
 6. THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY GHOST (1894) . 113 
 
 7. ENRICHMENT OF PRIVATE PRAYER (1882) . . 131 
 
 PART II : ECCLESIASTICAL 
 
 8. CONSIDERATIONS UPON DISESTABLISHMENT AND Dis- 
 
 ENDOWMENT (1894) . . . 143 
 
 9. UNDENOMINATIONALISM AS A PRINCIPLE OF PRIMARY 
 
 EDUCATION (1902) . . . 221 
 
 10. THE INDEPENDENCE OF CHURCH COURTS 
 
 A LETTER TO THE DEAN OF CHRIST CHURCH 
 
 (1899) . . ... 250 
 
 Is THE INDEPENDENCE OF CHURCH COURTS 
 
 REALLY IMPOSSIBLE? (l886) . . .261 
 
 11. CHURCH MEMBERSHIP AND LAWS OF MARRIAGE (1884) 327 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE CHRISTIAN 
 
 LAW OF MARRIAGE (1901) . . . 343 
 
 12. DOCTRINAL STANDARDS (1897) . . . 348 
 
 13. THE PASTORAL OFFICE OF THE BISHOP (1902) . 397 
 
 INDEX . . . ... 409
 
 PART I 
 
 THEOLOGICAL
 
 PROBLEMS 
 AND PRINCIPLES 
 
 BELIEF IN A PERSONAL GOD 
 
 (A paper read at the Rhyl Church Congress in 1891.) 
 
 ET me say, first, that the word "God," if 
 it means anything, must mean, to me, at 
 least this supreme perfectness of Being. By 
 God I must mean the highest. I cannot without 
 contradiction conceive at one moment both God 
 and a higher or more comprehensive than God. 
 If, then, I am asked whether I believe in a 
 personal God, the question to me must mean, 
 not whether I imagine, amongst existences, that 
 of one extra, invisible, but indefinitely magnified, 
 shadow of humanity, but whether I am convinced 
 that the supreme sum and crown of all existence 
 is Personal. 
 
 Again, a few words as to what Personality 
 means to me. I cannot frame an abstract defini- 
 tion of it. If I call it self-consciousness, the 
 emphasis is upon the "self." And in fact there 
 is nothing else, except itself, by which we can 
 understand or explain personality. But if I still
 
 4 SUPREME BEING [No. 
 
 try to describe what the word suggests to me, 
 I would rather say not so much the presence of 
 intelligence, will, etc., but more eminently the 
 fact of being a centre to which the universe of 
 being appears in relation, a distinct centre of 
 being, 1 a subject, whereof reason, affection, will, 
 consciousness itself, are so many, not separate 
 parts, but several aspects or activities. For the 
 moment I must rest with this. 
 
 I. Now, the fact of intelligent consciousness 
 in man has led on by necessary steps to the 
 postulate of a supreme universal consciousness, 
 whose thought is the world. It is not urged that 
 this follows as demonstrative knowledge, but as 
 necessary hypothesis never, indeed, scientifically 
 demonstrable yet as hypothesis so necessary, so 
 fundamental, that without it all knowledge and 
 thought whatever becomes unrelated, irrational, 
 chaotic. I may explain that I mean to refer to 
 such an argument as that of Mr. Green, in his 
 Prolegomena. 
 
 Without another word I must take this argu- 
 ment, in the main, for granted. But may I remark 
 that the word "consciousness" is apt to be am- 
 biguous ; and consciousness is not the ultimate 
 fact in man except when it is tacitly taken as 
 equivalent to self-consciousness, the realisation 
 of his own personality? More ultimate in man 
 than the Cogito is the Ego sum which has been 
 
 1 [See page viii.]
 
 i] MUST BE PERSONAL, 5 
 
 based upon it. Not the fact that he thinks, but 
 the fact that he is that of which thought-capacity 
 is an aspect or corollary, is the primary datum of 
 all knowledge and thought. He thinks, indeed, 
 likes, wills, acts ; but that central fact of which 
 these all are but so many partial aspects is the 
 fact that he is a self. 
 
 Now, if the argument is to proceed, as it must, 
 from the basis of our own self-consciousness, it 
 would seem to be more in accordance with the 
 data to use, not only the secondary fact of man's 
 intelligence, but the primary fact of his self-hood, 
 as carrying us on by necessary steps to the 
 postulate, not merely of a supreme universal 
 intelligence, whose thought is the world, but of 
 a supreme Personality, of whose self-existence 
 the thought that constitutes and informs the world 
 is but one aspect or mode. 
 
 Here, again, as in the former case, we have 
 rather a necessary hypothesis than demonstrative 
 knowledge. But is not the hypothesis at least a 
 necessary one ? If, for the very idea of a kosmos, 
 we must assume one all-informing, omnipresent 
 intelligence, how can we stop short, in our in- 
 tellectual necessity, of a Person whose intellig- 
 ence it is? Intelligence is an inconceivable 
 abstraction in the very act of mounting the 
 throne of universal sovereignty it dissolves, after 
 all, into voidness without a meaning, except it 
 be an activity or aspect of the being of an in- 
 telligent personality.
 
 6 ELSE HUMAN PERSONS [No. 
 
 But if intelligence is really inconceivable apart 
 from an intelligent one, the supposition that an 
 intelligent one can be only intelligent a living 
 reason without affection, moral character, or 
 whatever else belongs to our necessary conception 
 of a self this, if not inconceivable, is at least 
 gratuitous. It is an arbitrary imagination, not 
 following out the lines of any data which the world 
 of experience either presents or suggests to us. 
 
 Or, to put this differently, it is plain that in 
 our experience of existence there are moral data 
 everywhere, not less obvious, though perhaps 
 more complex, than the rational ; and that moral 
 personality is in fact the highest phenomenon to 
 be found in experience: not intellect, not will, 
 not even all-sacrificing love in impersonal ab- 
 straction ; but these as aspects of personality- 
 personality as that in which these really are, and 
 which itself is in them. Either, then, there is no 
 supreme existence, in which case everything is 
 irrational, and there is really neither knowledge 
 nor universe ; or the supreme existence is in- 
 definitely lower than its own lower manifestations ; 
 or the supreme existence is Personal. 
 
 Personality, involving, as necessary qualities 
 of its being, reason, will, love, is incomparably 
 the highest phenomenon known to experience, 
 and as such has to be related with whatever is 
 above it and below it by any philosophy based 
 upon experience. But among personalities there 
 are higher and lower. The highest phenomenon,
 
 i] WOULD BE SUPERIOR 7 
 
 then, known to experience, is moral personality 
 in its most advanced stages of beauty, verging 
 more and more towards its own ideal, growing 
 with visible approach into the lineaments of 
 perfect goodness. 
 
 Either, then, the highest phenomenon known 
 to experience is a more and more glorious 
 approach towards the blankness of an abstrac- 
 tion which is really non-existent a view which 
 gives the lie not only to every kindling aspira- 
 tion, but to every essential condition of intellect, 
 or supreme existence is that towards which 
 the most beautiful fulness of human personality 
 is but an approach. But in this case it cannot 
 be lower than personality in its stages of imper- 
 fectness. Supreme existence is either inferior to 
 man, with an inferiority which is literally im- 
 measurable, or it is all, at least, which we have 
 known, or can conceive, in Personality. The 
 universe is a chaos void of relations, and man's 
 existence an intolerable enigma and bathos, if 
 the supreme existence does not comprise, as well 
 as transcend, everything in human personality 
 which makes that personality what it is the 
 crowning phenomenon of experience, the crown- 
 ing conception, open to us, of existence. 
 
 II. Now, in all this I have been starting from 
 myself that is, from human experience of per- 
 sonality ; that is, from personality which, at best, 
 is plainly finite, not self-caused, dimly feeling
 
 8 IN GOD ALONE IS [No. 
 
 after the conditions of its own existence, con- 
 scious of innumerable limitations, most imperfectly 
 realising itself; so that, when I come to think of 
 it, even when I try to speak simply of my own 
 experience of myself, I am speaking of something 
 which, though suggested by experience, is not 
 realised in experience, something which tran- 
 scends the limitations under which alone I have 
 known it, something to which nothing that I 
 know fully corresponds. This is true, not only 
 of some imaginary absolute, it is true of any idea 
 I can possibly form of the meaning of the word 
 " personality " as applied to myself. Even this, 
 as I cannot but conceive it, is always more than 
 any momentary, or any collective, experience of 
 mine. 
 
 Now, the moment I realise that experience of 
 human personality, though the only knowledge 
 by which we can conceive personality is yet but 
 a dim approach to an idea not attained by it, 
 nor (we may say) attainable, I begin to under- 
 stand a little better what I am aiming at in 
 arguing for Supreme Personality. It is not that 
 human personality is a realised completeness to 
 which we desire to make our conceptions of 
 Divine Being correspond, but rather that human 
 experience gives us indications of what Per- 
 sonality, in its fuller realisation, would mean. 
 Personality that lives only under material con- 
 ditions in a world of dying, personality whose 
 existence and origin are alike wholly independent
 
 i] PERSONALITY FULLY REALISED 9 
 
 of its own thought and will, and which only by 
 degrees discovers a little as to the conditions of 
 its own being whatever rank it may hold in 
 relation to other present phenomena is plainly 
 a most limited and imperfect form of personality. 
 Only, then, Supreme Being can attain the full 
 idea of Personality. The ideals which hover 
 behind and above human experience are sugges- 
 tions, are approaches more or less, towards that. 
 
 III. And then, by consequence from these 
 thoughts, one step more namely, that created 
 personalities, which themselves are finite, will 
 only attain their own finite personality perfectly 
 in union with the Infinite Divine. 
 
 The relation of the sanctified spirit of man 
 with the Spirit of God that sanctifieth it may be 
 said, perhaps, to involve no difficulty of thought 
 so long as the man is only too sharply differ- 
 entiated by sin or imperfection. But carry the 
 thought on from all imperfect stages to the per- 
 fection of ultimate Beatitude no trace left of 
 independency of self- hood, no divergence of 
 thought, feeling, or will perfect Oneness at last, 
 in the highest conceivable fulness of the words, 
 "he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit"; 1 
 and what, then, exactly, in that supreme unity 
 of spirit, constitutes the distinction between the 
 beatified spirit and its God ? Or is perfect beati- 
 fication, after all, but a Christian form of Nirvana, 
 
 1 i Cor. vi. 17.
 
 io WE ATTAIN PERSONALITY [No. 
 
 a merging of separate personality in the life 
 Divine ? 
 
 I have, indeed, a further object in raising the 
 question. For the difficulty, whatever it be, of 
 conceiving personal distinctness where there is 
 flawless unity of mind and spirit, coupled with 
 the fact that both the distinctness and the 
 unity must be true, if beatification is not to 
 be Nirvana after all, is suggestive also in refer- 
 ence to the Christian doctrine of the Holy 
 Trinity. 
 
 I am very far from meaning that the unity of 
 a beatified spirit with God is wholly the same as 
 the unity which binds the Persons of the Blessed 
 Trinity, or that the distinction of Persons in the 
 Blessed Trinity is the same as that which would 
 distinguish a spirit in bliss from its God ; but 
 I do suggest that the intellectual difficulty of con- 
 ceiving the coincidence of distinctness and unity 
 is so far not dissimilar in the one case and the 
 other, that if you could prove to me that the 
 Athanasian doctrine was irrational, you would by 
 the force of the same proof compel me to choose 
 between eternal separation of spirit from God, or 
 eternal obliteration of myself. 
 
 Now, even to raise this question seems to me 
 to help forward our thought. The beatified soul 
 is not God, yet is one with God. What is 
 that, then, which constitutes at once its eternal 
 distinction from, its eternal union with, God ? 
 Perhaps the nearest answer that can be given is
 
 i] IN UNION WITH GOD n 
 
 Reciprocation of love. To the nature of this 
 belongs at once essential unity and essential non- 
 identity a unity which, but for the personal dis- 
 tinctness, would be but the dead shadow of a 
 living unity, a unity which mere identification 
 would instantly destroy. (I can but glance, in 
 parenthesis, at the scriptural view of the unity of 
 husband and wife, and that mystery of meanings 
 behind, to which the loveliest ideal of marriage 
 unity stands only as shadow of suggestion.) 
 
 IV. But if union with God is necessary for the 
 full personality of created persons, is union with 
 created persons equally necessary for the Person- 
 ality of Supreme Being? 
 
 The question would only be difficult to those 
 who, in their adoration of Divine unity, insist on 
 seeing a merely numerical oneness. For this 
 they are content to strip Supreme Personality of 
 some of the conditions which, to us at least, 
 make Personality intelligible ; perhaps even to 
 shrink from contemplating Supreme Being at all 
 (as Dr. Martineau says that Unitarians commonly 
 do), 1 except in manifested relations to a visible 
 universe, of which, however much it may be in- 
 formed by Him, this must at least remain eternally 
 true, that He is more than it. But, indeed, the 
 mutual love between God and created beings, 
 even where it has reached its perfectness, though 
 
 1 Essays, vol. ii. : "A Way out of the Trinitarian Controversy," 
 
 PP- 5 2 7. 533. 534-
 
 iz DIVINE PERSONALITY [No. 
 
 it exhaust the whole possibility of the creature, 
 cannot perfectly fulfil the Being" of God. 
 
 We seem, then, to ourselves to be uttering only 
 a truism when we say that Supreme Personality 
 must not lack, it must have within itself, as parts 
 of its being, every condition of Supreme Person- 
 ality. Foremost among" such conditions we can- 
 not but conceive that wherein even reason and 
 self-consciousness find their climax satisfaction 
 of perfect love. But love that is not mutual is 
 not perfect love. 
 
 Without this, then, we must still doubt whether 
 any conception of supreme existence can be, for 
 us, quite real ; whether any true meaning can be 
 put into such words as that God is an Almighty, 
 or Eternal, or Infinite Personality ; whether the 
 conception of the existence from eternity of a 
 single Personality, sole, unrelated, unique One 
 within whom there is not both active and passive, 
 both subject and object, both contemplating and 
 being contemplated, both loving and being loved 
 is so much as a consistent possibility ; whether, 
 that is to say, the meaning of eternal existence, 
 as applied to such an one, is, after all, for us, 
 distinguishable from eternal non-existence. 
 
 Brevity has compelled me to omit a score of 
 apologies. But, once for all, let me say that 
 I do not dream either that human reason can, by 
 arguing, prescribe the conditions of Divine exist- 
 ence, or that these things which I have tried to 
 indicate are themselves achievements of reason.
 
 i] INCLUDES DISTINCTIONS 13 
 
 Rather it is that in these things, when revealed, 
 Reason finds a harmony which she elsewhere had 
 sought in vain. 
 
 V. Does anyone say that those who find 
 relatedness, mutual knowledge, mutual love, 
 within the necessity of Supreme Being itself, 
 are, at all events, qualifying, straining, the con- 
 ception of unity ? I submit that they are rather 
 strongly reinforcing it. It might possibly be 
 urged that in eternal reciprocity of Infinite Love, 
 not only is there a real unity, but a unity pro- 
 founder, more living, truer, even as unity, than 
 the loneliness of a merely numerical singularity ; 
 at the least, we may venture to doubt whether a 
 conception so external as oneness of mere num- 
 ber can exhaust the meaning of the unity of the 
 Living God ; at the least, we may claim that for 
 us our faith in a Monad is a faith, not with less, 
 but with more richness of meaning, when it 
 images to us, as its inner principle of oneness, 
 not barely the unit of arithmetic, but also the 
 Unity of the Spirit, which is Love.
 
 REASON IN RELATION TO CHRISTIAN 
 EVIDENCES 
 
 (Portions of a sermon preached at Bowdon, in Cheshire, on 
 January nth, 1891 First Sunday after the Epiphany.) 
 
 * 
 
 I AM to speak as in introduction to the 
 work of a Christian Evidence Society. Now, 
 Christian evidences may be said, as such, to 
 be an appeal distinctively to the intellect ; the 
 business rather of the reason than the conscience, 
 of the head than the heart. On the other hand, 
 it is clear that it is not only the reason or in- 
 tellect it is at least as much the heart and 
 conscience of men that we, as Christian wit- 
 nesses, desire to convince. Indeed, objection is 
 sometimes taken on principle to anything like 
 an argumentative Christianity any appeal which 
 can be scornfully described as "logical." It is 
 love, we are reminded, not logic, that will make 
 the Christian. Again and again, we are told, 
 ten thousand instances have proved that when 
 every argument had been tried and failed, it was 
 Christian sympathy that leapt past the barriers 
 of the heart ; it was the warm real touch of love 
 without, at which, beyond all hope, love burst 
 
 14
 
 No. 2] THE APPEAL IS ADDRESSED 15 
 
 into flame within, and in the melting of love the 
 soul was transformed and convinced. No doubt ; 
 it is true ; we readily concede all this. But does 
 it follow, indeed, that therefore the argumenta- 
 tive appeal to evidence is an appeal in vain ? 
 Or, if we know that it does not, why does it not ? 
 
 We might make answer, no doubt, by drawing 
 sharply the distinction between man's different 
 powers between the reason, the affection, and 
 the will ; by conceding, indeed, to the heart and 
 its affections a place of primary greatness, yet 
 pleading that at least the reason also has its 
 sphere, and in its sphere its necessities. We 
 might urge that even if it be through the affec- 
 tions, and in the second instance, yet reason has 
 to be convinced ; that it asks questions, and must 
 in its turn be satisfied ; that even if reason touch 
 not the highest regions, yet spiritual truths must 
 not be irrational, and therefore not only that in 
 the sphere of reason special charges must be 
 met, special difficulties explained, but the essen- 
 tial coherence of religious truth, with the utmost 
 that reason is capable of, must be shown; and 
 so that there still remains for intellectual argu- 
 ment a work which, even if subordinate, is none 
 the less essential. 
 
 All this, no doubt, is, in its own way, true. 
 Yet this is not quite what I desire to say to-day. 
 For this depends too much upon the sharpness 
 of distinction between the intellectual and the 
 spiritual sides of man's nature. What I should
 
 16 NOT TO ABSTRACT INTELLECT [No. 
 
 prefer to say, tends rather, as I hope, to draw 
 them nearer together. 
 
 When Christian believers, fired with the glow 
 of a burning heart-conviction, disparage by com- 
 parison the merely intellectual aspect of their 
 faith ; or when sceptics, disparaging everything 
 that is not intellectual, challenge us to convince 
 their reason alone, distrusting devotion, enthu- 
 siasm, and every kind of deeper experience, as 
 so many perversions and disturbances to the 
 rightful sovereignty of pure reason ; are not both 
 guilty, more or less, in the fact that both imply 
 the possibility of abstracting reason, and dealing 
 with it, in isolation by itself, guilty of what is 
 really both an intellectual and a practical mistake? 
 No doubt there is a sense in which we can think 
 of any two things apart the eye apart from the 
 brain, the concave apart from the convex, the 
 world apart from its course ; so, if we please, we 
 can by mental analysis distinguish in man not 
 only the body and the soul, but also the soul 
 and the spirit; the affections, the reason, and 
 the will ; the judgment and the conscience, and 
 so forth : yet we need to be reminded that 
 these several so - called parts of a compound 
 nature are not parts like the parts of a building, 
 aggregated but separable ; they are more like the 
 different qualities of a flame which is burning 
 and is light ; they are so many aspects or work- 
 ings of one central reality, distinguishable only 
 in idea, but in fact indivisible for ever. The
 
 2 ] BUT TO AN INTELLIGENT PERSON 17 
 
 reason in any man is no abstract power, separable 
 from himself. His reason is the reason of a 
 person. It is a person, viewed in respect of his 
 consciously intelligent insight. It is himself in- 
 telligent, himself understanding. But he himself, 
 as an intelligent being, having insight and under- 
 standing, cannot be separate from what he him- 
 self is. The intelligence may, indeed, be trained 
 to do certain special duties which seem to have 
 little relation with the character of the man ; but 
 the intelligence, as a whole, in its widest meaning 
 and range the total man's power of perceiving, 
 assimilating, knowing cannot be independent 
 nay, it is itself but one aspect of what the total 
 man is. 
 
 If we are to say that evidences, or judgment 
 upon evidences, are really affairs of the intelli- 
 gence, we must at the same time give its full 
 range of meaning to the word "intelligence." 
 We must not shut it off as a mere, perhaps 
 narrow, department of man's conscious nature ; 
 for it is as wide as is his consciousness, except in 
 so far as we admit that there are elements in his 
 consciousness which would be rightly described 
 as ^intelligent. Evidences? They are, indeed, 
 of more kinds than one. There are some kinds 
 of evidence, of which a man (if there were one) 
 without any character at all, a mere calculating 
 machine, neither soul nor spirit, would be the 
 best and most unerring judge.
 
 i8 INTELLECTUAL POWER [No. 
 
 It is, then, not only the evidence that is 
 different in this case ; the faculty of apprehending 
 and pronouncing upon the evidence (though in 
 name identified) is different also. There are 
 elements in the evidence which are not patient 
 at all of a strictly logical or mathematical state- 
 ment ; which words cannot fully express, though 
 they may indicate, but indicate only to the moral 
 perceptions of those who have a moral apprehen- 
 sion. For, indeed, merely external facts, though 
 given with photographic exactness, can never be 
 evidence, apart from the intelligent insight which 
 gives interpretation to them. That interpretative 
 power which makes them relevant, and gives 
 them meaning the unifying, vivifying creative- 
 ness of intelligence flashes out upon them from 
 within, from the personal apprehension which 
 takes cognisance of them. And therefore, in a 
 case like this, the part of the evidence that could 
 be made intelligible to an intellect wholly non- 
 moral, would be but an insignificant fraction of 
 the whole. 
 
 If these things be true at all, they may per- 
 haps, at least, suggest a further step. I have 
 spoken of moral experience. The Christian 
 religion believes in possibilities higher still than 
 this. If St. Paul found Christians whose Chris- 
 tianity knew nothing of the life of the Holy 
 Spirit, he could but ask them in amazement, 
 " Unto what then were ye baptized ? " If there 
 be any truth at all in this higher aspiration, this
 
 2] CANNOT BE SEPARATED 19 
 
 belief in spiritual life, which is what life in the 
 Church of Christ means, it is only natural to sup- 
 pose that something" analogous will be true in 
 this case also. If the truths of a religion which 
 is spiritual, not less than historical, be a question 
 of "evidences," to be decided by the "reason," 
 yet neither the evidences which have to be under- 
 stood and pronounced upon, nor the reason 
 which has to sit in judgment upon them, are in 
 all points wholly identical in kind with the evi- 
 dence produced, or the intelligence pronouncing", 
 in matters into which no spiritual element enters. 
 
 Do we suggest, then, that spiritual truths are 
 to be apprehended by something- that is other 
 than intelligent ? other than intelligence ? No ; 
 not for a moment. Any more than morality 
 which is not, above all things, intelligent, could 
 pronounce in a moral perplexity. Intelligence, 
 reason, it must essentially be but it must be 
 spiritual intelligence ; intelligence of which 
 spirtual sensitiveness, spiritual experience, forms 
 a vital element ; intelligence which, uninformed 
 spiritually, would be ^^intelligent would be 
 "foolishness" on a spiritual subject-matter; 
 in a word, no mere abstract intelligence, but 
 the intelligence of a spiritual personality. 
 
 There are parts, indeed, of the teaching of 
 Jesus Christ, of which it was characteristic, that 
 they habitually appeared to the dry light of the 
 reasonable Jews to be not untrue only, but 
 essentially unreasonable. I can but refer in
 
 20 FROM MORAL AND [No. 
 
 general terms to the third, the sixth, and the 
 eighth chapters of St. John. But it is not only 
 that there are some subjects which are more 
 exclusively spiritual. It is not only that it is 
 worse than useless to bring in the shrewdness of 
 the counting-house or of the laboratory, in order 
 to gauge aright the character of regeneration or 
 of penitence, or to measure the possibilities of 
 sacramental grace : such a question as that of 
 the presentment in the Gospels of the story of the 
 Incarnate Life, even that of the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ from the dead, which may seem, 
 above all, to be a question of the barest historical 
 fact, is none the less mixed in character. In 
 the full appreciation of the evidence there are 
 elements involved deeper than the merely histori- 
 cal ones considerations which go to the root of 
 our spiritual consciousness. It is vain to protest 
 against them. They are there. The evidence 
 which omits them, however conscientiously mar- 
 shalled, will still be but part of the whole. 
 
 It is no bare fact, the fact of the resurrection 
 of Jesus Christ. It cannot be separated from 
 what it means, and is. It is full of meanings- 
 meanings which interpret and illuminate, and 
 receive again illumining interpretation from, 
 every deeper craving and experience of man. 
 All history led to it, culminated in it, is explained 
 by it ; all history, not the outward history only of 
 kingdoms and peoples, but the inner record of 
 man man's failure and need, man's progress,
 
 2] SPIRITUAL CAPACITY 21 
 
 aspiration, possibility, man's self-sacrifice, sancti- 
 fication, blessedness hinge and depend on it. 
 There are points in its total evidence which can 
 be more truly apprehended by an old woman 
 practising self-denial for love's sake, or a peni- 
 tent tender from his first humiliating confession, 
 than by the most consummate mathematician, or 
 metaphysician, or logician in the world. Some- 
 thing in this direction perhaps all would allow. 
 My point is that the difference between them is 
 not merely one of moral or spiritual excellence 
 that the penitent or the old woman excels not 
 merely in deserving, but in capacity (in a certain 
 direction) for rational apprehension ; the differ- 
 ence is in the intelligence as well as in the 
 character. The intelligence of a rational animal, 
 the intelligence of a moral consciousness, the 
 intelligence of a spiritual personality, though one 
 in name, are in content and quality not identical. 
 What does our Lord Jesus Christ mean when 
 He says, " I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of 
 heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these 
 things from the wise and understanding, and 
 didst reveal them unto babes"; and, "If any 
 man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the 
 teaching, whether it be of God " ; and, " It is 
 the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth 
 nothing : the words that I have spoken unto you 
 are spirit, and are life"? 1 
 
 1 St. Matt. xi. 25 ; St. John vii. 17, vi. 63 ; cf. i Cor. i. 18-31, ii. 
 11-16, etc., etc.
 
 22 ALL REASON FINDS [No. 
 
 I must not, indeed, stay to illustrate ; but there 
 are one or two things more to be said. 
 
 This first. It is by no means suggested that 
 one man is simply a rational animal ; another is 
 a morally conscious being ; and a third, alone of 
 the three, is a spiritual personality. On the con- 
 trary, I suppose that every one of these three 
 assertions may probably be made, with more or 
 less truth, of every man living ; but at least these 
 three strands of the complex being may, and do, 
 predominate very varyingly in varying persons ; 
 and, with corresponding variety, their powers of 
 intelligent apprehension in different directions do 
 differ not quantitatively only, but qualitatively 
 not in degree only, but in kind. 
 
 Again, if there is a sense in which we protest 
 against abstracting reason from the individual 
 personalities reasoning, and insist that with 
 varieties of character it too, and its possibilities, 
 will be found to vary, this does not mean an 
 ultimate scepticism as to the unity or reality of 
 reason ; it will not end by making every person 
 a standard of reason to himself. No ; man may 
 differ from man, while all are imperfect, in quality 
 as well as quantity of intelligent reason. But 
 the different qualities are not ultimately in con- 
 trast ; in their highest perfection they are trans- 
 fused into one world-embracing unity ; all the 
 wisdom that seemed merely intellectual is seen 
 to be moral also ; all the moral, tinged with new 
 force and fire, is transfigured into celestial glory.
 
 2] AN ULTIMATE UNITY 23 
 
 All are spiritual then, when the world and all 
 that is in it has plainly become a working", and 
 therefore a revelation, of the eternal God. 
 
 For the reason which the processes of the 
 universe are found to obey ; the reason which 
 discerns and appreciates some sequences of fact 
 as moral laws ; the reason in which certain reve- 
 lations as to holiness and sin, pardon and love, 
 and the being and character of God, find their 
 profound reflection and acceptance ; all this is 
 but an echo, more or less complete and true, 
 in the spirit of man, of the Supreme Reason 
 the Reason, or Wisdom, or Utterance (Ao'yo?) of 
 God. " For she is the brightness of the ever- 
 lasting Light, the unspotted mirror of the power 
 of God, and the image of His goodness. And 
 being but one, she can do all things : and remain- 
 ing in herself, she maketh all things new : and 
 in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh 
 them friends of God, and prophets. For God 
 loveth none but him that dwelleth with Wisdom." 1 
 This is He in whose image man was made; with- 
 out whom " was not anything made that was 
 made "; "who, being the brightness of His glory, 
 and the express image of His Person, and up- 
 holding all things by the word of His power . . . 
 sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on 
 high." 
 
 " Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, 
 I am the Light of the world." So the great words 
 
 1 Wisdom vii. 26-8.
 
 24 IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST [No. 
 
 of challenge ring out to our intellects and con- 
 sciences still. They are the challenge of the 
 religion of Jesus Christ to the world. There is in 
 them no call to abnegation, no limiting of the 
 freedom or power of intellect. But there is a 
 warning that the perfect way of intellect lies in a 
 direction otherwise than men might have sup- 
 posed ; that the intellect cannot in the end be 
 abstracted from the total character ; that the in- 
 tellect is only perfectly intellectually true when it 
 is perfectly in harmony with other necessities and 
 powers of the personal life ; when intellect and 
 conscience, mind and will, the logical, the moral, 
 the spiritual capacities, are but different aspects 
 of one central light, and that light a true reflec- 
 tion from the perfectness of light wherefrom it 
 came; there is a warning, in short, that the way 
 of intellect will be missed after all, except it be 
 found, in its highest culmination, to coincide with 
 an absolute homage mental, moral, and spirit- 
 ual, all in one to the Divine glory of One who, 
 though more, was, and is, for ever amongst and 
 above men. Study, then, in thought and word 
 and deed ; study, with all the fulness of homage 
 of which you are capable, the Personality of Jesus 
 Christ. He Himself promises you, in this, the 
 light of life. And, indeed, He Himself absolutely 
 demands this of you. There are those and I 
 challenge you to find an alternative, I do not say 
 more lovely, more winning, more beautiful, but 
 more strictly according to the exigencies of the
 
 2 ] WHO IS THE LIGHT OF LIFE 25 
 
 highest reason, there are those who so feel His 
 measureless superiority, and the unconditioned 
 allegiance which they, in every fibre of their 
 nature, owe to Him, as to know that intellectual 
 subordination to Him, if at any time they cannot 
 follow Him, is no degradation, but a glory to 
 themselves and their intellect for intellect is only 
 perfectly illumined in harmony with goodness, 
 and this is a step towards the harmony which so 
 illumines ; nay, who would even, if the paradox 
 could conceivably represent anything but para- 
 dox, rather ten thousand times, for Reason's own 
 sake, be as fools in conjunction with Him, than 
 wise with the uttermost wisdom that could con- 
 ceivably be apart from Him Him who, intel- 
 lectually, morally, and spiritually, is their supreme 
 perfection and their God !
 
 REASON AND THEOLOGY 
 
 (A sermon preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary's, on 
 January 2Oth, 1895.) 
 
 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was -with 
 God, and the Word was God" (St. John i. i). 
 
 T)OSSIBLY it would be right to begin with 
 -L some form of apology for venturing to pre- 
 fix to any sermon whatever words of import so 
 vast as these. Nevertheless, however much, from 
 the outset, the text must shame the discourse, it 
 may yet be true that no words would connect 
 themselves more directly with such thoughts as 
 the discourse would fain try to suggest. For I 
 desire to speak a little of what, for us, the very 
 term " theology " means ; and of some of the 
 characteristics which differentiate the study of it 
 from other fields of human study or knowledge. 
 
 "In the beginning was the Word." If I ven- 
 ture to set out from this verse of St. John, need I 
 begin by reminding you, in connection with this 
 verse, how much wider is the scope of the Ao'yo? 
 of St. John than of the English " Word "? How- 
 ever true it may be that the title as used by 
 St. John has its direct and primary reference 
 to revealed utterance rather than to indwelling 
 
 26
 
 No. 3] THE BASIS OF THEOLOGY 27 
 
 wisdom, that the Ao'yo? to him is "Word" rather 
 than "Reason," yet it must needs remain that 
 whatever of truth was meant, or was being felt 
 after, in the Hebrew personification of Wisdom, 
 or the Greek speculation as to underlying Reason 
 or Mind, is still necessarily within both the verbal 
 scope and the religious truth of the Ao'yo?, as it 
 hardly can be within the English "Word." 
 
 "The Word was with God, and the Word was 
 God." A wonderful commentary, then, upon the 
 name 9eo\oyla, is for us in these words with which 
 the verse culminates, #eo? yv 6 Ao'yo?. 
 
 "The Word, the Ao'yo?, was God." This, with 
 the context of the next few verses, is vindication 
 indeed of language, of reason, of mind. What- 
 ever there is in the human mind of reasonable 
 consciousness, whatever capacity there is in human 
 utterance of expression of the living character 
 within, is it, in its ultimate nature, tentative, or 
 capricious, or illusory? The illuminative light 
 of human consciousness or character, if ever or 
 wherever these realise without perversion their own 
 true being, is the Ao'yo?, who is the "effulgence 
 of the glory, the very image of the substance " 
 of God. 
 
 "The Word was God." In the revelation of 
 these words is found the essential, because the 
 Divine, informing reason of scientific inquiry and 
 knowledge ; they are the guarantee that those 
 who seek may find the working out of a Divine 
 process in language and literature and history ;
 
 28 THEOLOGY AND [No. 
 
 or, again, that the insight of metaphysical thought 
 is a Divine insight into the character of existence. 
 Though there be ten thousand distinguishable 
 branches of thought or knowledge, yet all forms 
 of thought or knowledge meet in this, that they 
 are all Divine, and their Divineness is the ultimate 
 truth of them all. 
 
 They all are Divine. Again, this attribute of 
 Divineness is no mere abstraction, no neutral or 
 dead word. Word, Wisdom, Reason, Ao'yo? it 
 is the expression of the life of God. The God 
 whom it expresses is alive, is reality of being, is 
 life ; is all that our dim consciousness of being, of 
 personality, really means. Our reason is reason- 
 able ; our character is moral ; our personality is 
 personal, is free just so far as each truly reflects 
 what personality, character, wisdom are in Him, 
 the expression of whose living Personality they 
 are. 
 
 There is, then, a sense in which theology is 
 quite literally the Scientia Scientiarum, as actually 
 including every thought that is true. Neverthe- 
 less, most knowledge is not approached from the 
 side of theology ; and there are reasons, no 
 doubt, why it is, at the least, convenient that it 
 should be so. Indeed, though all scientific 
 methods presuppose the unity of reason a pos- 
 tulate which belongs immediately to metaphysic, 
 and ultimately to theology for all ordinary pur- 
 poses the scientific method stands in contrast 
 against the theological. The scientific method
 
 3 ] THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 29 
 
 of knowledge, while it implicitly takes for granted 
 the whole rational process and machinery alike 
 of our own minds, and (I must add) of the uni- 
 verse which it explores, finds much of its robust 
 strength in the explicit refusal to take for granted, 
 in any other direction, either specific facts or 
 interpretations of the meaning of facts. 
 
 So splendid have been the achievements of this 
 method, that we are accustomed to meet, and 
 need to be on our guard against, not merely a 
 claim for the acceptance of scientific results within 
 their own sphere, but (what is more formidable) 
 a claim that the scientific canons and methods of 
 thought, and the hypotheses upon which they 
 work, are the only canons and hypotheses upon 
 which knowledge can be based. We are met, 
 I say, by such a claim. Often, perhaps, it would 
 be more accurate to say that, without the formula- 
 tion of any such claim, we are met by a wide- 
 spread instinct, more imperious still because more 
 unconscious of condition or limit, that all thought 
 or knowledge whatever must work upon these 
 assumptions and methods only. Of the assump- 
 tions I have, so far, already spoken. Mind is 
 assumed, within and without, everywhere ; and 
 character, so far at least as it is indispensable for 
 the discipline and working of mind. But while 
 the existence of truth is so far assumed, the con- 
 tent of truth is not. Rather it is as the primary 
 condition of the scientific method to assume 
 nothing as true beyond the fact of truth and mind
 
 30 AN INDUCTIVE STUDY [No. 
 
 itself. The building up of knowledge is a gradual 
 and progressive achievement. Mind feels its way 
 by patient observation and reflection everywhere. 
 Its method is hypothetical, tentative, inductive. 
 It is a process of perpetual evolution, of endless 
 advance, magnificent indeed in actual results, yet 
 such as can hardly be thought of except as a finite 
 advance towards a total practically, for us, in- 
 finite. Moreover, in most branches of knowledge, 
 even the truths that are most definitely ascertained 
 are still, in a certain sense, tentative. The most 
 dogmatic principles are acquired principles, in- 
 ductively built up ; and however little we can 
 practically believe that future discoveries of truth 
 could qualify, or, by dwarfing, seem to supersede 
 them, such a contingency is never, at least in the 
 abstract, inconceivable ; nor would it, if realised, 
 contradict or overthrow, but rather enrich the 
 more, the whole fabric of knowledge. 
 
 Is it true, then, that assumptions or canons of 
 thought, based upon the experience of acquisition 
 of knowledge such as this, can be transferred into 
 the sphere of distinctive theology and found to 
 work livingly or fruitfully there ? 
 
 No doubt it is perfectly possible, in reference 
 to the subject-matter and history of religion, to 
 construct a scientific inquiry of a strictly inductive 
 kind. It is possible to inquire into the origin 
 and development of the religious sense ; into the 
 history and phenomena of religious beliefs ; into 
 the consequences, as observable in character and
 
 3] OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF 31 
 
 life (so far as these things can be observed from 
 without), which are, or seem to be, the outcome 
 of different forms and developments of creed. 
 The mental attitude necessary for such a study 
 as this may be, in strict accordance with the 
 assumptions and canons of scientific thought, an 
 attitude of perfectly impartial equilibrium con- 
 vinced, indeed, that truth of some kind will 
 be ultimately evolved from the careful study of 
 religious phenomena, but unbiassed by any per- 
 sonal religious loyalty ; and rather assuming that 
 truth, if found among practical religious societies, 
 must be found as distributed somewhere amongst 
 them all, and likely to be at once most seriously 
 endangered by the surrender of complete allegi- 
 ance to any. 
 
 Upon a study, such as this, of creeds, or types 
 of character as moulded by creeds, upon the 
 assumption on the part of the student at least 
 for his scientific purposes as student of astringent 
 mental neutrality, I make no other comment for 
 the present but this, that whatever its place or 
 value may be in the intellectual life of the com- 
 munity, or of individuals, it has at all events 
 hardly anything, if anything, in common with 
 the study of Christian theology. I do not dis- 
 parage its use, or in many cases its necessity. 
 Nevertheless, it could only be by some confusion 
 of thought that a study such as this could be 
 ranged under the heading of theology. It can 
 only become theology when the entire Christian
 
 32 CANNOT BE 'THEOLOGY' [No. 
 
 hypothesis, and with it all idea or hope of the 
 possibility of any theology properly so called, 
 has first been explicitly laid aside. 
 
 For Christian theology differs from such a 
 study as this, not accidentally, but fundamentally ; 
 differs in its hypotheses, in the character of its 
 certainties, and therefore in the nature of its 
 canons, and the direction of its processes, of 
 thought. If the scientific method is inductive 
 and evolutionary, Christian theology is character- 
 istically deductive : that is to say, it is based 
 fundamentally not so much upon a gradual edifice 
 of religious ideas, a process of tentative con- 
 jectures, more or less satisfactorily verified in ex- 
 perience, whilst, bit by bit, they slowly advance 
 towards some far-off goal of remote theological 
 certainty ; but rather upon the actual manifesta- 
 tion of a historic life, accepted as Divine. What- 
 ever may have led up to this acceptance in the 
 history of the individual, theology begins as the- 
 ology from the acceptance of this life as a Divine 
 revelation ; and its central work consists in the 
 exploration and appreciation of the consequences, 
 not to the intellect only, but to the entire character, 
 which flow out from such acceptance. Theology, 
 however minutely she may explore and verify it, 
 does not set out, with blank mind, to make dis- 
 covery of this fact, or of the essential interpreta- 
 tion of it. It is from this fact, and from the 
 Divine interpretation of it, that theology starts. 
 It is upon this that theology, as such, is based.
 
 3 ] WHICH IS DEDUCTIVE, 33 
 
 Now, to say this does not mean that theology is 
 out of relation with the inductive achievements of 
 a priori reason. On the contrary, the main fact 
 and character of these is taken for granted, as 
 the necessary substructure and preliminary to 
 theology. As it was not, historically, until after the 
 work of Greek thought and Hebrew discipline of 
 character that God was revealed in Christ ; so, 
 intellectually, is it always true that Christian 
 theology does not set aside, but rather postulates 
 and assumes the preliminary work of reason its 
 inherent interrogativeness, its demands, enigmas, 
 efforts, and (so far as it has reached them) achieve- 
 ments. Theology, as a system of thought ad- 
 dressed to the reason, presupposes the conditions, 
 the necessities, and the struggles of reason as 
 unillumined by revelation. Nor are the pro- 
 cesses of reason checked in the least, but stimu- 
 lated and fortified in the light of this revelation. 
 The revelation itself is not the revelation of a 
 dead text, but of a living Person, a revelation as 
 multiform, as inexhaustible, as life. Still, what- 
 ever the Christian theologian may have to say 
 and he has doubtless much about the relation 
 of reason to theology, it remains fundamentally 
 true that the basis and certainty of his theological 
 work rests not so much upon the interrogation of 
 inductive experience as upon the acceptance and 
 study of a revealed Life. 
 
 To him, indeed, the very antithesis will ulti- 
 mately be a formal rather than a real one. To 
 D
 
 34 BEING BASED UPON [No. 
 
 him it is clear that the work of preliminary reason 
 only finds its verification and completeness, as 
 its otherwise insoluble problems only find their 
 solution, in the theology which flows out from 
 the acceptance of the revealed Life. Still, his 
 basis is the revelation even more than the in- 
 duction : and so far, in scientific theology, the 
 process of other study seems to be reversed. It 
 follows that, as judged from the point of view 
 of secular science, the methods and hypotheses 
 of theology must appear sometimes anomalous. 
 
 Theology, as a system of intellectual thought, 
 if wholly apart from revelation, would be at its 
 best of the nature of metaphysic an attempt to 
 build up conviction as to the ultimate meaning 
 of life and consciousness from the various data 
 which experience supplies ; but chiefly from the 
 interrogation of the phenomenon of consciousness 
 itself and its character, and the postulates which 
 are involved in it. For this must always be the 
 primary nay, in some sense (however largely 
 interpreted by history or science) the all-inclusive, 
 the ultimate as well as the primary datum of 
 those who fain would know the source and the 
 goal, the meaning and character, the value and 
 destiny, of the life of man's conscious spirit. 
 Now, no one who honestly, however externally, 
 studies Christianity, can fail to see that for the 
 Christian intellect the conditions of this ex- 
 planation are transformed by the revealed Life. 
 If that, the fundamental Christian hypothesis, is
 
 3 ] THE INCARNATE LIFE 35 
 
 true, thought hangs no longer helpless in mid- 
 air. There is at once a real source and goal. 
 The exemplar, the ideal, exists, at once of human 
 reason and of moral character ; and of both at 
 once because of either ; and of both not as really 
 two, but rather as inseparable aspects of one. 
 It exists nay, it is the reality of existence. 
 
 And as to the meaning of the ideal exemplar, 
 which is the all-inclusive reality ; the Incarnate 
 Life by what it reveals and involves of the Being 
 of God, the essential unity, yet threefoldness in 
 unity, of mutually inclusive personalities, the in- 
 herent self-relatedness in eternal Being, becomes 
 itself, even on the side of mere intellect, however 
 much not discoverable, nay, even (if you will) 
 imperfectly apprehensible by mere intellect, yet 
 becomes the solution of the hitherto insoluble 
 enigmas, the crowning and perfecting of the 
 insight, nay, of the very capacity, of intellect. 
 The Christian theologian cannot but claim, not 
 only that his illuminative revelation is in most 
 perfect accord with reason's reasonableness, but, 
 moreover, that reason itself has never found its 
 own reasonable vindication or completeness else- 
 where; that, so far from stultifying or superseding 
 reason, it alone lifts reason up to the true level 
 of reason's own highest independence or capacity 
 as reason. 
 
 If, then, the theologian's attitude or method 
 is different, perhaps even anomalous, from the 
 point of view of the assumptions and hypotheses
 
 36 THEOLOGY DOES NOT [No. 
 
 of the scientific mind, ordinarily so called, it can 
 never be true to the theologian that theological 
 truth, because based upon revelation, and there- 
 fore in its characteristic method deductive, is, 
 intellectually speaking, on a lower or less rational 
 level than the truths of inductive exploration. 
 On the contrary, to him it is reason which is 
 instantly hemmed in and fettered in its capacity, 
 whenever, whether in the name of reason or on 
 any other ground, it shuts out the hypothesis of 
 revelation, and endeavours to struggle with the 
 complexity of life and thought alone. Reason, 
 taken apart as reason, is reason by hypothesis 
 dwarfed. Intellect really isolated can, in fact, 
 apprehend nothing, except so far as there are 
 propositions quite exclusively intellectual. But 
 no truth that is not narrowed down by artificial 
 abstraction is an exclusively intellectual truth, 
 and, apart from the region of abstractions, isolated 
 intellect is intellect incapacitated. If mere in- 
 tellect cannot thrill to the bracing joy of moral 
 effort or victory; cannot put meaning into the 
 overshadowing conscience of sin, or the new 
 dawning of life in the sense of pardon, accept- 
 ance, sanctification ; cannot enter at all into the 
 wonders of the consciousness of loving and being 
 loved ; it is assuredly true that intellect, taken 
 apart as intellect, is without the very capacities 
 of consciousness by which the intellect of the 
 spiritual consciousness sees and knows. But it 
 is in this insight of the intellect of the spiritual
 
 3 ] FETTER REASON 37 
 
 consciousness that alone mere intellect rests from 
 its weary round of Tantalus' labours, and finds 
 itself not quenched, discouraged, superseded, but 
 satisfied, illuminated, reconciled ; its old efforts 
 after truth all included, its old antinomies 
 harmonised, its old aspirations glorified, its old 
 impossibilities melted away. 
 
 You remember the mathematical puzzle of the 
 race between the hare and the tortoise the hare 
 which ran ten yards while the tortoise ran one ; 
 the tortoise which nevertheless, usque adinfinitum, 
 was always one-tenth of its old distance ahead, 
 as often as ever the hare had cancelled the 
 former arrears. As in that puzzle, by the abstract 
 and arbitrary hypothesis of an infinite subdivi- 
 sion, the possibility of which was hypothetical 
 and abstract only, the intellect was (as it were) 
 walled in, and could never get outside the arti- 
 ficial limitation of a hypothesis purely imaginary ; 
 so reason, regarded as the reason of a being only 
 rational, and not recognising yet that its own 
 highest possibilities as reason belong to it only as 
 it is the reason of a moral consciousness, nay, of 
 a spiritual personality, is retained in the old circle 
 of barrenness and hopelessness by the artificial 
 hypothesis, the unreal abstraction, which would 
 separate off the reason as a non-moral, non- 
 spiritual thing ; and so, by the attempt to regard 
 reason merely as rational, stunt all the highest 
 capacities of reason itself. 
 
 But to return from what is in part a digression,
 
 38 THEOLOGY IMPLIES [No. 
 
 though hardly an unimportant one, as to what 
 reason is from the point of view of revelation. If 
 the basis of theology be the revelation of a Per- 
 son, whose Personality is a revelation of God : if 
 therein all the old processes and problems of 
 reason go on, not checked, but taken up, steadied, 
 completed, crowned in the light that flows from 
 the revelation ; and the scrutiny, meanwhile, of 
 the truths or aspects of truth, which do follow 
 from acceptance of the revelation, is in its charac- 
 ter, as I have urged, a deductive more than an 
 inductive scrutiny : it will follow that theology, if 
 it is to be theology at all, if it is not to abandon 
 its own characteristic being, and throwing the 
 revealed Life to the winds, to become once more 
 a metaphysical speculation, or further still from 
 its own essential nature, a mere inquiry, intel- 
 lectually impartial, because morally and spiritually 
 uninformed, into the phenomena and history of 
 religious creeds and societies, must be built upon a 
 hypothesis of certain truth : and as possessing, and 
 based upon, definite truths, must have, at the core 
 of its life, such a reality as the old word orthodoxy 
 represents. There must be such a thing as an ortho- 
 doxy if there is to be a theology. However diffi- 
 cult it may seem to be to determine what is ortho- 
 dox, whatever confusion may have arisen amid 
 diverse judgments embodied in diverse societies : 
 whatever excuse there may therefore be for the 
 easy assumption of external criticism, that an 
 orthodoxy must be a narrowness and an error in
 
 3] AN ORTHODOXY, 39 
 
 itself: it remains true, after all, that theology 
 without a deposit of truth, without therefore some 
 data of definite creed in reference to which indi- 
 vidual judgments may differ as orthodox from 
 heterodox, as true from determinably false, would 
 be not theology at all, but a sea once more of end- 
 less speculation, on which Reason, not exalted 
 but degraded, as well as disabled, by setting out 
 alone, would toss and wander, compassless and 
 rudderless, in eternal and pathetic impotence of 
 effort. It is only so far as bodies of men can agree 
 upon the contents of an orthodoxy, that it is pos- 
 sible for them to share in a theology. If different 
 bodies hopelessly disagree, they can, indeed, have 
 their diverse theologies, corresponding to their 
 diverse views of orthodoxy, but they can have no 
 common content of theology. Nor can those claim 
 a theology at all to whom the word orthodoxy has 
 no meaning. Herein is a contrast, characteristic 
 and fundamental, between the conditions, neces- 
 sary from the very outset, for theology, or for other 
 fields of speculation and knowledge, viewed apart 
 from theology a contrast which issues directly 
 from the fact that the basis of any Christian 
 theology is in the revelation of a Personal Life, 
 accepted as Divine. 
 
 So far I have tried, however imperfectly, to 
 enlarge upon what is really one single thought 
 only, the character of Christian theology as based 
 upon revelation rather than induction. But there 
 are other thoughts which I should desire at least
 
 40 WHICH MERE INTELLECT [No. 
 
 to mention along with this. The very phrase, 
 "revelation of a Personal Life," carries us really 
 much further. For a person can only be known 
 by personal intimacy and interchange. Only a 
 person can know a person ; and the knowledge 
 of a person can never be a knowledge merely intel- 
 lectual. As a living person could not really be 
 intelligible to mind divorced from moral character, 
 but community of life and experience and affection 
 is, through avenues conscious or unconscious, 
 the method of realising personal knowledge ; so 
 Christian theology, being what it is in fact, the 
 knowledge of a personality revealed in human 
 life, cannot, in the nature of its own essential 
 being, be ever adequately measured or appraised 
 by the comparative method, from without. An 
 impartial science of comparative religions, so far 
 from rising intellectually beyond it, or above it, 
 necessarily falls back as from the moral so from 
 the intellectual conditions, which are indispen- 
 sable for capacity of understanding it. It is, of 
 inexorable necessity, only from within, only by 
 intercourse of personal affection and communion, 
 that its revelation can be, in any real measure, 
 intelligible. But I do not attempt to dwell further 
 upon a thought which has been so strikingly 
 interpreted from this pulpit not many months 
 since. 
 
 To some extent I have dwelt already upon the 
 thought that the highest truth would not be 
 apprehensible by mere intellect, even if there
 
 3 ] IS INADEQUATE TO APPREHEND 41 
 
 were, or could be, such a thing as intellect 
 abstracted from content of personal character. 
 Nowhere is this truth so clear, nowhere is the 
 inadequacy of pure intellect, even for intelli- 
 gence, so conspicuous as in the subject-matter of 
 theology. I suppose it is universally true that 
 there is as truly character in intellect, as intellect 
 in character ; but what is elsewhere discernible, 
 just perhaps indicatively, is true with overwhelm- 
 ing directness here. It is the long discipline of 
 the moral character by which the eyes of the 
 understanding are opened. I said just now that 
 theology must have an orthodoxy. Of course 
 I do not deny that there is an orthodoxy which 
 is blind, conceited, unintelligent ; the substitute 
 of indolence or cowardice for intelligence and 
 honesty. But possession, real and intelligent, of 
 spiritual truth, is as plainly a moral as an in- 
 tellectual thing. It is only by moral affinity, real 
 likeness of moral character in the apprehending 
 intelligence, that moral truth can be really appre- 
 hended. It is only by that deeper spiritual reality 
 of which moral consciousness is the immediate 
 expression, which itself is the origin and root, the 
 key and the crown of moral consciousness, that 
 truths which transcend the conditions of present 
 existence, or seem at first sight to contradict 
 common logic ; truths such as Atonement or 
 moral reality of effectual pardon ; truths such as 
 Regeneration, or Sacramental feeding on the 
 Body and Blood of a Divine Humanity ; truths
 
 42 THEOLOGY BELONGS [No. 
 
 such as Resurrection, or Eternity of being ; cease 
 to be, as at first sight they seemed to be, mean- 
 ingless nonsense, and become in very deed, to 
 the soul, illuminating and transforming, tran- 
 scendent and eternal, realities. 
 
 It is correspondingly, on the other hand, the 
 penalty of aspirations after spiritualism, which are 
 not the crown and perfecting of moral experience, 
 to stand self-condemned as both intellectual and 
 moral rubbish. 
 
 True theological apprehension postulates not 
 the ingenious exercise of a single faculty, but the 
 allegiance of the whole man. Nay, there is often 
 more theological insight in moral dutifulness, 
 though it seem unintellectual, than in the most 
 ingenious hypotheses of an intelligence which 
 seems to be independent, because it is deficient 
 in moral dutifulness. 
 
 Again, as nowhere else is the inadequacy of 
 the intellect so conspicuous if abstracted from the 
 total of the intelligent person, so nowhere else is 
 the individual personality so inadequate if taken 
 apart from the community. As reason, for us, is 
 without each apprehending intellect before it is 
 within it, and the life of humanity precedes that 
 of our own several human experience, and the 
 capacities as well as rights of the individual are 
 in large measure what his membership of a 
 society has made them ; so Christian theology is 
 for men as joint members of a Catholic Church. 
 If on the one hand, it is true and strikingly true,
 
 3 ] TO THE CHURCH 43 
 
 that theological insight, like all other Divine 
 insight into knowledge and character, comes to 
 the corporate body through the inspired mind 
 and life of individuals, it is none the less true 
 that the individual mind or conscience appre- 
 hends, and acquires apprehensiveness, in and 
 through both the moral discipline of gregarious 
 life, and the intellectual dutifulness of lowly 
 Church membership. True theological insight 
 can never be the pride of individual ingenuity. 
 Theology always has been as a historical fact 
 must we not add, theology by its inherent 
 necessity always must be ? the theology of a 
 coherent corporate body, the illuminative know- 
 ledge and light of a Church. 
 
 So incompatible with the true insight of 
 theology is the secret lust after intellectual emi- 
 nence or independency, that it has been, in all 
 ages of the Church, an experience characteristic 
 at once and most pitiful, that those who seemed, 
 it may be, in all other respects, both of intellect 
 and character, the most richly qualified to inter- 
 pret Divine truths to men, yet warped, a little 
 and a little, by a vein of individual ambition of 
 intellect, where there should have been loyal and 
 lowly dutifulness, have after all been eminent 
 only to mislead and to perplex, to distract and 
 to divide, the minds and hearts of their brethren. 
 Again and again this one failing has availed to 
 turn what should have been the very light of 
 heaven, into the misleading lanterns of the marsh
 
 44 DUTIFUL SUBMISSION [No. 
 
 and the wilderness. Though Divine insight be 
 through individuals, it is never as an individual 
 property. Nothing could be more anomalous 
 than an esoteric Christian theology, the secret 
 intellectual pride of a few ; and nothing is more 
 pitiful than the spectacle of the shipwreck of 
 theologians in whose theological intelligence the 
 element was lacking of dutiful loyalty. Divine 
 truth is the animating possession of a corporate 
 Church ; and the man who sets himself apart 
 from the Body loses the inner touch of the life 
 which illuminates and informs the members of 
 the Body. We have known it in ancient history. 
 We know it only too familiarly in modern 
 Europe. If independence is, in one sense, a 
 necessary note of intellectual as of moral 
 strength, in a sense that is but slightly per- 
 verted it is the characteristic snare and ruin of 
 intellectual people. To be independent, if duti- 
 fulness demands it, is the very test of strength. 
 But a vein of desire for independence of intellect 
 is already the beginning of dissolution. The 
 solidarity of humanity, the deep interdependence 
 of man with man, the inadequacy, nay, the 
 disaster of the individual, if taken apart as a 
 solitary being, when he was made for orderly 
 membership in a mighty living and life-giving 
 whole if it is sufficiently noticeable elsewhere, 
 is nowhere more conspicuously or peremptorily 
 true than it is in the study of Christian theology. 
 What then ? Are thoughts like these thoughts
 
 3 ] OF INTELLECT 45 
 
 of discouragement more than of inspiration ? or 
 are they in any way far-fetched, or uncertain, or 
 unnecessary? "The Word was with God, and 
 the Word was God." If the opening verses of 
 St. John be not folly, but Divine insight, how can 
 Christian theology be less than (in proportion as 
 it is realised) a positive certainty, a communing 
 of the illumined soul with truth ? 'Do not, then, 
 be misled into vainly imagining that theology can 
 be either constructed or maintained on the basis 
 of wide information about opinion, as distin- 
 guished from dutiful submission to the truth as 
 true. Do not be taken in by the shallow fancy that 
 mental indifference is higher intellectually than 
 surrender, independence than devotion, or that 
 the role of all-tolerating indifference is possible to 
 the Christian theologian. Devotion to the truth 
 is not lowered or fettered because it sets out with 
 the most immovable certainty that its own quest 
 is neither quixotic nor indefinite that the truth 
 is, is reality of existence, is perfection of life ; life 
 in whose realised completeness, intellectual wis- 
 dom, personal goodness, the boundlessness of 
 spiritual capacity, are no longer even imaginably 
 separate ; they are aspects of a unity which is each 
 one of them simultaneously, perfectly ; they can 
 differ only as diverse manifestations of a Being 
 essentially One. 
 
 Again, if the Word be God, how could devo- 
 tion to that Word be the devotion only of a single 
 faculty of man's being, and that neither the high-
 
 46 GIVES INSIGHT INTO [No. 
 
 est element in his being, nor that which is most 
 characteristically himself? How could devotion 
 be devotion, if it were of the intellect more than of 
 the character and the will ? But if theological 
 truth thus necessarily makes its demand upon the 
 whole man, it also exalts the whole man. Every 
 faculty that it uses, it braces and purifies. If the 
 inadequacy of an isolated faculty, as intellect, is 
 nowhere so conspicuous ; nowhere, on the other 
 hand, is the intellect so refined and perfected as 
 intellect, as here where it begins to be identified 
 with the moral conscience, while it abdicates every 
 dream of individual eminence for ever, in loyal 
 submission to the eternal lordship of a Living 
 and Loving Truth. 
 
 Again, it hardly even seems an addition to these 
 thoughts, so much is it implied in them already, 
 that theology throws a man back upon his fellows ; 
 its insight is only possible to those who, as breth- 
 ren amongst brethren, have learnt the discipline 
 of a life of love. It requires a lowliness of intel- 
 lect as well as of action ; the lowliness of the man 
 who, though he thinks, and prays, and learns, and 
 judges for himself, yet does so with even increas- 
 ing distrust of his separate sufficiency ; whose 
 insight into real good gives him keen conscience 
 of moral imperfectness ; whose conscience of moral 
 imperfectness makes intellectual self-assertion im- 
 possible ; who would be not elated but dismayed 
 to find himself moving towards apparent contra- 
 diction I will not say necessarily of the majority
 
 3 ] THE HIGHEST TRUTH 47 
 
 of surrounding Churchmen, but of that Apostolic 
 and Catholic Church in whose Divine foundation 
 and guidance he believes. 
 
 Only one word more. On such a representa- 
 tion as I have endeavoured to make, you may tell 
 me that it is difficult indeed to search and find, 
 here or there, some one or another who can with 
 any confidence be said to deserve the name of 
 theologian. I know not. Something indeed there 
 was said about things hidden from the wise and 
 prudent, and revealed unto babes : something also 
 about the relative order of the first and the last. 
 God's verdict is not always as man's ; and true 
 inward affinity with the highest truth is often 
 growing on by silent degrees, even, it may be, 
 where, or how, men suspect it least. Meanwhile 
 I can but reply that the very fact of the rarity, if 
 rarity it be, bears, in its own way, witness to the 
 transcendent reality of theological truth.
 
 A RELIGIOUS VIEW OF HUMAN 
 PERSONALITY 
 
 (A sermon preached before the University of Oxford on 
 October 26th, 1902.) 
 
 " For as the Father hath life in Himself y even so gave He to 
 the Son also to have life in Himself (St. John v. 26). 
 
 ARE these words spoken primarily of the 
 ~\ Logos the eternally pre-existent Image 
 of the Father, or primarily of the Son Incarnate, 
 the human revelation of God ? I must venture 
 to think that all words spoken by the Christ in 
 flesh of Himself the speaker, must have direct 
 reference to the Incarnate Christ ; and that these 
 words are no exception to the rule. Such a view 
 is emphasised by the phrase with which, in the 
 next verse, the sentence concludes, "And He 
 gave Him authority to execute judgement, 
 because He is the Son of man." 
 
 I venture, then, to take the words as having 
 reference not exclusive, perhaps, but direct to 
 human being in the Person of Christ. But if to 
 human being in the Person of Christ, then, in 
 some sense at least, to the consummation, and 
 therefore to the ideal, of what human being is. 
 I do not stay now to ask in what precise way the 
 
 4 8
 
 No. 4 ] TRUE HUMAN LIFE, 49 
 
 relation ought to be stated between humanity in 
 us and Humanity in Him. At the very least, 
 there is an instructive analogy between the two ; 
 so that what is a leading principle of humanity in 
 Him has in it a lesson about our humanity, and 
 for us. At some risk, then, of seeming abrupt- 
 ness, I must venture to begin by assuming that 
 the words of the text have a direct application to 
 humanity, even our humanity, in its true ideal 
 meaning, as designed and discerned by God. 
 
 Any such a priori assumption is greatly 
 strengthened when we begin to observe what it is 
 that the words assert. They assert two things, 
 and the two make a paradox ; for they seem, on 
 the face of it, to contradict each other. " Even 
 so gave He to the Son also " it is, then, a gift, 
 derivative and dependent. " To have life in 
 Himself as the Father hath life in Himself" : it 
 is, then, an inherent possession, and compared, 
 in this point of its inherency, to the inherency of 
 the life of God. It is Life at once given and 
 inherent : at once dependent and distinct : at 
 once at outcome of the Father's being, an act or 
 expression of the Father's love, and an existence 
 over against the Father, like in sovereign self- 
 completeness to the Father's own. Such a 
 paradox contains, in fact, an exactly true account 
 of the actual reality, or at least the full ideal 
 reality, of human conscious being. 
 
 The two sides are both present together, and 
 E
 
 5 o BEING BOTH DEPENDENT [No. 
 
 the two sides are both to be taken account of. 
 Logic may, or may not, succeed in correlating 
 them : but to ignore either is to fly in the face 
 of experience. It is easy for thought so to em- 
 phasise either side of th'e reality as to exclude 
 the other altogether. It is easy to think of the 
 inherent possession as everything. It is easy to 
 see nothing, as characteristic of man's conscious 
 selfhood, except the independence ; to find its 
 whole differentia in distinctness ; to imagine that 
 separateness is the great reality. One man is 
 distinct from another : and both are distinct from 
 God. I am what I am apart, alone ; for good or 
 for evil an object, a centre, and a goal, to myself. 
 Now no doubt very much of prima facie consci- 
 ousness is like this. And no doubt also this 
 sense of self-sufficing independence may be said 
 to have been closely connected, as condition, 
 with not a little of human enterprise and of 
 human excellence. 
 
 On the other hand it is not difficult, nor un- 
 natural, at least to reflective thought, to conceive 
 of created consciousness as a mere mode or part 
 of universal consciousness, of the particular as 
 but a partial presentment, a rendering in detail, 
 of the general purpose or mind, of man at his 
 most as a mere element in God. This is the 
 opposite extreme. So far from finding the whole 
 differentia of particular being in distinctness, it 
 really breaks down all distinction whatever. It 
 explains the wonder of created personality quite
 
 4 ] AND INDEPENDENT, 51 
 
 simply by explaining 1 it away. It merges the 
 individual in the absolute. Whether, on those 
 terms, it would ultimately succeed in conserving 
 any conception of personality at all, even as 
 applied to God, is a question which we need not 
 now ask. Human personality it certainly does 
 not conserve. No doubt it has been at many 
 times usual for thinkers to conceive of personal 
 consciousness, for all purposes, in terms too 
 exclusively of conscious intelligence of thought, 
 that is, rather than affection, of mind rather than 
 will. Now it is much easier to think of the 
 particular mind than of the particular will as a 
 mere part or reproduction of the universal. It 
 was therefore perhaps no very unnatural result of 
 this exclusive over-emphasis upon thought or 
 intelligence, if men were unduly disposed to let 
 the idea of real individuality go : or at least if 
 they found themselves in some intellectual diffi- 
 culty, when they tried to show that their system 
 of thought would not end in the loss of it. 
 
 These are the two extremes. But in point of 
 fact either of these by itself is really one-sided. 
 It may be easier, no doubt, as far as simplicity 
 goes, to adopt either view by itself than to bring 
 the two into harmony. But it would be (what is 
 often tempting to the thinker) a simplicity pur- 
 chased at the cost of truth. A truer fidelity 
 to experience would make impossible the ex- 
 clusion or exclusive adoption of either. The 
 logical dilemma is here, as it is so often, out of
 
 52 FINDS ITS CONSUMMATION [No. 
 
 place. Each may have, indeed, in some sort to 
 be explained by the other. But the reality, on 
 the one side, of individuality distinct and in- 
 herent, and on the other, of fundamental union 
 with, and dependence on, God, seeing" that both 
 are certainly, in some sense, true cannot con- 
 stitute any real or final antithesis. 
 
 It is to be noticed that they seemed most 
 opposed to each other in the earlier and more 
 imperfect stages of consciousness ; the conscious- 
 ness, that is, of children ; or of many, it may 
 also be, of us, who are apt to remain as children 
 in things like these. We seem to begin with 
 feeling ourselves wholly by ourselves and to our- 
 selves. This life within with its capacities, and 
 its aims, its records, and its hopes, it is all my 
 secret. I know : and no other knows or can 
 know but I. If there be risk run, it is my risk. 
 If there be achievement, it is my achievement. 
 If there be weakness or wrong, it is alone, it is 
 apart, it is mine, only mine. This sovereign 
 separateness is the very essence and prerogative 
 of my being. 
 
 How different from this is the later conscious- 
 ness especially of the noblest and the holiest of 
 men ! If we look to the picture of them, as it 
 has been again and again unfolded to us be- 
 hold ! there are no secrets jealously shut off ; but 
 rather every inmost motive and thought laid 
 bare. There is the growing sense of an eye 
 which sees and has seen through every secretest
 
 4 ] IN UNION WITH GOD 53 
 
 veil ; of a power which has guarded and guards 
 every step of the path ; of a wisdom which has 
 revealed itself to and in the soul with consummate 
 wisdom of patience ; of a power and a love, not 
 originated from within, which have more and 
 more made the consciousness of the very self 
 what it has been, and is, and is capable of be- 
 coming. Till the end is at least a conscious 
 approximation towards real union of thought and 
 of spirit the man characterised through and 
 through by the reality of the indwelling Spirit 
 of God. 
 
 Such union is not for a moment the dissolution 
 but the consummation, not the merging but the 
 crowning, of the several self. Never is the man 
 so perfect in insight and wisdom as when he 
 sees as God sees, and knows according to the 
 truth itself : never is the man so perfectly free as 
 when he can will and does will in absolute accord 
 with the meaning and will of God, which is the 
 highest harmony and perfectness of the nature, 
 made in God's image, which God has bestowed 
 upon him : never is he, as self, so completely all 
 that self had meant, or been, or aspired to mean 
 or become, as when he is at last a conscious and 
 living and willing and joyous reflection of the 
 very being and character of God. 
 
 It is true of course that this is transcendently 
 beyond what any man has realised in his ex- 
 perience here and now on earth. The best man,
 
 54 MAN IS A TRUE [No. 
 
 perhaps, has but glimpses and his glimpses, 
 though real, may be fitful and overcrowded even 
 of what he himself really is, and is to be. But 
 it is true also that this is the end towards which 
 the experience of saints is, even visibly, tending 
 in present experience : saintliness is, even here 
 and now, however incompletely, a growth to- 
 wards the capacity of real mirroring, through 
 God's gift of power, of the character of God. 
 And it is at the same time true that it is in the 
 final end or goal, it is in the consummation, un- 
 attained, indeed, yet more or less certainly dis- 
 cerned it is not in the essential imperfectness of 
 its first, weak rudiments that we shall rightly 
 distinguish the real differentia and the true defini- 
 tion of the conscious selfhood of man. 
 
 No doubt our language, at its best necessarily 
 figurative, may sometimes, and to some minds or 
 in some parts, obscure the truth which it can but 
 roughly represent. We may speak, as St. Paul 
 spoke, of created human being as, in its ultimate 
 reality, "reflecting, as a mirror, the glory of the 
 Lord " ; a but reflection and mirror are metaphors 
 which require to be guarded very carefully. So 
 if we speak of human being as an echo, or a like- 
 ness, a reproduction, or an image, or a response ; 
 our best words not only say at most but a part of 
 the truth, but with that part they are apt to say 
 also, verbally at least, something else which is 
 not quite true. Take such words, for instance, as 
 
 1 2 Cor. iii. 1 8.
 
 4 ] IMAGE OF GOD, 55 
 
 "reflection" or "response." We need to make 
 quite clear to our thought the contrast between 
 an active and a passive reflection, between a 
 living and a dead response. The response we 
 speak of must be one of living will : the reflection 
 we mean must be an activity of willing love. Our 
 words will fail at the pinch, unless these things, 
 will, love, life, are found to be implied within the 
 words. 
 
 But, if we think, we shall find that they are 
 so implied. There is a sense, indeed, in which 
 all created being is a reflection of something of 
 the Being of God. The snowflake and the crystal 
 have the impress of Him : they are a real part of 
 His revelation. So, in other ways, are the sunset, 
 and the thunder. So, in other ways, are the un- 
 conscious growth of an infant, or the instincts of 
 animals, or the motions of the stars. Something 
 there is a real being, a real beauty, which is given 
 to them : which is stamped on them : a stamp, a 
 gift, from the beauty of the Being of God. But 
 there is in them no inherent life. There is ex- 
 pression, Divine expression, through them : and 
 yet it is not really they who express. They ? 
 There is no real "they." They are but channels, 
 methods, fragments, glimpses, through which 
 God indicates some separate aspect or detail of 
 the expression of Himself. 
 
 How far different is it with the living self of 
 man ! It is the prerogative of his created being 
 to have a life which, though none the less abso-
 
 56 HAVING LIFE INHERENT [No. 
 
 lutely given, is yet given as inherent, when given. 
 It is the true meaning of man's nature not only 
 passively to reflect, as a mirror, some fragment of 
 God's being ; not only metaphorically to respond 
 to some isolated attribute of God ; but to be a 
 living image radiating as He radiates : willing 
 as He wills : loving as He loves : nay, even will- 
 ing with His will, and loving with His love, ani- 
 mated by His Spirit, and radiating the very glory 
 of His Person : a response to His essential being; 
 a reflection of His inmost character : a living 
 image of His very self. " Behold what manner 
 of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that 
 we should be called children of God : and such 
 we are. For this cause the world knoweth us 
 not, because it knew Him not. Beloved, now are 
 we children of God, and it is not yet made mani- 
 fest what we shall be. We know that, if He 
 shall be manifested, we shall be like Him ; for 
 we shall see Him even as He is. And everyone 
 that hath this hope set on him purifieth himself, 
 even as He is pure. . . . And he that keepeth 
 His commandments abideth in Him, and He in 
 him. And hereby we know that He abideth in 
 us, by the Spirit which He gave us." 1 
 
 The reflection of the crystal and the snowflake 
 is partial, is passive, is dead. But the reflection 
 of will as will, of life as life, of character as 
 character, of love as love, of sovereign personal 
 being as personal and as sovereign : this cannot 
 
 1 i John iii. 1-3 and 24.
 
 4 ] BUT DERIVED FROM GOD 57 
 
 be less than personalky royally complete in love 
 and character, in life and reason and will. These 
 are the very things in respect of which man is, in 
 his ideal, the living image, the response to the 
 being, the mirror of the glory, of God. As 
 response, the response would fail, as reflection, 
 the reflection would be untrue, if it did not neces- 
 sarily contain and imply the livingness of these 
 things. 
 
 The union with God, for which man yearns, 
 and which is the consummation and ideal mean- 
 ing of man's being, is no mere selfless merging 
 in the Divine. The goal of man's being is union, 
 not extinction. " I in them, and thou in Me, 
 that they may be perfected into one "* ; this is the 
 crowning of the perfectness, it is not the oblitera- 
 tion, of man. Merge man's selfhood in the Being 
 of God, make him a mere part or mode of abso- 
 lute existence; and it would be idle to talk of 
 either reflection or response. The very words 
 necessarily imply such living distinctness as is 
 essential to the possibility of communion and 
 unity. Oneness of Spirit is not mere unity of 
 number. There can be no reality of communion, 
 there can be no living oneness, in simple identity. 
 " As the Father hath life in Himself, even so 
 gave He to the Son also to have life in Himself." 
 The ideal goal of man's being is life, a life in- 
 herent, with inherency like to the inherency of 
 the life of God : for to image God, to reflect His 
 
 1 John xvii. 23.
 
 58 ARE CREATED PERSONS [No. 
 
 very being, is the ideal end, which is the real 
 meaning, of man. There would be no living re- 
 flection, no radiating, no willing, no intelligence 
 even, if the individual were absorbed within, 
 were a mere part or aspect of, one divinely self- 
 conscious whole. 
 
 And yet all this inherency upon which we 
 insist, is itself, as we no less insist, essentially 
 givenness. It is derived, relative, dependent, 
 creaturely. It is not cannot be apart, either 
 by itself, or for itself, any more than it is from 
 itself. Its whole excellency depends upon its 
 relativity, upon its reality of communion, upon 
 its oneness of thought, will, love, with God who 
 is its goal as truly as He is its source. It is self, 
 not maintaining its selfhood by separateness, or 
 by the possibility of separating, but rather per- 
 fected in the final surrender of all that tends 
 really to separate, glorified in the attainment of a 
 union never again to be impaired or qualified, at 
 rest in perfect harmony with Wisdom and 
 Righteousness and Love, at rest, in oneness of 
 Spirit, in Christ and in God. 
 
 In God because in Christ. What is there in 
 the ideal Christian consciousness which is not, 
 to a St. Paul or to a St. John, in Christ ? The 
 directness of the phrase may stagger us. We 
 may set ourselves to soften it ; we may explain 
 what it actually says away : but however we deal 
 with it mentally, we cannot deny that it pervades
 
 4 ] WITHIN OR WITHOUT GOD? 59 
 
 the thought of the New Testament, and pervades 
 it in this form. 
 
 The phrase must needs be the right phrase. 
 But how much does the phrase mean ? The 
 question is sometimes raised and it is at least a 
 legitimate, if it is hardly an illuminating, question 
 whether created persons are to be conceived of 
 as within God, or without ? Is God limited by 
 them ? Is their being an addition to the Being 
 of God? and does the addition constitute some 
 existence, besides God, which is not God ? The 
 question is a question of logic rather than of 
 reality ; a question, that is, not so much of what 
 zs, as of what human distinctions, of thought and 
 of phrase, are subtle enough to define. 
 
 In the light of what has already been said I 
 hope that we shall recognise that there is some- 
 thing really artificial in a question like this ; 
 artificial, that is, in the antithesis which it im- 
 plies, and upon which it depends. But if the ques- 
 tion be raised, then neither the simple "yes" nor 
 the simple "no," neither the simple "within" 
 nor the simple "without" is wholly true as 
 answer without the other. If there is indeed a 
 sense in which created persons are without, yet 
 almost all that is ordinarily meant by that 
 withoutness is in fact a departure from the true 
 law of their being, and is therefore no part of the 
 ideal truth. If there is assuredly a sense in which 
 they are within, that withinness, even in its ideal 
 consummation, leaves them not the less, but so
 
 60 SIN, THE REAL WITHOUTNESS, [No. 
 
 much really the more, self-identical as them- 
 selves. There is indeed a true sense in which it 
 may be said of us all, from the beginning, that 
 we are within God: for "in Him," as St. Paul 
 preached to the Athenians, "in Him we live, and 
 move, and have our being." 1 But the truth here 
 expressed is but shadowy, incomplete, unrealised, 
 when compared with that to which St. Paul 
 looked forward as the far-off ideal, the perfect- 
 ness which shall be consummated at last " when 
 all things have been subjected unto Him, then 
 shall the Son also Himself be subjected to Him 
 that did subject all things unto Him, that God 
 may be all in all." 2 
 
 Are created persons an addition to God's being, 
 so that His being can be said to be limited- 
 limited by what they are? In so far as they can 
 be said to be an addition at all, they are certainly 
 an addition which can be said to utter and so 
 to enrich, to express, and to glorify by expressing, 
 rather than in any sense to limit Him. Limita- 
 tion of God ? It would be far nearer to the truth 
 to conceive of them as constituting a new out- 
 pouring and enrichment of Divine self-expression 
 through the willing and living reality of selves 
 of Him, by Him, and unto Him, of selves whose 
 meaning and whose glory it is each in his 
 several part, or aspect, or quality, to image 
 faithfully, and to make adequate response to, the 
 very character and reality of His being. 
 
 ~* Acts xvii. 28. a i Cor. xv. 28.
 
 4 ] IS A CONTRADICTION OF LIFE 61 
 
 It is indeed only too true that though, in Divine 
 idea, and in dim underlying possibility, men may 
 be, from the first, within God ; there is in them 
 also that which tends to withoutness, and does 
 set them without and apart in some painfully real 
 measure of experience, in proportion as they have 
 rebelled, and have identified themselves with sin. 
 Sin is, in its essence, withoutness. We all, who 
 know what sin is, have some dim instinct at least 
 as to what such withoutness means. And the 
 tendency of sin, progressive and habitual, is 
 towards that consummated separation from the 
 being and nature of God, which is spiritual 
 death. But the sense of withoutness, with which 
 our self-consciousness begins, and which sin 
 terribly accents and tends to make more and 
 more real, is no proper reality it is rather the 
 contradiction of the proper reality of what 
 human life means. Only sin is the real without- 
 ness. Very different from this is that element of 
 withoutness (if so it is to be called) or quasi- 
 withoutness, that negation of mere self-destroying 
 identity, that gift of inherency of being, which 
 gives meaning and life to unity. If men's first 
 rudimentary and most imperfect experience lays 
 a wholly undue emphasis on their separate dis- 
 tinctness, as distinctively separating, yet on the 
 other hand, as men grow in divineness of 
 character, and learn more and more how the 
 true meaning of their being is to be One in the 
 Oneness of the Spirit of God ; more and more
 
 62 LOGIC AND LIFE : [No. 
 
 obvious is the sense in which they are not 
 without, but are within, Him "their life is hid 
 with Christ in God." 1 They are without just so 
 far as to be really that is, livingly and lovingly 
 within. They are without in the sense that 
 they are not self-identical with Him. They are 
 not God, that their surrender, through Him, to 
 union with Him, may be real. They are within 
 more vitally by far than without : yet with a 
 withinness, no doubt, of which a sort of without- 
 ness the distinction which makes mutually 
 conscious relation possible, the distinction im- 
 plied in every real unity of Spirit, is itself a 
 necessary aspect or condition. 
 
 If there is difficulty in this, the difficulty lies 
 in the application of logical distinctions and 
 dilemmas to the complex simplicity of life. 
 Logic fits perfectly only to things which human 
 thought can wholly analyse and comprehend. 
 Very rarely can human thought so compass (as it 
 were) all round as to comprehend and formulate 
 wholly anything so fundamental as conscious life 
 uncreated or even created. But whatever the 
 difficulty of statement may be, to experience at 
 least the reality, if complex, is not perplexing 
 nor difficult at all. Experience knows that both 
 sides of the truth are true, whether logical forms 
 can correlate them fully or no. It would not be 
 after all very profoundly philosophical to ex- 
 plain away either side of a complex experience 
 
 1 Col. iii. 3.
 
 4 ] CHRISTIANS ARE TO REALISE 63 
 
 because it seems hard to adjust it logically with 
 the other. 
 
 Christian life, then, our own life, our life in 
 this University, or elsewhere, is it pitched high 
 enough ? Its view of itself, its aspirations for 
 itself, the meaning of its own work, the upshot 
 of its own being, do they not fall continually 
 below the dignity which is inherently theirs ? 
 Men feel sometimes the significance and the 
 solemnity of dying : do they feel the intense 
 solemnity, the Divine significance, of living of 
 being men ? Remember that it is not only im- 
 morality or wilful rebellion ; it is not only religi- 
 ous indifference or contempt : but it is all pride 
 and bitterness of spirit, or levity of life, or idle- 
 ness, or unworthy conversation and amusement, 
 it is every form of self-concentration or self- 
 worship, which gives the lie to the true meaning 
 and purpose of human life. In real right, and in 
 real power, are we not more, far more, than we 
 are willing to be ? Is it hyperbole if St. Peter 
 speaks of our becoming "partakers of the Divine 
 nature"? Is St. John's conception of "fellow- 
 ship with the Father " or of being " in Him that 
 is true " is our Lord's supreme teaching about 
 inherence in Himself so much high-flown and 
 misleading metaphor? The real meaning of you 
 is not to be found so much in your imperfect 
 rudiments as in your ideal consummation ; not in 
 your worst, but in your best ; or rather in that
 
 64 THE DIVINENESS OF [No. 
 
 transcendently better, which your best can as yet 
 but faintly adumbrate. In the imperfect stages 
 of human consciousness the meaning of created 
 personality is obscured, and discernible only 
 most imperfectly. In its consummation it is 
 what only the Incarnate has revealed in Hu- 
 manity : so that even the opening phrases of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, or such words as I have 
 taken for my text, are found at last to have a 
 degree of relevance to it which at first we should 
 never have even dared to dream. 
 
 This is the goal and the ideal. It may be that 
 the method of reaching it has some sore surprises 
 and perplexities. Of these we do not speak to- 
 day. Discipline, Sacrifice, Crucifixion, or, what 
 may be even harder to understand, confusion, 
 conviction, even (as it seems) utter mental or 
 spiritual overthrow ; all these have a place, a 
 strange place sometimes, even a staggering 
 place, in the education of saints. Yet do not, 
 even for these, lose the meaning, or lower the 
 aim, of your own human being. It is hard, 
 through gathering darkness, to keep the ideal 
 very high. Yet in the height of the ideal, there 
 is hope, and there is life. To be men is as it 
 seems to be capable of suffering, of sorrow, of 
 perplexity, of remorse, and of shame. Yet to be 
 men indeed is, after all, to be as gods ; echoes 
 of God ; adequate responses to God ; not illustra- 
 tions only of some attribute of Divine power or 
 beauty, but rather alive with His life, and
 
 4 ] TRUE HUMAN LIFE 65 
 
 aflame with the brightness of the Spirit of His 
 love, and possessed through and through with 
 the fire of adoration towards Him light of His 
 light, and fire of His fire, and righteous will of 
 His righteous will ! real, personal, living reflec- 
 tions, or images, of Himself: of His character, 
 and of His Being.
 
 THE FULHAM CONFERENCE ON 
 COMMUNION WITH THE ATONEMENT 
 
 (Journal of Theological Studies , April, 1901.) 
 
 " " I "HE occasion, the action, and the full 
 -L words, of the Institution, all define the 
 sacred Body in our Lord's thought to be the 
 Body as in Death, and the sacred Blood to be 
 the Blood as in Death ; that is, as in the act and 
 process of the One Sacrifice which is our Re- 
 demption. By the Body and the Blood I thus 
 humbly understand to be 'signified' the Means 
 of our Redemption themselves belonging to the 
 past, but in their redeeming Effect ever present." 
 These are Dr. Moule's words, written very 
 carefully beforehand for the Round Table Con- 
 ference at Fulham. They represent a position 
 very deliberately taken, and maintained as crucial, 
 by the " Evangelical " representatives generally 
 on that occasion. The same position was affirmed 
 with the same emphasis and agreement at a dis- 
 cussion upon Eucharistic doctrine held a year or 
 two ago at the annual Islington Conference. We 
 may probably take it, at this moment, that the 
 position stated is the fundamental basis of the 
 
 1 Report of a Conference held at Fulham Palace in October, 1900, p. 29. 
 
 66
 
 No. 5] THE EVANGELICAL VIEW 67 
 
 theological teaching, upon this particular subject, 
 of our Evangelical friends. In the words of 
 Mr. Dimock, "the Res sacramenti is not Christ 
 as He now is, but Christ's Body and Blood as 
 separated in Sacrificial Death for our sins." 1 
 
 The words quoted from Dr. Moule so nearly 
 express the very truth, that if we heard them for 
 the first time without context or comment we 
 might be inclined to welcome them as true. But 
 the more we examine his position in full, and 
 take it in all its context at Fulham and Islington, 
 the more shall we feel that it just misses, after 
 all, the very truth at which it aims ; while in that 
 margin of exaggeration, between the truth at 
 which it aims and the thing which it actually 
 says, there has crept in the beginning of a some- 
 what far-reaching misconception. But before 
 commenting upon it, I may express something 
 of my own satisfaction and thankfulness in find- 
 ing that the difference in Eucharistic doctrine 
 between High Churchmen and Evangelicals 
 between, that is, two classes of minds which differ 
 in some real respects, but are apt to imagine their 
 differences much greater than they really are 
 can be brought to a clear theological issue like 
 this. Here is a question strictly theological ; a 
 question which can be argued dispassionately, 
 and, if need be, at patient length ; a question 
 outside the turmoil of party cries, or the heat of 
 party feeling. We shall learn to be grateful for 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 12.
 
 68 THE REPRODUCTION OF [No. 
 
 the Fulham Conference, if for nothing else, yet 
 for this, that it has brought clearly to light a quiet 
 theological issue upon which, nevertheless, a 
 very large part of the whole great controversy 
 rests. 
 
 And I should like also to acknowledge from 
 the beginning that the position which is thus 
 cardinal to modern Evangelical theology is in its 
 origin neither new nor partisan. A doctrine 
 strenuously maintained as cardinal to Eucharistic 
 truth by Archdeacon Freeman and by Canon 
 Trevor, based by both upon emphatic words of 
 Bishop Andrewes, l and by Canon Trevor upon 
 a long catena of passages from distinctive and 
 distinguished Anglican divines, is no device of 
 modern "Low Churchmanship. " It has a long 
 history, and many-sided support. It is no more 
 partisan than it is new. Those who think that 
 there is in it, nevertheless, a core of mistake, 
 will not only have to show their own grounds of 
 principle against it, but will also have to account 
 for the large amount of apparent historical con- 
 sensus which can be urged on its behalf. 
 
 With this prelude I pass at once to the con- 
 sideration of certain objections to the doctrine. 
 
 I. First I would urge that this doctrine, if 
 pressed, is open to one of the objections which 
 we have been in the habit of making and 
 
 1 See Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. p. 209, ed. 1873 
 (chap. i. end of 12), and Trevor's Catholic Doctrine of the Holy 
 Eucharist, p. 176.
 
 5 ] THE MOMENT OF CALVARY 69 
 
 making, as I believe, truly and rightly against 
 transubstantiation : namely, that it introduces a 
 new and unnecessary miracle. Christ was but 
 is not dead. His Body as dead, His Blood as 
 separated in death, are not, anyhow or anywhere, 
 now. It is obvious to urge that the gift given in 
 the Sacrament is what is, and not what is not. 
 There is no cadaver. There is no blood of a 
 corpse. In whatever sense the bread and wine 
 either represent, or are, or so represent that they 
 may be said to be, certain realities beyond them- 
 selves, they at all events are, or represent, realities 
 things existent, not non-existent. There is 
 indeed a " Christ who died " : but there is no 
 "dead Christ." Now the answer, if I understand 
 it, on this particular point, appeals really to the 
 Divine power of making a past moment present. 
 I am not sure whether it would be right to apply 
 to this point Mr. Dimock's quotation from Ridley 
 on a cognate point, that it "could only be effected 
 by the ' omnipotency of Christ's Word.'" 1 But 
 I have no doubt that this is the meaning of 
 Bishop Andrewes, where he says, " By the in- 
 comprehensible power of His eternal Spirit, not 
 He alone, but He as at the very act of His offer- 
 ing is made present to us." 2 "He at the very 
 act of His offering " clearly means, to Andrewes, 
 Christ dying on Cavalry, not Christ, risen and 
 
 1 Fulham Conference, pp. 48, 49. 
 
 3 Sermons of the Resurrection, preached on Easter Day, vii. (Library 
 of Anglo-Catholic Theology : Andrewes' Sermons, vol. ii. [1841] p. 302).
 
 70 INVOLVES AN [No. 
 
 ascended, presenting the blood of His sacrifice 
 in the Holy of Holies : and he conceives this 
 perpetual reidentification of the Church with the 
 moment of Calvary this reproduction of a point 
 in the past as present to be an act of the " in- 
 comprehensible power of Christ's Eternal Spirit." 
 I shall have by and by to point out that if, by 
 whatever exercise of miraculous power, this 
 precise point of the past were reproduced as 
 present, it would not be the moment, after all, of 
 the consummation of the sacrifice. It would be, 
 on the contrary, a moment in the process, a 
 moment indeed of transcendent importance, but 
 still a moment at which, if you could indeed 
 break off there, the sacrifice would be still not 
 fully consummated. But my present point is 
 that whether that moment is the moment of con- 
 summated sacrifice or no, in asking to have it 
 reproduced by " incomprehensible power " as 
 present, you are asking in fact for a miraculous 
 inversion of realities. 
 
 I do not say that Mr. Dimock would allow this. 
 On the contrary, I rather think his language is 
 intended to avoid it. He says, of the res signi- 
 ficatae that is, the dead body, and the separated 
 blood that they are " thus verily and indeed 
 taken and received by the faithful, being really 
 present for the manducation of faith, 'cui prae- 
 sentia sunt omnia praeterita ' " ; and again he 
 claims that "there was no novelty in maintaining 
 that things of the past may be things present to
 
 S ] UNNECESSARY MIRACLE 71 
 
 faithy^ I think, perhaps, this "presence to 
 faith " is meant to be conceived of as a mode of 
 presence expressly not miraculous, but normal. 
 
 Now, I pass by the point which Canon Gore 
 made as to the whole sentence of Rupert of 
 Deutz 2 from which Mr. Dimock quoted a phrase; 
 for I am more concerned with Mr. Dimock's 
 meaning than with Rupert's. Mr. Dimock then, 
 at all events, puts it as a general principle, that 
 things past may be present to faith. In what 
 sense may they ? I quite understand their being 
 present to memory, or to imagination ; both of 
 which, it is to be observed, imply that whatever 
 kind of reality may be asserted of the presence, 
 the absence is comparably more real than the 
 presence ; the presence is only a sort of quasi- 
 presence, or substitute for presence, of the really 
 absent ; but it is plain, I suppose, that Mr. 
 Dimock's " presence to faith " means something 
 more than the imagination or memory. He puts 
 it as a normal principle, of universal application. 
 To faith "omnia praeterita " are present. Are 
 they ? I must venture to challenge the principle 
 in this form. If in any sense "all things" are 
 present to faith, assuredly they are not all present 
 in the same sense ; and directly you begin to 
 discriminate, the principle as principle is gone. 
 It is no longer a property of faith to make all 
 things present. But you have to ask what that 
 property is, in some things which causes them to 
 
 1 Fulham Conference, pp. 48, 49. 2 Ibid., p. 49.
 
 72 FOR NOT ALL PAST FACTS [No. 
 
 be, and in other things which causes them not to 
 be, present eternally to the faculty which can 
 discern them as present. 
 
 For it is important to observe that faith is not 
 a cause of existence. It does not make things to 
 be when they are not. It is rather a power of 
 corresponding with what is. It sees what cannot 
 be seen, it realises what cannot be realised, save 
 by special capacity. But it does not invent, or 
 create, what is not. It is true that there is a 
 sense in which things may be said not to be, 
 except to the capacity for discerning them. As 
 there is no light save to the seeing eye, nor 
 harmony save to the ear that is capable of music, 
 nor spiritual discernment save to spirit : so Divine 
 things, save to faith, may be said not to be, in 
 the same sense in which it is true that a poem is 
 not a poem to the fire that burns it, or to the 
 animal that tears it to pieces. But the man who 
 rescues the poem and apprehends it, does not, 
 by apprehending, make it. When these various 
 things are, to faith, it is not faith which is the 
 cause, or author, of their being. The musician 
 hears, as the eye sees, what is. And faith re- 
 ceiving and discerning what, save to faith, is not, 
 does not create, but discerns what it receives, and 
 both receives and discerns only what is. 
 
 Only that, then, can be present to faith which 
 is present really ; that is, which is present to 
 God. Is it true to say that to God <( praesentia 
 sunt omnia praeterita " ? I must submit that it is
 
 5 ] ARE ETERNALLY PRESENT 73 
 
 not true. Some things are eternal presents as 
 others are not. It is true indeed that all accom- 
 plished facts tend to be, in their measure, an 
 element in the abiding present. But some are so 
 very faintly ; some very mightily ; and some can 
 cease to be so altogether. And since they can 
 cease to be so, the presentness is not an inherent, 
 or universal, property of the past. 
 
 It is the haunting terror of conscious sin that 
 it is contained within the present self. It is the 
 inherent presentness of the past which is naturally 
 its sting, or its power. But there is such a thing 
 as consummated redemption, consummated for- 
 giveness, consummated beatitude. There is such 
 a thing as a real elimination and undoing of the 
 past. The fact is that some past things are 
 present in a sense in which others are not. Cui 
 praesentia sunt omnia praeterita is misleading. 
 Abraham's call, Abraham's faith, are they, in the 
 sight of the Eternal, eternal predicates, eternal 
 truths of Abraham ? I can well suppose that 
 they are. Is the treachery of Judas an eternal 
 reality ? Our hearts may say w yeWro, while we 
 dare not, even for that, usurp the seat of the 
 Judge. Is "slainness" an eternal attribute of 
 Christ? Emphatically it is. From the founda- 
 tion of the world, and to eternity, He is the 
 " Lamb as it had been slain." Not by an act of 
 miraculous reproduction of a single point in the 
 unfinished record of the past ; but inherently, be- 
 cause He is what He is, therefore His fact of death
 
 74 IT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN [No. 
 
 is an eternal attribute, an inherent and inalienable 
 present. Not that He is always in the present 
 dying, or in the present dead ; not that some- 
 times, or often, His moment of dying is by God's 
 power reproduced, or recalled ; but that it always 
 is an indivisible part of what He is, and He, 
 apart from it, would be less than Himself. Here 
 is an instance indeed, without special miracle, 
 yet as a property of God, in which " praesens est, 
 usque ad aeternum, id quod est praeteritum." 
 
 But is St. Peter for ever lying, or for ever a 
 liar ? Is the moment of his betrayal is the 
 moment of every Christian's fall and sin alike 
 part of God's eternal present ? Emphatically it 
 is not. Else were the Cross a failure after all, 
 and real sanctification a delusion. I will not try 
 to elaborate this further. To say that a certain 
 past act is of such character as to constitute an 
 eternal attribute, predicate, or property, is one 
 thing. To say that a certain point in a past 
 process is by God's power miraculously repro- 
 duced, to say that the perfect wholeness of a 
 consummated work can be so (as it were) rolled 
 back, that men can be set by God's power at a 
 special moment when the work was prepared and 
 waiting to be consummated eternally, is another. 
 The one is to conceive of Christ's death, as I 
 believe that Scripture conceives of it, as an 
 eternal element or attribute, inseparable from 
 what Christ is. The other is to bring back the 
 actual moment of Christ's dying itself a point
 
 5] TWO BODIES OF CHRIST 75 
 
 (albeit a transcendent point) in the work as yet 
 unconsummated and uncrowned to bring it 
 back, unnaturally and unnecessarily, by a divine 
 act of "incomprehensible power," into the midst 
 of the perpetual present. 
 
 II. The second objection I would urge is one 
 which was explicitly made at Fulham. It is that 
 the doctrine makes an unreal distinction between 
 the sacrificed and the glorified Body : as though 
 there were two Bodies of Christ, when there is 
 but one. The sacrificed is the glorified Body, 
 and the glorified Body is the sacrificed. It is 
 the distinctive glory of the glorified Body that it 
 is the Body of sacrifice. The slainness is not a 
 mere past fact, which is naturally ever more 
 remote but supernaturally resuscitated into the 
 present. The slainness is an eternal fact ; an 
 essential for the purpose we may even say the 
 essential element and character of the eternal 
 present. To me it seems essential to theological 
 truth to insist upon the indivisible oneness of the 
 Body. It is as the characteristic attribute of the 
 glorified Christ that His sacrificial death is 
 present eternally : not as an undoing of the 
 glory ; a going back into the desolateness of the 
 past ; a cutting of the redemptive work of Christ 
 into halves ; a stopping short (per impossibile] in 
 the moment of the blackness. It was never a 
 dead Christ, as dead, but a Christ who could not 
 be holden of death ; it was a Christ who died and 
 lived through dying ; a Christ who by dying
 
 76 BUT THE SACRIFICED BODY [No. 
 
 conquered death ; a Christ not veKpos but 6 u>v, 
 eyevo/uLtjv ve/cpoy, Kal ISov u)v el/ui et"? TOI*? aiu>va$ TWV 
 it was such a Christ, and as such, who triumphed 
 and who atoned, not in, but through, death. I 
 would fully adopt on this point the words of 
 Canon Gore, as given in the report : "He could 
 not separate the sacrificed from the glorified 
 Body of our Saviour, and could not conceive of 
 our partaking of the former except through the 
 latter. The latter, he urged, is the only Body 
 now existing, or that ever has existed ; and it is 
 the same Body which, once in a crucified, is now 
 in a glorified state." 1 I would add only the 
 reminder that even the two states must not be so 
 contrasted as to seem to be mutually exclusive ; 
 that as the crucified state was itself a mode or 
 condition of the glory, so the "glorified state" 
 does not by antithesis exclude, but rather 
 includes, and is based on, and is characterised 
 by, the inalienable fact of "crucifiedness." 
 
 A reply on this point was attempted by 
 Chancellor Smith, 2 which seems to me to in- 
 volve a good deal of misconception. There 
 must, he seems to argue, be some such dualism 
 as is implied in the antithesis between the cruci- 
 fied and the glorified Body of our Lord, because, 
 at the institution, Jesus in bodily form, and the 
 bread and wine which He gave as His Body and 
 Blood, were separately present, side by side with 
 each other. In what sense does Chancellor Smith 
 
 1 Ibid., pp. 50, 51. 2 Ibid., p. 52.
 
 S ] AND THE GLORIFIED ARE ONE 77 
 
 suppose that the bread and wine, at the last 
 supper, were the Body and Blood of Christ? 
 And were they the crucified or the glorified 
 Body? If the crucified Body by antithesis against 
 the glorified, then, in whatever sense of the word 
 "were," they were the same Body as the Body 
 which handled and delivered them. This may 
 possibly raise some question about the word 
 "were"; but if both "were" the same Body 
 of crucifixion, what becomes of the necessary 
 antithesis between the crucified and the glorified 
 Body? The very fact that the bread and wine 
 could really "be" that which, in an obvious 
 sense, at the very same moment they were not, 
 is (to say the least) a strong suggestion in the 
 direction rather of identification across apparent 
 antithesis, than of antithesis breaking up identity. 
 On the other hand, if they were the glorified 
 Body, what would become of the whole argument 
 for the sake of which the antithesis is desired ? 
 The only remaining alternative, that the palpable 
 Body of Jesus which went that night through the 
 agony, and through the crucifixion next day, was 
 itself the glorified in contrast with the crucified 
 Body, could of course not even be suggested. 
 
 On the face of it, then, this answer does not 
 appear to be very formidable, or to shake our 
 position when we maintain that there neither are, 
 nor were, two Bodies of Christ ; but that the 
 crucified Body is glorified because crucified, and 
 that the glorified Body is, both now and for ever,
 
 78 THE REALITY OF THE CHURCH [No. 
 
 essentially characterised as crucified. Would you 
 find the crucified Body? Do not go back and 
 peep into the tomb. Behold it ! alive and glori- 
 fied for ever ! " Why seek ye the living among 
 the dead? He is not here, He is risen." The 
 crucified Body is on the throne of God. 
 
 I do not care, then, to adopt exactly the 
 sentence with which Canon Gore first raised this 
 question at the Conference. 2 I do not suppose, 
 in the light of his words which I quoted just 
 now, that he would himself regard it as theo- 
 logically felicitous, though it effectually served to 
 raise his point. Neither "the crucified Body 
 directly and the glorified Body consequentially," 
 nor "the glorified Body directly and the crucified 
 Body consequentially, " seem to me quite happy 
 or quite true phrases. 3 Our communion in the 
 Eucharist is communion with, or of, the Body of 
 Christ which is. And the Body of Christ is the 
 crucified Body glorified. We are made partakers, 
 in the Eucharist, of humanity sinless and glori- 
 fied ; but sinless through sacrifice, and glorified 
 by that victory over death which could only 
 have been won through dying. But Chancellor 
 Smith's answer suggests, no doubt, a deeper 
 point than this comparatively superficial argu- 
 ment. And this leads us naturally on to, and 
 will arise naturally under, the third of the 
 
 1 Luc. xxiv. 5, 6. 2 Fulham Conference, p. 44. 
 
 3 Compare the clear statements made by Canon Gore in The Body of 
 Christ, pp. 6 1, 62, 66, 94, etc.
 
 5 ] IS IN THE SPIRIT 79 
 
 principles which I had desired to advance. It 
 is this. 
 
 III. It seems to me clear, as I have tried to 
 set forth with greater fulness elsewhere, that 
 every reality in the Church of Christ, is in Spirit, 
 spiritual. Pentecost is the extension and the 
 perpetuation of the real meaning and power of 
 the Incarnation. And the Spirit of Pentecost 
 constitutes the Church what it is. The Church 
 may fall short, in all directions, of her own ideal 
 meaning. But in her own ideal meaning, the 
 Church is the Spirit ; and the ordinances of the 
 Church are what they are of, and by, Spirit. 
 " Ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est 
 Spiritus." This is true, broadly, of the ideal 
 meaning of the Church as a whole. It is true 
 distinctively of the Church's distinctive principle 
 and experience the feeding upon the Body and 
 Blood of Christ. It is the Ascension and that 
 which the Ascension implies which is the key 
 to the truly spiritual understanding of spiritual 
 things. "Doth this offend you? What and if 
 ye should see the Son of Man ascend up where 
 He was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth; 
 the flesh profiteth nothing : the words that I 
 speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are 
 life." 1 
 
 Nothing, then, in the Church of Christ has its 
 own real meaning or being, save in and through 
 Pentecost. It is within the sphere of Spirit, and 
 
 1 Jo. vi. 61-3.
 
 8o IT IS THROUGH THE [No. 
 
 by the power of Spirit, and it is not except by, 
 and within, Spirit that the Communion really is 
 what the Communion really is. What is pre- 
 Pentecostal is preparatory merely. It had the 
 form, the organs, the discipline ; but not yet the 
 full living spiritual essence. It was necessary 
 that one mode of Christ's presence should be 
 withdrawn, before the second which was the 
 real object and climax of the first could be 
 made a living reality. " Nevertheless I tell you 
 the truth ; it is expedient for you that I go away ; 
 for if I go not away the Comforter will not come 
 unto you, but if I depart, I will send Him unto 
 you." 1 
 
 As the Church, as Church, was called and 
 shaped and welded and instructed and disciplined 
 by the Incarnate Christ, yet was not, as Church, 
 alive till the Breath of Christ till Christ as 
 Breath was breathed into it, and it lived by His 
 life, now become its own ; as the Apostles of 
 Christ were personally called and trained and 
 fitted to be Apostles before the Ascension, and 
 yet were not really what the word "Apostles of 
 Christ" properly connotes till the Spirit of Christ 
 possessed them (the Simon Bar-Jonah who denied 
 the Lord, though by a more than possible use of 
 language he can be said to be, yet was not, for 
 all purposes, to quite strict thought, the Apostle 
 St. Peter) : so the last Supper, as instituted on 
 the night before the Crucifixion, was not yet 
 
 1 Jo. xvi. 7.
 
 5 ] ASCENSION AND PENTECOST 81 
 
 actually all that the Christian Eucharist which 
 nevertheless it was, and which was it was to be 
 in the Church of Christ. 
 
 This is a principle as to the necessary truth of 
 which I feel very strongly ; and yet it is one 
 against which I should anticipate very earnest 
 protest. Do you venture, it will be asked, even 
 to suggest that the Supper as instituted as 
 celebrated by Christ Himself, was in any respect 
 other, or less, than that Christian Eucharist, 
 whose highest conceivable perfection it would be, 
 to be exactly what Christ's Supper was ? It is 
 indeed the highest conceivable perfection of the 
 Christian Eucharist to be what Christ's Supper 
 both ordained and signified. But why must it 
 have had, at that moment of its preliminary 
 institution for the life of the Church, all that 
 inner essence which belongs to it as within the 
 sphere of the life of the Church, which is the 
 enabling Spirit of Pentecost ? Does any principle 
 of reverence for the word of Christ preclude us 
 from believing that the Church first became what 
 the Church means : that the Apostles first were 
 really Apostles indeed : that the breathing of 
 Christ upon them for the power of remitting or 
 retaining sins sprang to its essential fulness of 
 living power: and that the institution of the Last 
 Supper became alive with all its inherent spiritual 
 reality ; at the moment when the consummation 
 of God's work as Incarnate, through the crowning 
 of the Ascension and the entry in glory into the 
 G
 
 82 THAT THE LAST SUPPER BECOMES [No. 
 
 Holy of Holies, first made possible as He 
 Himself had taught before His return, as Spirit, 
 to be the Breath and Life, the vital essence and 
 reality, of His Church, and of all that His Church 
 meant and was ? 
 
 Christ, as Incarnate, condescended to a world of 
 before and after. It was part of this condescen- 
 sion to the natural limitations and distinctions of 
 before and after, that the Birth, the Life, the 
 Death, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the 
 Spiritual Indwelling 1 , became so many separate 
 and contrasted moments. It was incidental to 
 this condescension, that He prepared and or- 
 dained beforehand what was to have its full life 
 afterwards : that He in bodily presence, before 
 His death, instituted an ordinance whose whole 
 vital significance depended not only upon the 
 accomplishment of His death, which was not 
 then, even as death, accomplished, but also upon 
 the triumphant character of His death ; upon the 
 fact that His death was not death only, not death 
 so much as the destruction of death ; upon the 
 fact that His death was but a stage, or mode, of 
 eternally victorious life. Had the death ended 
 in death, it would not have had the significance, 
 or the power, which the institution (itself prior to 
 the death) implied. In any case the institution 
 precedes that which gives it its significance. 
 Why should it not be recognised at once that 
 that after-reality which gave it its significance was 
 itself still incomplete, till the (yet future) Resurrec-
 
 S ] THE LIFE-GIVING EUCHARIST 83 
 
 tion as well as the (yet future) Death till the 
 Ascension as well as the Resurrection had been 
 consummated? In the picture of Christ, handling 
 with His Body the elements which He delivers as 
 His Body, we are really to recognise not a dis- 
 tinctness of two Divine Bodies, but the simple 
 truth that in a world of before and after, He 
 ordains beforehand, and in palpable form, that 
 whose full significance implies, and depends upon, 
 and so far waits for, the things which are to 
 follow, and are impalpable. 
 
 To take the ordinance which is most vitally 
 distinctive of the life of the Pentecostal Church, 
 outside the region of the Pentecostal Church : to 
 say that it is, or that it ever was, what it 
 essentially is, otherwise than precisely within 
 the sphere, and by virtue of the efficiency, of 
 the Pentecostal Spirit, seems to me to be, in fact, 
 a form of materialism ; a substitution of the dead 
 for the living, of the mechanical for the vital ; an 
 abandonment (at the central point) of the dis- 
 tinctively spiritual character of the Church and 
 her ministries and sacraments. 
 
 Any real union and communion of our real 
 selves can only be, not with dead symbols as 
 dead, but with the living Christ, the redemption 
 and perfection of humanity. Any real union and 
 communion with humanity as perfected in Christ 
 can only be by Spirit, of Spirit, in Spirit. The 
 material, the symbolic, are vehicles are means 
 of this. But to make the material or the symbolic in
 
 84 THE EUCHARIST CONNECTS US [No. 
 
 any way a substitute for this ; a truth more primary 
 or more real than this ; a reality from which 
 communion of Spirit ("that we may evermore 
 dwell in Him and He in us ") follows only as a 
 secondary sequel, or inferential corollary : this, 
 so far as it goes, seems to me to be an obscuring 
 of the spiritual which is the real truth ; a 
 materialising of the spiritual which is the 
 highest reality. 
 
 All these three points which I have urged seem 
 to me to be real and weighty, and to be sugges- 
 tive of much beyond what I have been able to 
 say. I do believe that the doctrine in question 
 assumes a superfluous miracle ; that it dis- 
 tinguishes Christ's sacrificed and Christ's glori- 
 fied Body as two bodies ; and that it takes the 
 most characteristic experience of the Pentecostal 
 Church in the teeth of our Lord's direct words 
 in St. John vi outside the sphere of the Pente- 
 costal Spirit, in and by which alone I believe it 
 to be what it is. And I believe these objections 
 to be really invincible. And yet after all it is not, 
 I think, mainly upon these that the controversy 
 as to the truth or falsehood of the doctrine will 
 turn. It is really knit closely up with a certain 
 form of the doctrine of the Atonement ; and with 
 that, in the long run, I believe that it will stand 
 or fall. 
 
 Now it is precisely here, as I conceive, that we 
 really touch one or two questions which are, to 
 the whole matter, cardinal. It is here that we
 
 S ] WITH THE ATONING SACRIFICE 85 
 
 touch the real animating motive of the whole 
 Evangelical contention. It is here also that we 
 find the key to the real meaning of the Anglican 
 language quoted by Canon Trevor ; and learn at 
 once, both what it really means, and wherein 
 what it really means is, or may be, in part mis- 
 represented by the form of language in which it 
 is often conveyed. 
 
 IV. The animating motive in the whole Evan- 
 gelical contention is, I believe, the instinct, strong 
 and clear, that the Eucharist immediately con- 
 nects us with the atoning sacrifice of Christ 
 with the Blood of the Atonement, with the Body 
 that died. This causes an instinctive protest 
 against any Eucharistic theory which would con- 
 nect us, in communion, with something other 
 than atoning sacrifice with something that may 
 seem (as it were) to shirk atoning sacrifice with 
 glory merely as glory, with bliss as bliss. Now 
 with this instinct, and this protest, I desire to 
 associate myself without reserve. I would say, 
 as strongly as Dr. Moule, or Mr. Dimock, or Dr. 
 Wace could say it, that it is with nothing so much 
 as the sacrifice as sacrifice, the atonement as 
 atonement, that the Eucharist was ordained to 
 associate us. 
 
 If I were asked whether I believed the union 
 of the communicant to be primarily with Christ 
 in glory as victorious or primarily with the Blood 
 of the Atonement, I should utterly protest 
 against the antithesis, as in itself misleading and
 
 86 THROUGH UNION WITH THE [No. 
 
 untrue. But if you press anyone to choose be- 
 tween two thing's as alternatives which are not 
 alternatives and cannot be separated, it is a 
 matter largely of temperament, or of mood, 
 which of the two will at a given moment appear 
 to be the more primary or vital. It is to me quite 
 certain that I could not choose or mean, by the 
 res significata, anything which was not itself, in 
 its most essential being, the Body and Blood of 
 the atoning sacrifice. We do not mean any sub- 
 stitution of fruition instead of sacrifice, of blissful 
 presence instead of atoning blood. But then it is 
 no less clear to me that I cannot be made one 
 with the Body and Blood of the atoning sacrifice 
 in any way that is at all distinguishable from that 
 living identification of the spirit of the self, 
 through Spirit, and in Spirit, with the Spirit of 
 the Christ, who was sacrificed and triumphant 
 through sacrifice ; which, however inconceivable 
 to my natural self, is, none the less, my only 
 possibility or hope the presence of me in Christ, 
 and of Christ in me. 
 
 For such reasons I cannot but think that Dr. 
 Robertson's summary of the first discussion at 
 Fulham, if correctly reported, was unfortunate, 1 
 though both Dr. Moule and Canon Newbolt are 
 said to have concurred. "The question is," so 
 the summary runs, " whether the virtue of the 
 Sacrament depends upon our receiving the 
 benefits of Christ's passion (a) by commemora- 
 
 1 Fidham Conference, p. 47.
 
 5 ] LIVING BODY THAT DIED 87 
 
 tion of His death, or (3) by union with His living 
 Body." To this I object, first, that the alterna- 
 tive is not an alternative ; and secondly, that 
 whilst each of the two phrases is true, and each, 
 for its truth, requires the truth of the other, 
 neither of them hits the true point quite fully. 
 For " union with His living Body " does not 
 make explicit reference to His death. It would 
 characterise the truth more precisely to say 
 "union with His Body that died." But then 
 " His Body that died " would emphatically mean 
 "that died and is alive." We are made par- 
 takers of His Body w? eV^ay/zeW. So far I agree 
 with my whole heart. It is the very core of the 
 truth. But <J>9 venpov? Most emphatically not. 
 
 With much, then, of the Evangelical meaning 
 I can heartily concur. When Dr. Wace 1 says 
 that "the Holy Communion is a commemora- 
 tion, as well on the part of God, by whom it was 
 instituted, as on the part of man, of the one 
 sufficient sacrifice offered by our Lord on the 
 Cross, and a visible means for assuring and con- 
 veying to us the benefits of that sacrifice," I 
 could accept his saying, not indeed without some 
 added explanation, but without the alteration of 
 a word. When Mr. Dimock 2 urges the extreme 
 importance of "bearing witness to the truth, 
 that for outcast lost sinners, there was no access 
 to life in communion with God, save by the 
 reconciliation which we have by the death of 
 
 1 Fulliam Conference, p. 38. ' 2 Ibid., p. 45.
 
 88 THE SYMBOLISM [No. 
 
 His Son no way of entering into fellowship 
 with the resurrection life of Christ except by 
 being made partakers of His Body and Blood, 
 as sacrificed for the remission of sins," I am, so 
 far as these words go, with him altogether. 
 Even when Dr. Moule 1 urges that it is " involved 
 in the terms of institution that our Lord put for- 
 ward His Body and Blood as sacrificed the 
 Body as dead, and the Blood as shed to be 
 participated in as a sacrifice," I could still adopt 
 the words, if only I may put my own interpreta- 
 tion on "dead"; making it clear that I mean the 
 Body which died and is not dead, not the Body 
 in a state of death ; and again, that by the 
 "Blood as shed" I mean really the "shed 
 Blood," not the Blood as now in a state of 
 separation from the Body. 
 
 I know of course that against this there will be 
 urged, first, the fact, so often supposed to be 
 symbolic, that the bread and the cup are sepa- 
 rately consecrated and received ; and secondly, 
 the present tenses in the words of institution (if, 
 or so far as, they are genuine) the Si86/j.vov, 
 
 K\(t)fJiVOV, and K*Xyv6lJ.VOV. 
 
 As to the first of these, I would answer, with 
 all reverence, that if bread and wine are to be 
 consecrated to represent Christ's Body and 
 Blood, the symbol cannot, save in very general 
 outline (as it were), represent the thing sym- 
 bolised. Bread and wine do not naturally com- 
 
 1 Ibid., p. 44.
 
 5 ] OF THE ELEMENTS 89 
 
 bine into a single entity : and the soaking of the 
 bread in the wine, which is the one method of 
 combination, would produce a form of unity 
 singularly unlike the unity which (it is implied) 
 would have symbolised Christ as alive. Blood 
 contained in body, not body steeped in blood, is 
 the natural condition of material life. If bread 
 and wine are to represent body and blood, it 
 seems to me so far the more natural thing that 
 they should represent them severally, rather than 
 in a forced combination, which would fail sym- 
 bolically, that I cannot admit that the fact that 
 they represent them severally, rather than by an 
 artificial commixture, carries us exegetically any 
 way at all towards determining that they repre- 
 sent them in a state of death. Moreover, it is, 
 after all, not so much in a state of material life 
 before death, as in a state of spiritual life through 
 death, a state of which " having died " is an 
 eternal predicate, that I conceive the bread and 
 wine as representing them. So far as the sym- 
 bolism of the separateness of the elements is con- 
 ceived of merely as reminding us that the Body 
 and Blood are not as in the ordinary condition of 
 material life, but are those which died and, 
 through death, are alive, I of course should have 
 no ground for demurring to it. But it seems to 
 me in any case clear that a precise detail of sym- 
 bolism of this kind must be ruled by what we 
 believe to be the true, revealed, and experienced 
 doctrine of the Eucharist : not that our concep-
 
 go ANGLICAN EMPHASIS [No. 
 
 tion of the doctrine of the Eucharist can be 
 shaped or ruled by it. So far as the bread and 
 wine represent the Body and Blood in some 
 reference to death, just so far there will be, in 
 the suggested symbolism, an element of truth. 
 But the suggested symbolism is far too uncertain 
 to determine for us the precise truth of the 
 doctrine. 
 
 In reply to any argument from the present 
 participles, I would ask on what conceivable hypo- 
 thesis they could have been otherwise than in the 
 present tense, while Christ was still on the way 
 to Calvary? From the point of view of the 
 eve of the awful sacrifice they were inevitably 
 as inevitably upon my hypothesis as upon 
 Mr. Dimock's the Body that was being broken, 
 the Blood that was being poured out. But from 
 the point of view of the Pentecostal Church the 
 sacrifice is already fully consummated : and the 
 Body and Blood are, therefore, whatever they 
 are in, and in view of, the consummation of the 
 sacrifice. The tense is the one thing which 
 cannot be simply carried over to the Pentecostal 
 Church. If, as tense, it is strictly true in the 
 Pentecostal Church, this must be shown on 
 weightier grounds of its own. It certainly does 
 not follow as an inference from the fact that on 
 the night before His death Christ spoke of His 
 sacrifice as being still in process, and incomplete. 
 
 I return, then, from argumeuts like these, to 
 the more central question of doctrine. This
 
 5 ] UPON THE DEAD BODY 91 
 
 question I have already raised as a question 
 
 between ecr^ay/AeVoi/ and vexpov. Need the truth, or 
 can the truth, which is expressed in the words to? 
 eV^ayyueW, be translated into the form w? veKpov, as 
 though a>? veKpov were an equivalent phrase? My 
 contention is that it neither need nor can. 
 
 But the transition is one which can be made 
 very easily, very imperceptibly. And it is pre- 
 cisely this transition which seems to me to have 
 been made without any consciousness that there 
 was a transition by certain Anglican divines, 
 whose language is now insisted upon as cardinal 
 to the Evangelical exposition of the Eucharist. 
 Let me try first to exhibit the fact, and then to 
 explain the meaning and moral of the fact. 
 
 No one does it more completely, not to say 
 brusquely, than Bishop Andrewes. The passage 
 quoted is from the seventh of the sermons 
 preached on Easter Day upon the resurrection. 1 
 Now, in this sermon, it seems to me plain that 
 the really underlying object is (as I said of the 
 modern Evangelicals) to insist upon the direct 
 connexion of the Eucharist with the atoning 
 sacrifice of Christ. When he writes : " It is not 
 mental thinking, or verbal speaking, there must 
 be actually somewhat done to celebrate this 
 memory. That done to the holy symbols that 
 was done to Him, to His Body and His Blood in 
 the Passover ; break the one, pour out the other, 
 
 1 Sermons of the Resurrection, vii. (Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology : 
 Andreives' Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 300-2).
 
 92 BISHOP ANDREWES' [No. 
 
 to represent K\u>/a.evov, how His sacred Body was 
 
 'broken,' and exxwo/mevov, how His precious 
 Blood was 'shed.' And in corpus fractum and 
 sanguis fusus there is immolatus " : I do not 
 really need to critcise a word ; though I would 
 remark, in parenthesis, that the process of "out- 
 pouring " has never been, in fact, so prominent 
 a ceremony in the consecration of the Eucharist 
 as some of the language often used on this 
 subject would appear to imply. But Bishop 
 Andrewes does not draw the distinction which 
 I have asked for between, on the one hand, the 
 Blood in its character as having been shed, and 
 so as directly representing the Life which died, 
 and in its aspect as having both died, and atoned 
 by living through death ; and on the other the 
 Blood conceived of as stopping short and re- 
 maining in a state of death. Nor is Bishop 
 Andrewes the man to refrain from expressing his 
 thought in the most pungently epigrammatic 
 form : while even in a Bishop Andrewes it 
 remains that pungent epigram is apt to be 
 theologically perilous. It is tempting, no doubt, 
 to culminate in a biting phrase. But biting 
 phrases, as such, are apt to lack somewhat of the 
 delicacy of truth. I submit, then, that it is 
 exactly the exaggeration of his true insistence 
 when he reaches the climax of his paragraph 
 in the word cadaver. "If an host could be 
 turned into Him now glorified as He is, it would 
 not serve ; Christ offered is it thither we must
 
 s] 'AD CADAVER' 93 
 
 look. To the Serpent lift up, thither we must 
 repair, even ad cadaver ; we must hoc facere, do 
 that is then done. So, and no otherwise, is this 
 epulare to be conceived." 
 
 In the paragraph which leads up to this climax 
 the sentence which seems to me to be most 
 argumentative asserts that Christ " as now He is, 
 glorified, is not, cannot be, immolatus, for He is 
 immortal and impassible." It is true, of course, 
 that Christ cannot now a second time go through 
 mortal sufferings. It is true, of course, that He 
 is not, and cannot be, immolandus. But I should 
 have supposed that if there was one proposition 
 more certainly true than another, it is that Christ 
 as He now is, glorified, both is, and shall be for 
 ever, zmmolcLtuS TO apvlov TO e<r^)ayinevov cnro /cara- 
 /3oA>7? Koa-fjiov 1 ev [tea-w TOV Opovov KOI TU>V Te<r<rdpwv 
 /cat ev /u.e<Tu> TOOV irpecr/SvTepwv, apviov ecrr>//co? eo? e 
 
 KepotTa eTrra /cat 6<j>da\/u.ovs CTTTOL, o7 etVt ra eT 
 TOV 0eof. 2 
 
 Besides Andrewes, Canon Trevor quotes some 
 five-and-twenty other Anglican writers, of more 
 or less imposing authority, upon the same side. 
 They include Laud and Lake, Bramhall and 
 Jeremy Taylor, Patrick and Dale and Waterland, 
 and many others. As was to be expected (if I 
 have been even approximately right in my state- 
 ment of the case, and of the slurred distinction), 
 many of the passages quoted by Canon Trevor 
 would fall in as well with my view of the truth 
 
 1 Apoc. xiii. 8. 2 Apoc. v. 6.
 
 94 JEREMY TAYLOR, BISHOP BULL [No. 
 
 as with his own. I will quote just three. Thus 
 when Jeremy Taylor says: "It is but an imperfect 
 conception of the mystery to say, it is the 
 Sacrament of Christ's Body only, or His Blood ; 
 but it is, ex parte rei^ a sacrament of the death of 
 His Body, and, to us, a participation or an ex- 
 hibition of it, as it became beneficial to us, that 
 is, as it was crucified, as it was our sacrifice. 
 And this is so wholly agreeable to the nature of 
 the thing, and the order of the words, and the 
 body of the circumstances, that it is next to that 
 which is evident in itself, and needs no further 
 light but the considering the words and the 
 design of the institution M1 : it seems to me that 
 what Jeremy Taylor claims as " next to self- 
 evident " is not (as Canon Trevor seems to say) 
 the proposition that the Body and Blood are 
 received "as in a state of death," but (as I have 
 said) that they are the shed Blood, and the Body 
 sacrificed which is not the same thing. So, 
 again, either side of the controversy might 
 equally receive the words of Bishop Bull, when 
 he says : "In the holy Eucharist, therefore, we 
 set before God the bread and wine as ' figures or 
 images of the precious Blood of Christ shed for 
 us, and of His precious Body ' (they are the 
 very words of the Clementine Liturgy), and plead 
 to God the merit of His Son's sacrifice once 
 offered on the Cross for us sinners, and in this 
 sacrament represented ; beseeching Him, for the 
 
 1 Real Presence, vii. 7 (Works, ed. Heber, ix. 494)
 
 5 ] WATERLAND 95 
 
 sake thereof, to bestow His heavenly blessings on 
 us." 1 Or of Waterland, when he says: "The 
 Apostle's account of it is briefly expressed, in its 
 being a communion of Christ's Body and Blood ; 
 that is to say, of the Body considered as broken, 
 and of the Blood considered as shed ; as is very 
 plain from the terms of the Institution." 
 
 In saying this, however, I do not mean to deny 
 that, as a whole, the writers quoted do certainly 
 tend, with more or with less distinctness, to 
 shape their thought and language on the subject 
 in the same direction as that of Bishop Andrewes ; 
 or to assert that any of them draws the precise 
 distinction which seems to me so important. 3 
 
 1 Bishop Bull's Works (ed. Dr. Burton), vol. ii. p. 252. 
 
 2 Waterland, Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, ch. viii. ad init. 
 (Works, ed. 1823, vii. 199; ed. 1843, iv. 613). Waterland's statements on 
 the next page, however, are quite unequivocally on Canon Trevor's side. 
 
 3 There is, no doubt, a tendency in some of these writers to regard 
 their special doctrine of the Eucharist as a bulwark against Rome. Un- 
 fortunately, its controversial aspect, as against Rome, seems to be 
 connected with just its own most doubtful elements. Thus, there is first 
 a natural and legitimate prominence given to the word " commemoratio " 
 as used of the Sacrament. Then "memory" is contrasted with 
 "presence," and emphasised as the contradictory of presence. Men's 
 minds are influenced, more or less definitely, by the idea which Bishop 
 Ridley had expressed in the form of a quasi-scientific maxim, " Com- 
 memoratio non est rei praesentis sed praeteritae et absentis " ( Works of 
 Bishop Ridley, Parker Society, Cambridge, 1843 : see the Disputation 
 at Oxford, pp. 199, 442). 
 
 As a result of this (more than questionable) corollary from the word 
 avdfj.vr)<ns, it becomes not only permissible, but a positive principle, of 
 value for its own sake, to maintain that nothing is, or can be, the " res 
 significata " except what is plainly "absens et praeterita." What is 
 signified in the Eucharist must be something which, having no existence, 
 cannot possibly be, in any real sense, present. 
 
 It is on the basis of such a process of thought as this that an argument 
 like that of Bishop Lake becomes clearly intelligible (as quoted by Canon 
 Trevor, p. 183), when he complains that "the Church of Rome, not
 
 96 BISHOP LAKE : [No. 
 
 So far as they tend to insist upon the res 
 significata as dead, I should certainly suggest 
 that their tendency is not that of the language of 
 patristic or liturgical devotion. It would be well 
 if someone who has knowledge would furnish 
 adequate evidence on this point. I have but 
 glanced at Dr. Pusey's volume, 1 and gleaned, 
 almost at random, a few phrases. Yet even 
 
 distinguishing between Christ crucified and glorified, or rather not 
 building their conclusion answerable to this undeniable principle the 
 sacraments represent Christ crucified, not glorified are driven to coin 
 so many new articles : i. of real presence corporal ; 2. of a metaphysical 
 transubstantiation ; 3. of an ill-applied concomitancy. All which easily 
 vanish, if we consider Christ's purpose to represent Himself in the 
 Sacrament, not as He is now, at the right hand of God, but as He was, 
 upon the Cross. Not but it is the same Body and Blood which is in 
 glory, but it must not be so considered as it is in glory. Which will 
 necessarily enforce us to acknowledge that the union between the thing 
 earthly and the thing heavenly can be no more than sacramental, and 
 that respective also to what was done on earth, not what is in heaven ; 
 was, I say, done formaliter on the Cross, but is effective, working in 
 heaven." 
 
 It seems to be assumed that, if the elements signified anything which 
 existed anywhere at all, questions on the subject of " presence " might 
 arise, which are happily excluded so long as the " res " is, by abstract 
 necessity, absent save only in the way of memory or effect. The worship 
 of the Church on earth is not, even ideally, identified with the worship 
 of heaven. It is a symbol, from which " reality" is absent ex hypothesi. 
 
 All this, though it can hardly stand as patristic or permanent theology, 
 is at least more consistent than Canon Trevor's own position appears to 
 be. Somewhat strangely, in criticising Johnson's "unbloody sacrifice," 
 he complains (Catholic Doctrine, p. 208) that, "like the Romanists, he 
 confounded presence with existence. Because the .Body and Blood no 
 longer exist in the condition represented in the Eucharist, he argues that 
 they cannot be so present. Just so the Romanist argues conversely, that 
 because Christ is present in the use, the elements are His Body in the 
 condition now existing." Whatever may be said for or against Bishop 
 Lake's position, it is certainly hard to follow Canon Trevor's. A man 
 must feel himself very cogently bound, by other considerations, to 
 maintain the'reality of "presence," before he would call it a confusion of 
 thought to assume that that which is " present " must " exist " ! 
 
 1 The Doctrine of the Real Presence, as contained in the Fathers, &c.
 
 5 ] PATRISTIC AUTHORITIES 97 
 
 these seem to me to bear clear witness to a quite 
 different strain of language and thought. It is 
 not, of course, that people who hold with Mr. 
 Dimock could not explain them, or would be at 
 once refuted by them. 1 Yet I cannot imagine 
 that anyone who ever dreamed of making a 
 point of that of which our Evangelical theo- 
 logians make a point, could have expressed his 
 devotional feeling in such language as some of 
 the following. 
 
 Thus the Eucharistic bread is entitled by 
 Ignatius* the <J)dp/u.a.Kov aOavatrias, avriSoTOs TOV firj 
 airoOaveiv dXXa i}v ev 'I^uou Xpj<TTa> Sia JFavTOS- " I am 
 thy nourisher," says Clement of Alexandria, 
 " who give thee myself as bread, of which whoso 
 tasteth no more tasteth death, and who daily 
 give thee the drink of immortality." 3 From 
 Eusebius he quotes: "to eat the living bread, 
 and His life-giving flesh, and to drink His 
 saving Blood." 4 From Julius Firmicus : "Seek 
 ye the grace of the immortal cup ; in the heavenly 
 food renew ye the lost man": 5 and again, "we 
 drink the immortal Blood of Christ ; to our 
 blood is the Blood of Christ united." From 
 
 1 any more than, e.g., Bishop Ridley; see The Oxford Disputation (as 
 above), pp. 201, 202, and appendix i. p. 444. 
 
 2 ad Eph. xx. 
 
 3 7r6/ua d0aracr/as (Quis diues, 23, p. 948, ed. Potter; p. 18, ed. Barnard). 
 
 4 in Ps. xxxvi. 4, p. 149, ed. Montfaucon. The passage proceeds, 
 TOVTOIS Tpv<t>6/J.evos Kal iua.ivbfj.cvos, T?JS IvOtov jitdovs diroXavuv ' Kararp^rjaov 
 TOV Kvplov, Kal St&crei crot ra alr-fi/mara TTJI Kapdlas vov. ' 
 
 5 Salutaris cibi gratiam quaerite et inmortale poculum bibite . . . 
 caelesti cibo renouate hominem perditum (de Err. Prof. Relig., xviii. fin). 
 
 H
 
 98 DWELL UPON THE [No. 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem: "That thou by partaking of 
 the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made 
 of the same Body and the same Blood with Him. 
 For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because 
 His Body and Blood are diffused through our 
 members ; thus it is that, according to the 
 blessed Peter, ' we become partakers of the 
 Divine nature.' ' 
 
 From Ephrem Syrus : "Thou hast given me 
 Thy Body to eat, and Thy living Blood 
 to drink " : and again, " From hateful desires 
 free me, through Thy living Body which I have 
 eaten": again, "Thy living Body and Thine 
 atoning Blood which I have received from the 
 hands of the priests " : again, " Spare us who 
 have eaten of Thy Body and drunk Thy living 
 Blood": again, "Thy Body and Blood, as a 
 pledge of life, are hidden in their members." 
 
 From Ambrose: "This is the bread of life: 
 whoso then eateth life cannot die. For how 
 should he die whose food is life ? how should he 
 fail who hath a vital substance? 8 approach to 
 Him and be satisfied, because He is bread ; 
 approach to Him and drink, because He is a 
 fountain ; approach to Him and be enlightened, 
 because He is light ; approach to Him and be 
 
 1 Lect. xxii. (Alyst. iv.) ad init. 
 
 2 Dr. Pusey's references are Paraen. 11, p. 429 ; ib. 30, p. 480 ; ib. 31, 
 p. 482 ; ib. 34, p. 487 ; ib. 73, p. 545. I have not been able to pursue 
 them. 
 
 3 quomodo deficiet qui habuerit uitalem substantiam (query, "who 
 hath life in his substantial being " ) ?
 
 S ] LIVING BODY AND BLOOD 99 
 
 set free, because 'where the Spirit of the Lord 
 is there is liberty ' ; approach to Him and be 
 absolved, because He is the remission of sins. 
 Ask ye who He is, hear Himself saying, 'I am 
 the bread of life; whoso cometh to me shall not 
 hunger, and whoso believeth in me shall never 
 thirst.'" 1 Again, "In that sacrament Christ is, 
 because it is the Body of Christ ; it is not there- 
 fore bodily food, but spiritual. Wherefore also 
 the apostle says of its type, Our fathers did eat 
 spiritual food and drink spiritual drink ; for the 
 Body of God is a spiritual Body ; the Body of 
 Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit ; since 
 Christ is Spirit, as we read, ' the Spirit before 
 our face is Christ the Lord. ' ' 
 
 From Augustine: "Let them then who eat, 
 eat on ; and them that drink, drink ; let them 
 hunger and thirst ; eat Life, drink Life. That 
 eating is to be refreshed ; but thou art in such 
 wise refreshed, that that whereby thou art re- 
 freshed faileth not. That drinking, what is it 
 but to live ? eat Life, drink Life ; thou shalt have 
 Life, and yet the Life is entire. But then this 
 shall be, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ 
 shall be, each man's Life, if what is taken in the 
 sacrament visibly is, in the truth itself, eaten 
 spiritually, drunk spiritually." 3 
 
 Finally, from Cyril of Alexandria: "The 
 Word, therefore, by having united unto Him- 
 
 1 in Ps. cxviii expositio, serm. xviii. 28. 
 
 2 de Mysteriis, ix. 58. 3 Serm. cxxxi. $ i.
 
 ioo THE ANGLICAN LANGUAGE IS [No. 
 
 self that flesh which was subject unto death, as 
 being God and Life, drove away from it corrup- 
 tion, and made it also to be the source of life, 
 for such must the Body of (Him who is) the Life 
 be." After quoting, like others, the passage from 
 John vi about the living bread ending with, 
 "As the living Father sent me, and I live because 
 of the Father ; so he that eateth me shall also 
 live because of me" -Cyril goes on, "When, 
 therefore, we eat the holy flesh of Christ, the 
 Saviour of us all, and drink His precious Blood, 
 we have Life in us, being made, as it were, 
 one with Him, and possessing Him also in us." 
 Again, "God, humbling Himself to our in- 
 firmities, infuses into the things set before us 
 the power of life, and transforms them into the 
 efficacy of His flesh, that we may have them for 
 a life-giving participation, and that the Body of 
 (Him who is the) Life may be found in us as 
 a life-producing seed." 1 
 
 But to return to Canon Trevor's Anglican 
 authorities. 
 
 What is the explanation of the phenomenon ? 
 Or how can any one be acquitted of presumption 
 or worse in suggesting that there can be 
 anything, in such theologians as these, which 
 can be in any way capable of correction ? 
 
 The answer is that their mode of thought and 
 phrase about the Eucharist, however (so to say) 
 
 1 Serm. cxlii. (on Luc. xxii. 17-22). The translation from the Syriac 
 in this case is Dr. Payne-Smith's, not Dr. Pusey's.
 
 5 ] DUE TO MISCONCEPTION OF 101 
 
 eucharistically correct, was coloured by their 
 mode of conceiving the rationale of Atonement. 
 Now, however audacious it may seem to criticise 
 their precise phraseology about the Eucharist, I 
 do not think it will be generally felt to be any 
 such monstrous audacity to wish to modify some 
 of the current phraseology of two centuries ago 
 on the principle of Atonement. I do not believe 
 that the truth about the Eucharist, as I am trying 
 to represent it, differs in any single particular 
 whatever from what these Anglican writers really 
 meant. But I believe that they somewhat over- 
 stated what they really meant. They really meant 
 to insist on the o>? eV0ay,ueW, and they allowed 
 themselves, more or less explicitly, to put this 
 as if it were correctly expressed by ? vexpov : not 
 because their conception of the Eucharist, or its 
 relation to Christ's sacrifice, was really different, 
 but because they were accustomed to a mode of 
 speech about the Sacrifice, as though it con- 
 sisted simply of the fact of death as death, and 
 therefore were for all purposes, and in all senses, 
 fully consummated when Christ's Body was laid 
 in the tomb on Good Friday evening. 
 
 Is this correct? Is the Sacrifice to be con- 
 ceived as a single point only in the remote, and 
 ever remoter, past? and not, as I think we 
 should say, an eternal present ? not indeed, as it 
 were, generically, as though all pasts were pre- 
 sent alike ; but uniquely, in a sense in which no 
 other past event is, quite as this is, inherent to
 
 102 THE PRINCIPLE [No. 
 
 eternal being? Was the dead Christ, as dead, 
 the consummated atonement of man with God ? 
 Which is the truer way of putting it : that Christ 
 is our propitiation, or that something which 
 Christ once did was our propitiation? Had He 
 remained unrisen, unascended, unglorified, un- 
 partaken of as living Spirit, would the fact that 
 He was dead and done with have been our holi- 
 ness? Was God pleased by His death, regarded, 
 merely and finally, as death ? I have no doubt 
 that very much mediaeval phraseology, from the 
 time, at least, of Anselm and onwards down to 
 Dr. Dale, would fall in most naturally with such 
 a mode of stating the theory as this. And if 
 this language be accepted, then the distinction 
 between eo-^ay/xeVoi' and vKp6i> is merged : and the 
 ad cadaver of Andrewes is fully justified. 
 
 Our first instincts do indeed not unnaturally 
 tend to think of the sacrifice as identical with 
 the suffering ; to identify, in phrase and thought, 
 sacrifice, as such, with that portion of the sacri- 
 fice which was painful and costly. But to think 
 seriously that death, simply as death, ended the 
 sacrifice, or struck the central note of what sacri- 
 fice meant, is to go against the emphatic teaching 
 alike of the Old Testament and the New. This 
 is to ignore the significance of the ritual of the 
 Day of Atonement, and to represent, in very 
 deed, that God was propitiated by penal suffer- 
 ing, as suffering ; and that death, the death of 
 His Son, was the thing which His Spirit desired.
 
 S ] OF THE ATONEMENT 103 
 
 It is to reject the conception that the death which 
 atoned was not a death which was dead, but a 
 death which by dying conquered and annihilated 
 death. It was the aliveness through death ; that 
 is, not merely the fact of so holding on to life 
 that death did not extinguish it, but more than 
 this, the fact of achieving, through dying, the 
 perfect fulness of life, which could only be 
 achieved in the form of a life that had died and 
 was therefore eternally alive ; it was the presenta- 
 tion before God for ever of humanity through 
 death victorious, through death alive, through 
 death, in the consummation of penitence, sinless 
 and glorified, with the glory of the Life of God ; 
 it was this, not the deadness of a corpse, which 
 made the consummation of the sacrifice, and 
 which constituted the life and holiness of man. 
 And it is this death, not as stopping short in the 
 state of death, but as the death of the eternally 
 victorious, as the death of the eternally alive, 
 with which the Church is for ever identified in, 
 and by, living Spirit, in the Christian Eucharist. 
 It was the holiness of man which involved 
 penitential suffering but it was the holiness, not 
 the suffering ; it was the life of man which 
 could only be through death but it was the life, 
 not the death ; which the Spirit of God desired : 
 not that it might purchase from Him, but because 
 it was, the life and the holiness of man. The 
 essence of the Divine Atonement consisted, not 
 in the slaying of humanity, but in the presenting
 
 104 IT IS THE LIFE [No. 
 
 of humanity through death quite triumphantly 
 holy and eternally alive in the face of the all- 
 holy God. Here is indeed an atonement. But 
 death, as mere death, could be no "atonement" 
 at all. And this "presenting" is not more vitally 
 a past than it is a perpetual, an ever present, 
 reality. 
 
 It may be that this point has been brought, in 
 modern thought, into a prominence which it had 
 not possessed for at least many centuries, though 
 not greater than it had shall I say in the Penta- 
 teuch, or in the Epistle to the Hebrews? I do 
 not believe that it would have seemed in any 
 respect strange to St. Athanasius or to the pre- 
 Athanasian Church, while I believe it to be, on 
 examination, absolutely required alike by the 
 Old Testament and the New. Yet it is a point 
 which I would venture to say was not in this 
 form before Andrewes and his fellows ; and 
 which, though their words ignored it, they cer- 
 tainly never intended to deny. But I am at 
 a loss to understand how any one could now 
 read the eighth and ninth chapters of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews after, say, the commentary of 
 Bishop Westcott without accepting at once, as 
 true and as cardinal, this most scriptural, though 
 not mediaeval, conception of the true rationale 
 of sacrifice. 
 
 It would be too long to go into the whole 
 matter thoroughly. But it may be well to refer 
 to a few sentences of Bishop Westcott's which
 
 5 ] THAT HAS DIED WHICH ATONES 105 
 
 have reference to the two thoughts (a) that 
 "blood" does not signify "death" but "life," 
 and (d) that the ritual of sacrifice culminated, 
 not in the act of slaying, but in the presentation 
 of the "life" which had been slain. We may 
 express the thought by saying that the climax 
 of sacrifice was the cu^are/ex 1 " 7 "* not in the 
 English sense of blood-shedding, i.e. killing, 
 but in the Levitical sense of pouring out, or 
 sprinkling, the blood (i.e. the death-consecrated 
 life) in the Holy Presence. A very remarkable 
 emphasis upon this doctrine is found in the words 
 of Leviticus xvii. n, " For the life of the flesh is 
 in the blood : and I have given it to you upon the 
 altar to make atonement for your souls ; for it is 
 the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the 
 life." It is as certain as anything of that kind 
 can be, that the mediaeval theology of the Atone- 
 ment (from which we are by no means quite free 
 as yet) would have expressed this last clause in 
 exactly the opposite manner, viz. "for it is the 
 blood that maketh atonement by reason of the 
 death." And here we have, as in a nutshell, the 
 antithesis between the scriptural and the mediaeval 
 conceptions. 
 
 Bishop Westcott says, " Death, -which makes 
 the blood available^ is the seal of the validity of 
 a covenant. " : " It will be observed that it is not 
 the death of the victim as suffering, but the use 
 of the Blood (that is, the Life), which is presented 
 
 1 These italics are mine. 2 On Hebrews ix. 14.
 
 106 'THE BLOOD' DENOTES [No. 
 
 here as the source of purification." 1 "It is 
 important to observe, that it is not said of the 
 first covenant that it was inaugurated 'not without 
 death' but 'not without blood.' By the use of 
 the words ' not without blood ' the writer of the 
 Epistle suggests the two ideas of atonement and 
 quickening by the impartment of a new life which 
 have been already connected with Christ's work 
 (vv. 14, is)." 2 "The position of eV aT/xari is signi- 
 ficant. Blood was the characteristic mean for 
 cleansing, though fire and water were also used. 
 It is the power of a pure life which purifies? 
 Under this aspect the Blood becomes, as it were, 
 the enveloping medium in which (ej/), and not 
 simply the means or instrument through or by 
 which, the complete purification is effected." 
 
 " The Scriptural idea of Blood is essentially an 
 idea of life out of death. " 5 "/ the Blood of Jesus 
 not simply ' through ' it we have boldness 
 to enter into the Holy place."* "The direct 
 references to Christ's Death are naturally less 
 frequent than the references to His Blood. Death, 
 with its unnatural agony, was the condition, under 
 the actual circumstances of fallen man, whereby 
 
 1 Ibid. 2 On Hebrews ix. 18. 3 These italics are mine. 
 
 4 On Hebrews ix. 22. May I say that this thought, if worked out, 
 would seem to me to lead to the true answer to Bishop Westcott himself, 
 when he sometimes (as on viii. 3 and ix. 15-22) seems to limit the idea of 
 the blood as if it were only the means of entering into the Divine Presence, 
 and hesitates to use the word "offered" of the blood. The blood w r as 
 solemnly sprinkled by the High Priest, when he was already within the 
 Holy Presence. And, as representing- life, it is surely the condition, or 
 "enveloping medium," of the perpetual presence of the true High Priest 
 within the veil. Cf. Westcott on Hebrews viii. i, 2 (p. 230), and on vii. 25. 
 
 5 Additional note on Hebrews ix. 12. R Ibid.
 
 5 ] LIFE OUT OF DEATH 107 
 
 alone the Life of the Son of Man could be made 
 available for the race (ii. 9, 14 ; cf. i Cor. xi. 26 ; 
 Rom. v. 10, vi. 3 f. ; Phil. ii. 8, iii. 10 ; Col. i. 22). 
 The Blood was the energy of Christ's true human 
 life, under the circumstances of earth, whereby 
 alone man's life receives the pledge and the power 
 of a Divine glory." 1 
 
 Compare also these statements in the Bishop's 
 additional note on i John i. 7. "It will be evident 
 that while the thought of Christ's Blood (as shed) 
 includes all that is involved in Christ's Death, 
 the Death of Christ, on the other hand, expresses 
 only a part, the initial part, of the whole concep- 
 tion of Christ's Blood. The Blood always in- 
 cludes the thought of the life preserved and 
 active beyond death. This conception of the 
 Blood of Christ is fully brought out in the funda- 
 mental passage, John vi. 53-6. Participation 
 in Christ's Blood is participation in His life 
 (v. 56). But at the same time it is implied 
 throughout that it is only through His Death 
 His violent Death that His Blood can be made 
 available for men. . . . The simple idea of the 
 Death of Christ, as separated from His Life, falls 
 wholly into the background in the writings of 
 St. John (John xi. 50 f. ; xviii. 14 ; xii. 24 f., 33 ; 
 xviii. 33). 2 ... By 'sprinkling' of Christ's 
 
 1 Additional note on Hebrews ix. 14. 
 
 a It is true that Bishop Westcott speaks of St. John's usage herein as 
 differing- "from that of St. Paul and St. Peter." But is the difference 
 more than apparent ? In any case they both supply many illustrations of 
 St. John's conception. See, e.g., the passages quoted by Bishop Westcott 
 at the end of this same note.
 
 io8 IN THE SPRINKLING OF BLOOD [No. 
 
 Blood the believer is first brought into fellowship 
 with God in Christ ; and in the imperfect conduct 
 of his personal life, the life of Christ is con- 
 tinually communicated to him for growth and 
 cleansing. He himself enters into the Divine 
 Presence 'in the Blood of Jesus' (Heb. x. 19) 
 surrounded, as it were, and supported by the Life 
 which flows from Him. Compare [he adds in a 
 footnote] a remarkable passage of Clement of 
 Alexandria : SITTOV Se TO aT/ma TOV Kfp/of, TO fjicv "yap 
 <TTIV O.VTOV (rapKtKOV, o> TJ/s 1 0$o/>a? AeAvTpa>/ue0a, TO Se 
 TrveujuLariKov, TOVTCO-TIV <5 Kexpi(r/u.e6a. KOI TOUT' e<rrt 
 TO aZ/xa TOV 'Itjcrov Ttjs KvpiaKqs /uLeToXafteiv a<pQa.parla$' l( 
 Se TOV \6yov TO Trvev/ua, w? a?/xa aap/co'? (JPaed. ii. 2, 
 line 19)." 
 
 To these may be added a passage from the 
 essay on "The Relation of Christianity to Art " 
 at the end of the commentary on the Epistles of 
 St. John. 1 It is a suggestive passage, and has a 
 wider application than to pictorial representations 
 only. " It may well be doubted whether the 
 Crucifixion is in any immediate shape a proper 
 subject for Art. The image of the Dead Christ 
 is foreign to Scripture. Even in the record of the 
 Passion, Death is swallowed up in Victory. And 
 the material representation of the superficial 
 appearance of that which St. John shows to have 
 been life through death defines and perpetuates 
 thoughts foreign to the Gospel. The Crucifixion 
 by Velasquez, with its overwhelming pathos 
 
 1 p- 358.
 
 5 ] THE SACRIFICE CULMINATES 109 
 
 and darkness of desolation, will show what I 
 mean. In every trait it presents the thought of 
 hopeless defeat. No early Christian would have 
 dared to look upon it. Very different is one of 
 the earliest examples of the treatment of the 
 Crucifixion on the Sigmaringen Crucifix. In 
 that, life, vigour, beauty, grace, the open eye, 
 and the freely outstretched arm, suggest the 
 idea of loving and victorious sacrifice crowned 
 with its reward. This is an embodiment of the 
 idea : the picture of Velasquez is a realisation of 
 the appearance of the Passion." 
 
 Under the second head mentioned above, 
 namely the culminating point of the ritual of 
 sacrifice, it may be enough to quote such ex- 
 pressions as these : " Maimonides, in speaking 
 of the Passover, lays down that 'the sprinkling 
 of the blood is the main point in sacrifice ' " ; l 
 and "This [i.e. the application of the blood] was 
 the most significant part of the sacrifice." 2 But 
 I should like also to call emphatic attention to the 
 comments upon <f>epe<r0ai ix. 16 ("for where there 
 is a covenant the death of him that made it must 
 needs be presented" ) : and upon e^avia-Qrivai ix. 24, 
 " In Christ humanity becomes the object of the 
 regard of God " ; Christ is " described as the 
 object of the vision of God," and not God 
 "spoken of as seen perfectly by Him"; "The 
 'appearance' of Christ alone is, to our concep- 
 
 1 Westcott on Hebrews ix. 22. 
 
 2 Additional note on Hebrews ix. 9 (p. 291).
 
 i io EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE [No. 
 
 tion, the adequate presentment of the whole 
 work of the Son to the Father (cf. c. vii. 25 
 note)." So completely is this a piece with the 
 whole principle, that I should only demur to 
 regarding it as appearing "strange at first," or 
 needing "explanation." 
 
 Now in all this I need hardly say that the 
 principles which I have desired to advocate seem 
 to me to be taught, with ringing clearness, by 
 Bishop Westcott. But clear as the essential 
 principles are throughout his teaching, I should 
 perhaps admit that he does not, in every par- 
 ticular, appear to go quite the full length of his 
 own principles. With his commentary, therefore, 
 I should like also to make reference to the seventh 
 chapter of the Rev. Geo. Milligan's volume on 
 the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 Mr. Milligan is full, as is natural, of the 
 thoughts on this subject which are familiar to 
 us in the writings of his father, the late Dr. 
 Milligan. And there are certainly some points, as 
 e.g. the exegesis of Hebrews viii. 3 odev avayKaiov 
 
 ex^y TI KCU TOVTOV o Trpocreveyitf], and of the 09 Sia 
 Trvev/maTOS aitovlov eavrov irpoan'iveyKev of Hebrews IX. 14, 
 in which Mr. Milligan clearly seems to me to be 
 nearer to the full truth than Bishop Westcott. 
 
 I must not go further in the theological exposi- 
 tion or defence of this position. Something I 
 have had the opportunity of saying about it 
 before now. But it is upon this question as to 
 the interpretation of sacrifice, and the theology
 
 5 ] DEPENDS ON THE ATONEMENT in 
 
 of the Atonement, that (I feel convinced) the 
 exact statement of the Eucharistic doctrine 
 depends. If the whole significance of the 
 Atonement, as Atonement, was completely con- 
 summated when the tomb closed over the dead 
 Christ, so that all that followed after was but the 
 sequel which ensued upon, but was no vital part 
 of the significance of, atonement or sacrifice ; 
 then, and then only, can the Evangelical exposi- 
 tion of the Eucharist, as a reception of the dead 
 Christ, seem to be really adequate ; because 
 then, and then only, could the partaking of 
 Christ at that point, as a corpse, be conceived 
 of as a real communion with His sacrifice, a 
 living upon the Blood of the Atonement. 
 
 Let me end by quoting a few words which 
 throb and glow with life, as words of Canon 
 Scott Holland are wont to do : 
 
 "Yet again," he says, "the main character- 
 istic of the deep religious revival in this last half- 
 century, in all its varied forms, has been a return 
 to the realisation of the transfigured humanity of 
 Jesus Christ, and of His kingship over earth 
 through the might of His Resurrection. His 
 Glory has been felt anew as it smites down from 
 His living plenitude into our poor flesh and 
 blood, and makes it His own. Once again men 
 have apprehended the splendour of the primitive 
 and creative ideal of the brotherhood bonded 
 together, by the covenant of Blood, into the new 
 manhood, into the One Body, which possessed
 
 ii2 ISSUE OF THE CONFERENCE [No. 5 
 
 the soul of St. Paul. All these convictions, now 
 so potently stirring 1 , meet and gather into the 
 Eucharistic Action. There is their fulfilment ; 
 there is their arena of manifestation ; there they 
 must find their realised climax." And presently, 
 " Every influence now active makes, then, for 
 the disappearance of what now creates the 
 cleavage [i.e. between High Churchmen and 
 Evangelicals]. This is the hopeful outlook with 
 which the Conference closes. It has failed to 
 reach the desired conclusion. But it has 
 detected what exactly it is which hinders it at the 
 moment ; and this detected hindrance is one 
 which, under examination and explanation, 
 ought to be found to be gradually yielding and 
 breaking. And I cannot but believe that even 
 those who now hold back would not continue 
 their resistance, if once they were convinced of 
 the utter wholeheartedness with which we who 
 cling to union with the glorified humanity of the 
 Lord still find all our hope and all our peace in 
 the pardon won for ever by the outpoured Blood 
 in the absolute, unique, unqualified, and limit- 
 less Sacrifice done once for all at Calvary. 
 Every Eucharist is but a reiterated declaration of 
 the sole and unlimited and inexhaustible value of 
 that undying Act of Death."
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY 
 GHOST 
 
 (A sermon preached before the University of Cambridge at 
 Great St. Mary's on May 2oth, 1894.) 
 
 "For the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are" 
 (i Cor. Hi. 17). 
 
 r I ^HE Christian seasons culminate in Whitsun- 
 JL tide : and the Whitsun octave closes with 
 the consciously articulated worship of the blessed 
 Trinity. The transcendent worship set before us 
 in the Trinity services : this is the final aspect, 
 the consummation, of the revelation of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 The doctrine of the Holy Ghost, though from 
 the first the distinctive truth of universal Christen- 
 dom, has yet strangely faded oftentimes from the 
 prominence which of right belongs to it. And 
 as at some moments historically it has been 
 obscured in the collective Church, so our own 
 experience may testify to some among us, how 
 much we have tried to live, how far we have 
 even conceived of our own Christianity, as if 
 apart from it. The doctrine of the Holy Ghost 
 holds a place in Christianity which, if in one 
 aspect it may appear subordinate, is found in 
 
 I "3
 
 n 4 BELIEF IN THE HOLY GHOST [No. 
 
 another to be so pre-eminent nay, so absorb- 
 ing, so exhaustive, as well-nigh to include all 
 else. 
 
 It has, indeed, been often pointed out that the 
 doctrine is not itself, like that of the Personality 
 of the Eternal Son, set as a test or challenge to 
 the faith of men ; it is not propounded directly 
 as a theme for contemplation ; the manner of its 
 announcement seems incidental ; in the awe of 
 the closing discourses of our Lord, it grows, as 
 it were, unexpectedly, indirectly, in and through 
 other necessities, upon the consciousness of 
 Christ's disciples. Most true : yet when by and 
 by the time has come that Christ's Church has 
 her own life, and her characteristic conscious- 
 ness : behold ! this doctrine not only is present 
 to the Church's consciousness : rather this is 
 what consciousness of the Church means. The 
 breath, the life, the consciousness, alike of the 
 general Church and of its members individually, 
 is the Holy Spirit of God. " Know ye not that 
 ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of 
 God dwelleth in you ? If any man defile the 
 temple of God, him shall God destroy : for the 
 temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 
 
 These words are patient of an interpretation 
 alike in reference to the corporate body and to 
 the individual life. May I ask you to think, 
 in both, what practically is involved in the 
 simple profession of faith, "I believe in the Holy 
 Ghost " ?
 
 6] MEANS, CORPORATELY, 115 
 
 The corporate meaning precedes the indi- 
 vidual : even if the corporate truth is true only 
 in individuals, yet the individual after all is 
 through the corporate. What, then, in the 
 corporate reference, is the meaning or shape of 
 belief in the Holy Ghost? I believe in His 
 presence where? in His working how? in the 
 sphere of His working is there a sphere recog- 
 nisable? in the method of his working are there 
 definable methods ? My belief in Him after all 
 becomes an unreality, except it includes things 
 like these, the sphere, the methods, the channels, 
 the effects, the power. That there are things 
 such as these I need not stay to argue now. 
 
 These are the things which constitute, on any 
 shewing, the true life of the Church of Christ on 
 earth. 
 
 As in Genesis ii, or in the vision of the thirty- 
 seventh of Ezekiel, so at Pentecost, the breath 
 of life is breathed into the fabric that has been 
 built up for it, and the Body of Christ's Church 
 is alive. Belief in the Holy Ghost carries with 
 it as necessary corollary .belief also (with what- 
 ever definition) in the Holy Catholic Church. 
 Belief in the Church is an interpretation of belief 
 in the Holy Ghost. Whenever I would explore 
 in more detail what my belief in the Church 
 really means and involves, I am examining still 
 the methods and the channels of the work of the 
 Holy Ghost. The history of His working is the 
 true history of the Church. The methods of
 
 n6 BELIEF IN THE CHURCH, [No. 
 
 His working are the appointed methods of the 
 Church. The conditions of His working are 
 the necessary conditions of the Church. So 
 that there is a sense in which we may even say 
 that belief in the Holy Ghost, here and now, is 
 belief in the Church of Christ : as belief in the 
 Church, in its true depths, means and is belief 
 in the presence and work of the Holy Ghost. 
 "There is one Body and one Spirit" : one Body, 
 whose meaning is Spirit : one Spirit, the life of 
 the Body. 
 
 I do not need, in order to justify such words, 
 to examine or deny a working of the Spirit out- 
 side the utmost limits of the Church of Christ. 
 In one sense indeed His work is as wide as life. 
 Is there any life apart from the life of God ? 
 any life that is not of the breath of God? Life 
 vegetable, animal, rational ; the light that is in 
 imperfect efforts of religion, of the ancient or the 
 modern world ; again the calling of patriarchs, 
 the inspiration of prophets, the training of 
 apostles ; are not these in their varying degrees, 
 as they too are life and light, part of that unique 
 light and life which is the breath of the Spirit of 
 the One God ? No doubt that they are so. Yet 
 I need not pursue this now. Enough to say that 
 in the language of Scripture not all these affirma- 
 tives together qualify the negative which fences 
 off, as unique, the spiritual reality of the Pente- 
 costal Church. In whatever sense it is true that 
 the light of Sinai was not light but darkness, not
 
 6] THE BODY OF THE SPIRIT 117 
 
 life but condemnation and death ; in whatever 
 sense it was true at the Feast of Tabernacles that 
 the Holy Ghost was not yet ; that if Christ went 
 not away it followed that the Comforter would 
 not come ; or that the least in the kingdom was 
 greater than the greatest born of women other- 
 wise ; in the same it is true, all seeming qualifica- 
 tions or contradictions notwithstanding, that the 
 Church's life is, as the breath of the Spirit, 
 unique : that to a Christian, even here and now, 
 belief in the Holy Ghost is, if interpreted, belief 
 in the Church, as belief in the Church, if inter- 
 preted, is belief in the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Again, I do not need to raise the question of 
 the outward tokens, the proofs, or the perplexi- 
 ties, of the visible Church. As we look out upon 
 the east and the west, upon the confusion of 
 heresies and the riot of schisms, we have to ask, 
 no doubt, where we stand and where is truth. 
 We ask what relation remains between this out- 
 wardness, so broken and tangled, and the purity, 
 the unity, the power, which belong to the charac- 
 ter of the true ideal, the pure Body of the Spirit 
 of Christ. This question too, in its time, has to 
 be raised, and can (it may be) for each one be 
 truly and sufficiently met. But enough now that 
 even before we attempt to grasp the relation be- 
 tween the visible Church or Churches, and the 
 true ideal, it is certain at least that there is such 
 a true ideal, and that the ideal is the real of the 
 Church. There is no doubt what the life of the
 
 n8 WE ARE MADE PARTAKERS [No. 
 
 Church means. Whatever may be the definition 
 of its relation to ecclesiastical organisation or 
 police, whatever place may belong, historically 
 or mystically, to apostolic ministries or ordained 
 sacraments ; whether these dissentients, or those, 
 are, or are not, to be said to be within the limits 
 of the Church ; it is clear at least what the true 
 idea and meaning of the Church is : " there is 
 one Body and one Spirit." "In one Spirit were 
 we all baptized into one Body." 
 
 The Spirit of Christ is the consciousness of the 
 Church : the true meaning of Churchmanship. 
 Thus it is not only true that the Church is much 
 to a Christian ; there is a sense in which it may 
 without exaggeration be said to be everything. 
 It is not only true that belief in the Holy Ghost 
 is an integral part of the Creed, one-third of the 
 whole, of equal rank and value with the other 
 two. There is a sense in which the value of the 
 other two may be said to be wholly dependent 
 upon it. Remove from the Creed this faith- 
 remove from the Church this life of the Holy 
 Ghost, and there fades away into thin air not a 
 scheme of Church doctrine only, but the breath 
 of spiritual life. In vain, then, should we try to 
 appeal to our faith in the Fatherhood of God, or 
 the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Even while we appealed to them they too would 
 melt away from us. We could no longer get at 
 them nor grasp them. They would cease to be 
 for us alive. Though the Incarnation of our
 
 6] OF CHRIST'S REDEEMING WORK 119 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ remained still a fact, yet the 
 fact would be nothing to us. Though we might 
 seem to believe in Jesus Christ, in His Divine 
 Eternity, and condescension of Love, in His 
 Incarnation and Atonement, His Resurrection 
 and Ascension : yet what then ? These mighty 
 events by themselves reach their conclusion and 
 end in the moment of the Ascension. Of them- 
 selves they leave the world, from the moment of 
 the Ascension, only so much the more a blank. 
 They may be true : but we have no access to 
 them, and, therefore, no hope through them. 
 What is it to me but despair that the Son of God 
 came to save, if I cannot come near Him ; if I 
 and that salvation can never meet? But what 
 access have I, save in the dispensation, through 
 the work, of the Spirit ; save (that is) through the 
 life, in the work, of the Church ? Only through 
 the Church's life and work are the effects of 
 Incarnation and Atonement wrought out into the 
 lives of individuals. By the life of the Church 
 we live : into the life of the Church we have been 
 brought. The ministry of the Church, as a 
 whole, in all its fulness, is the ministry of 
 regeneration and of sanctification, of reconcilia- 
 tion and absolution. We may say all that we 
 will of the meaning of the Cross on Calvary, or 
 the glory of the Easter morning. But it is in 
 and through the Church that the effect of these 
 things reaches me. By the love and power 
 which are in Her I have been brought near, by
 
 120 IN THE MINISTRY OF THE CHURCH, [No. 
 
 the wisdom and teaching which are in Her my 
 understanding is trained, and I too learn know- 
 ledge ; the ministry of the Church as a whole, 
 in Baptism, in Communion, in all daily services 
 and teachings the ministry of the Church, as a 
 whole, is the ministry of salvation and forgive- 
 ness to me : the life which is in the Church is the 
 life of Divine Holiness and Power. 
 
 It is through the dispensation of the Spirit, 
 which is the life of the Church, that I and the 
 Incarnation can ever meet. " Hereby know we 
 that we abide in Him and He in us, because He 
 hath given us of His Spirit." Life in the Pente- 
 costal Church : this is contact with God. 
 "Touch me not," He said, "for I am not yet 
 ascended unto my Father." It is only in the 
 post-Ascension era, only in the Church, only, 
 that is, through the Spirit, that God and we, 
 that Jesus Christ and we, can really meet and 
 touch. 
 
 Only through the Spirit. As it is true that 
 whatever is the working of the Spirit belongs 
 to the working of the Church (for the life of 
 the Spirit indwelling is the life of the Church, 
 and the living power of the Church is the Spirit's 
 revelation): so, conversely, whatever belongs to 
 the method and life of the Church is only in 
 and through the Spirit. If the Spirit clothes 
 itself with body and works through organs 
 and methods, the meaning of the organs and 
 methods, the life of the Body, is Spirit. The
 
 6] THE REALITY OF WHICH 121 
 
 ministries, the ordinances, of Christ's Church 
 are essentially spiritual, not carnal. Their true 
 character is only to be looked for and found, 
 not in a material, but a spiritual direction. " It 
 is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth 
 nothing : the words that I have spoken unto you 
 are spirit and are life." 
 
 Baptism, and the Holy Eucharist (in close con- 
 nexion with which these last words were spoken), 
 Ordination, Absolution, and every other form 
 that exists of ministry, or service, or teaching, or 
 public or private devotion : all must be under- 
 stood to be, in their only reality, wholly spiritual 
 things. Their whole true meaning is on the 
 spiritual side. It is not to be found in them as 
 ordinances or observances, carnal or material, 
 but rather as mystical possibilities, as experiences 
 in a spiritual history. We cannot, indeed, insist 
 too strongly on this. 
 
 Yet, to insist that their whole true meaning is 
 spiritual does not mean, of course, that they have 
 no material form or conditions. Neither does it 
 mean that the connexion which subsists between 
 their outward form and their inner reality be- 
 tween their body (as it were) and their spirit, is 
 itself not a vital one, but rather variable because 
 (in the literal sense of the word) unessential. We 
 can draw no such conclusion about spiritual 
 ordinances at least, until we can draw it about 
 spiritual men. For we too, Christian men, all of 
 us, essentially are spiritual beings, made for
 
 122 IS IN THE SPIRIT, SPIRITUAL: [No. 
 
 spiritual life and joy as St. Paul even passion- 
 ately insists, in language which sounds to us 
 perhaps perilously unqualified: "They that are 
 in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not 
 in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the 
 Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But, if any man 
 have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." 
 Our whole reality is spiritual. " Ye are not in 
 the flesh." Does this at all mean of us either 
 that we, as Christians, have no bodily life, or 
 that, for us, the connexion between our outward 
 bodily actions and our inner spiritual reality is 
 not a vital one ? It is clear that it does not. 
 But if our true nature and meaning wholly is 
 spiritual, and yet this our spiritual existence is so 
 wrapped up in the bodily that we have now no 
 avenue, no means, no possibility of spiritual life 
 save through what is bodily : we shall not 
 hesitate to say in like manner also of the 
 ordinances, greater or smaller, of the Church of 
 Christ first that their essential character is 
 wholly, is only, spiritual ; and yet, that of this 
 their spiritual character and meaning, the 
 material form may still be a real or may even, 
 without inconsistency, be the only avenue. 
 
 Thus, then, in the presence of the Spirit we 
 recognise the existence of the Church ; and in 
 the Church, as its very life, we reverence the 
 Spirit. But if this is true, as doctrine, of the 
 corporate Church, and if the truth of the Church 
 precedes its exemplification in personal lives :
 
 6] INDIVIDUALLY, A CHRISTIAN 123 
 
 yet the Church is made of men, and it is only 
 after all through its truth in personal lives that 
 it can be true of the Church. 
 
 What, then, is the distinctiveness of Chris- 
 tianity to a Christian consciousness ? Is it the 
 system of thought which he owns as true ? Is 
 it his theology viewed as truth, articulated as 
 creed ? His creed indeed is to him truth, and 
 truth is to him Divine. But God is more than 
 truth : and it is not truth only, as truth, 
 certainly not truth articulated as creed, which is 
 itself the heart of his consciousness. Is it the 
 standard of morality which is set before him ? 
 the revelation of right and wrong, the aim of 
 character? The Christian standard of right is 
 indeed unique ; but unique for no reason so 
 profoundly as for this, because it never presents 
 itself mainly as a standard ; because it is not a 
 scheme rigid or definite or dead ; but multiform 
 as life is multiform ; not a rule after all, but a 
 presence, not definable, but alive. 
 
 Beneath, then, the theological creed, though 
 in closest correspondence with it ; beneath the 
 moral standard, though the source and the life 
 of its morality ; the true note of the Christian 
 consciousness is the Holy Spirit, in Personal 
 Presence, indwelling. 
 
 The distinctiveness of Christianity lies far less 
 really in its creed-character, or in the excellence 
 of its moral standard, than in its inner secret of 
 living power. Though its theology may claim to
 
 124 IS ONE IN WHOM [No. 
 
 interpret, as well as transcend, the whole range 
 of rational thought ; though its theology may be 
 the perfectest image that is possible, to finite 
 insight, of infinite truth, yet Christianity is not 
 mainly a theology. And though its morality 
 matches, as no other morality, the measureless 
 capacity of a living character, its morality is not, 
 as morality, the measure of Christianity. 
 
 We know, perhaps, what it is, in polemics or 
 in fiction, in conversation or in thought, to try to 
 compare Christianity as a system with other 
 systems, a morality with other moralities. Do 
 we realise to what an extent, in order to isolate 
 thus its thought or its moral standard for pur- 
 poses of comparison, we are leaving out from 
 them both what is in fact their most vital charac- 
 teristic ? If we wish to compare Christianity 
 with other religions, let us at least try to take it 
 as it is to understand it as it understands itself. 
 Whatever be in its eyes the necessary rank or 
 place of theological truth or of moral character, it 
 never mistakes its own vital essence for either. To 
 be a Christian means not to hold such and such 
 a creed, or to own such and such obligations, but 
 to be anointed with the anointing of Christ, to 
 be alive in the Spirit. " Because ye are made 
 partakers of the Christ ye are rightly called 
 Christs ; and it was of you that God said, Touch 
 not my Christs," so St. Cyril of Jerusalem 
 teaches his pupils, reminding them how Christ 
 was anointed with the Spirit upon His baptism,
 
 6] THE SPIRIT DWELLS 125 
 
 and how they too on their baptism received 
 that chrism, which represented the anointing 
 of the Christ. " Because ye were vouchsafed 
 this holy chrism," he adds, "ye are called 
 Christians." 
 
 "As, till He had ascended to the Father, 
 Mary because without the Spirit might not 
 touch ; so," says his namesake, "those who own 
 His Godhead, and have confessed our faith, and 
 join us in the reciting of the Creed, we shut out 
 from the holy table, while they are still in their 
 time of preparation, and therefore not yet made 
 rich by the Holy Spirit. For He does not 
 inhabit those who are unbaptized. But where it 
 is plain that they share the Holy Spirit, then is 
 there nothing to restrain from the touch of our 
 Saviour Christ." 
 
 There is small need to multiply quotations to 
 illustrate a truth so fundamental to the Christian 
 consciousness as this. But you will pardon one 
 familiar echo more, in words of St. Cyprian : 
 "When once the stain of the old life had been 
 washed away by the succour of regenerating 
 water, and light from on high flooded into a heart 
 now forgiven and pure ; when once I drank the 
 breath from heaven, made by rebirth a new man ; 
 forthwith, in a marvellous way, doubts cleared, 
 secrets opened, what was dark became plain ; 
 power grew in what was hard before ; possibilities 
 dawned in things which had seemed impossible ; 
 and I knew that the life was of earth which was
 
 126 THE TEACHING OF [No. 
 
 born in flesh and lived in the power of sin ; but 
 that that, whose animating breath was already 
 the Holy Spirit, was even now the life of 
 Heaven." 
 
 And what receives thus the comment of after 
 Christian experience, is no less central to the 
 consciousness of St. Paul or St. John. It is 
 St. Paul who says of the Jewish heart, "when- 
 soever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken 
 away. Now the Lord is the Spirit : and where 
 the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty " 
 (2 Cor. iii. 16, 17). It is St. Paul who says of 
 the Christian Church, " as many as are led by 
 the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"; and 
 again, "if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, 
 he is none of His " (Rom. viii. 9, 14) : he appeals 
 to Church members not as outsiders that they 
 should try and win, but as partakers, possessors, 
 that they should " not quench the Spirit " 
 (i Thess. v. 20) : he recognises, not less em- 
 phatically than St. John, that the living core of 
 Christian character, that which is more than 
 tongues of men or angels, more than prophecy, 
 more than all mysteries, and all knowledge, more 
 than all faith, though enhanced to the point of 
 tremendous miracle, more than all that self-dis- 
 cipline, apart from it, can conceivably be, is the 
 Spirit which manifests itself in human relations, 
 as love (i Cor. xiii. 1-3). And St. John he is 
 obviously, before all things, the " man with a 
 secret," a secret of joyous power bubbling up,
 
 6] ST. PAUL AND ST. JOHN 127 
 
 bubbling- over, within him, "that which we have 
 seen and heard declare we unto you also, that 
 ye also may have fellowship with us ; yea, and 
 our fellowship is with the Father, and with His 
 Son Jesus Christ" (i John i. 3). But the test, 
 and proof, of this secret of communion lies here : 
 " hereby we know that He abideth in us, by 
 the Spirit which He gave us" (iii. 24). 
 
 If, on the intellectual side, the discrimination 
 between the true Spirit and those which will 
 plausibly counterfeit it is to be a dogmatic one, 
 "every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not 
 of God " ; yet none the less emphatically it is 
 repeated forthwith, of the Christian's own con- 
 sciousness in practical life, " If we love one 
 another, God abideth in us, and His love is 
 perfected in us : hereby know we that we abide 
 in Him and He in us, because He hath given 
 us of His Spirit" (iv. 3, 12, 13). This was to 
 have been from the first the distinguishing char- 
 acter of Christian life. Long ago, at the Feast 
 of Tabernacles, had Jesus cried, " He that be- 
 lieveth on Me, as the Scripture hath said, out 
 of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." 
 "This spake He," adds St. John, "of the Spirit, 
 which they that believed on Him were to receive: 
 for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus 
 was not yet glorified " (John vii. 38, 39). I need 
 not dwell on the history of the Day of Pentecost, 
 or St. Paul's amazement at those who could not 
 respond to his challenge, " Did ye receive the
 
 128 THE WORK OF FAITH IS [No. 
 
 Holy Ghost when ye believed?" (< Unto what 
 then were ye baptized ? " (Acts xix. 2, 3) 
 
 Christians, like ourselves, who have been 
 baptized into Christ's Church, who have had 
 our baptismal prerogative, signed, sealed, per- 
 fected, through the unction of the Spirit in 
 apostolic laying on of hands; do we believe in 
 that which we have, and are ? do we dare to draw 
 upon the possibilities, which, without acquiring 
 or deserving of ours, are yet within ourselves, as 
 St. Paul or St. John believed, and dared, and 
 found ? How much of our despondency or in- 
 effectiveness, of the twilight or the failure, of 
 our days, is due to our narrowed conception of 
 Christian life? We dare not hope, we cannot 
 effect, we will not therefore desire, where desire 
 and hope, because they were based on God, 
 would have proved effectual. We believe perhaps 
 in Christian ideals which do but confound us : 
 but not in the vital power of the Christian life. 
 We know that the spiritual life is, in some sense, 
 of one piece with the life of nature. We have 
 learned therefore, it may be, to translate the 
 supernatural into the natural. We have lost the 
 immense impulse of victorious force which belongs 
 to those who, in and through all the natural, 
 rather read and feel still the presence and move- 
 ment of the supernatural. We, therefore, in the 
 midst of ideals, or difficulties, are just what we 
 feel ourselves to be ; our natural consciousness 
 of capacity limits our character : when our char-
 
 6] TO USE THE POWER WE POSSESS 129 
 
 acter should have been expanding 1 its capacities 
 to match a faith in supernatural empowering; 
 and we might have been learning to feel and find 
 ourselves to be what (if we would but have it 
 so !) we are ! 
 
 Yet, if by thoughts like these we cannot but 
 convict ourselves, we do it not for the sake of 
 rebuke or discouragement. If we own that in 
 thought, or practice, we have fallen below Chris- 
 tian life, it is that we may be not relaxed, but 
 braced braced to new daring, of ideal at once 
 and of action. We will not abandon faith, 
 because we feel that it is still above us : that 
 we have fallen below it. The faith, below which 
 we have fallen, shall be our strength and life 
 still. 
 
 They cannot fail, after all, who can still believe 
 that if they will continue devoted to It, in affec- 
 tion and passionate desire, the living Spirit of 
 Holiness is theirs. Not to acquire, or deserve, 
 a spirit or power which are surely beyond their 
 reach : but rather to believe that they have ; to 
 stir up ; to reverence ; in wonder and in dread to 
 dare to use it is this which is the characteristic 
 effort of faith. The Spirit within them, too, for 
 real holiness, for real crushing of evil, is the 
 Spirit of God and of His Christ. 
 
 Only one word more. The culmination of the 
 revelation of the Holy Ghost is, as our Whitsun 
 octave truly proclaims to us, the vision of the 
 
 supreme Worship of Heaven : and it may be that 
 K
 
 i 3 o THE SPIRIT AND WORSHIP [No. 6 
 
 in reverent, and progressive, recognition of the 
 Spirit within, we may gain such deepening 
 insight as we are capable of into the mystical 
 worship of the Trinity services, into that trans- 
 cendent Holy, Holy, Holy, which is to us the 
 crowning glimpse at once of the adoration and 
 the bliss of Heaven.
 
 ENRICHMENT OF PRIVATE PRAYER 
 
 (A paper read at the Derby Church Congress in 1882.) 
 
 A MAN is upon his knees. He tries to lift 
 up his soul and speak to God. But too 
 soon the tongue falters, mists gather before the 
 sight, sounds of this world come floating through 
 the ears, the mind wanders dreamily on, the 
 stammered words have become monotonous, un- 
 meaning, or have died altogether away. Some- 
 thing is greatly lacking. What can we say 
 of it? 
 
 Now first there is, no doubt, real prayer, which 
 knows no words nor any defmiteness of thought. 
 To be dumb, and yet to long to speak ; to be 
 prayerless, and yet to long for prayer ; this is 
 prayer, no doubt, already. But this is a rudi- 
 mentary condition, and cannot in its own nature 
 be long continued : neither is it the object of our 
 thought now. 
 
 The prayer which properly belongs to the 
 Christian life is conscious, and is intelligent. 
 It is more than dumb feeling. For there, in the 
 midst of the felt Presence of the Eternal, the 
 mind is to be arranged, thought disentangled, the 
 heart disciplined, desire made clear and strong :
 
 132 WHICH IS THE TRUE [No. 
 
 and this purified thought, this strengthened will, 
 to be consecrated, in the utterance of words, to 
 God. 
 
 If I start with a narrow conception of what 
 prayer means, my prayers will themselves be 
 narrow. If then I am set to see that my prayers 
 be rich, various, comprehensive as they ought, 
 my first point is this, to ask myself what I find 
 that I mean by prayer. The present purpose 
 may be served by distinguishing two conceptions : 
 the first, that it is my asking God for what I feel 
 that I want ; the second, that it is my practising 
 to think, and to will, and to speak, face to face 
 with God. 
 
 If mine be the first of these, I shall pray for 
 preservation and safety, for concord at home, and 
 good government, and victory abroad, for good 
 seasons and prosperity, and the like ; and more- 
 over for repentance and amendment, for wisdom 
 and love, for pardon and happiness, for grace 
 and for salvation and all this for many others 
 besides myself for my household, my relations, 
 my friends, my country. I shall pray all the 
 more intensely when any of these things are 
 withdrawn, and (if I am consistent) shall not 
 fail to thank God for them when given. But 
 yet, in all these, however good and right in 
 themselves, it is still true that I myself really 
 remain the central point of thought and interest. 
 
 No doubt it may be urged that I do right to 
 pray specially for the things in my own sphere,
 
 ;] CONCEPTION OF PRAYER? 133 
 
 seeing that my own sphere is also my own re- 
 sponsibility. It may be admitted that even if 
 prayer reached its ideal perfection, these things 
 would have no mean place in it, though (it may 
 be) somewhat newly set. It may be admitted, 
 too, that there is a sense in which the praying 
 soul cannot but stand in the centre of its own 
 praying. But we may take the sting from this 
 admission at once, by adding that this is only 
 a necessary truth about the prayer of a man, just 
 so far as it must be conceived necessary in an 
 angel's prayer also. 
 
 And so, for all that, if I have the other con- 
 ception of prayer, I shall be on my guard ex- 
 pressly against self-centred praying. Rather I 
 shall even strain to win for myself a centre other 
 than myself. It will not satisfy me that my range 
 of topics is sometimes wide and bold, so long as 
 this merely increases (as it were) the size of my 
 circle, and leaves the centre unchanged. It will 
 be object both of care and pains first to find, 
 then to practise some rule of prayer which more 
 fitly corresponds to the truth of God the Creator, 
 and of this great Creation of God's, and of my 
 place in it. I shall feel that to pray aright after 
 God's will, I must try to take my right place 
 in the universe of God's truth. I must pray, not 
 by the rule of my own conscious want, but by 
 the rule of Truth. The presence of God is the 
 presence of all Truth ; and prayer is a rehearsing 
 of Life in the presence of God. In my prayer,
 
 134 LEX ORANDI [No. 
 
 then, I enter into relation with all truth. What- 
 soever I am able to recognise as true ; all that 
 I know, and all that I believe ; when I shut my 
 eyes to the world, and open them as before God, 
 I am in the presence of nothing narrower than 
 this. When I speak with a man it is mind that 
 touches mind ; when I pray to God my prayer is 
 my approach to the mind of God. 
 
 That I should enter into the mind of God 
 completely would be the perfectness of prayer. 
 That I should try to enter into it is necessary, 
 even with a view to success in prayer. For if 
 my conformity were perfect I could not pray 
 otherwise than as He loved to order. Will it 
 not follow that my prayer and my knowledge 
 (of what kind soever, so it be knowledge) will 
 not move on different planes ; but the more I 
 know, the richer will be or might have been 
 my capacities of prayer? And will it not also 
 follow that all prayer, to be intelligent, must be 
 based on knowledge ? I ought not to be stupider 
 than I can help in praying to God. If I inter- 
 cede for my friends in their difficulties of life, in 
 their pains ; if I pray for plenty in the earth ; 
 if I appeal to God in the turmoil of popular 
 upheavings, or the clash of arms, I must not 
 be blinder than I can help to the laws of His 
 government to whose government I appeal. I 
 must not scorn, but use rather the lessons of 
 science, the lessons of history, as well as the 
 revealed truths of religion. For these, too, are
 
 7] LEX CREDENDI 135 
 
 parts of the revelation of God's mind. And 
 the best prayer is necessarily that which enters 
 into His mind most perfectly. So far from for- 
 getting science or history, let me rather study 
 both, or, at least, let me use all the insight God 
 has given me into either, in order that I may 
 pray with intelligence, entering the more into 
 the mind of God when I kneel to speak before 
 Him. 
 
 Prayer, then, is not less wide than knowledge 
 of truth. Can we get this in any more tangible 
 shape ? Without working precisely from the one 
 point to the other, or staying to compare or con- 
 trast exactly, we may catch perhaps one aspect 
 of this lurking under the old form of words, 
 "Lex orandi lex credendi." Whatever is an 
 integral part of my soul's realities will find place 
 in my soul's intercourse with the God of all truth. 
 My prayers will reflect and measure my real con- 
 victions. What is left out of my prayers, is left 
 out, practically, of my belief. 
 
 But this maxim, "Lex orandi lex credendi," 
 suggests at once a practical standard by which 
 to test the range and scope of my prayers. This 
 standard is the simple "lex credendi" the 
 Apostles' Creed. Is there anything in the 
 Apostles' Creed which finds no place in my 
 prayer? Of course mere repetition of the words 
 of the Creed does not constitute a place. Is 
 there anything which never intrudes into my 
 heart's thought and purpose when I kneel to
 
 136 THE THOUGHT OF GOD [No. 
 
 pray? If so, my prayer is too narrow still in 
 its range of thought. This is a test which, 
 with a little thoughtfulness, may be made most 
 practical. 
 
 But passing quickly by this point as to range 
 or number of topics, I may use the thought of 
 the Creed in another way. The Creed is the 
 shortest formal expansion of our belief in God. 
 But even this is a formal expansion. Shortened 
 still more, we have our Creed essentially in the 
 Gloria ; we have it clearly in the utterance of the 
 threefold Name of God ; we have it, most shortly 
 of all, yet completely (if only we understand 
 it) in the mysterious cry of heavenly worship, 
 "Holy, Holy, Holy." 
 
 The fact that this is so may help the present 
 thought in two ways. First it will make clear 
 to me what following the "Creed" as my "lex 
 orandi" ultimately means. It means that all 
 prayer is to have but one scope and one theme. 
 It means that the central thought and interest of 
 the praying soul is no longer to be self, but God. 
 The centre round which the whole revolves is 
 changed. 
 
 But the same fact will give another ray of light 
 as to my prayers, and the richness of meaning 
 in them. If it be true that the whole Christian 
 Creed is contained in the "Holy, Holy, Holy," 
 it follows that these words are not understood 
 unless they suggest to my mind the whole 
 Christian Creed. A child may repeat them
 
 7 ] IS THE CENTRE OF PRAYER 137 
 
 reverently enough in his prayers, but with only 
 the slightest idea of what they convey, with little 
 beyond an instinct of reverence. An old man, 
 whose life has been lived to the threescore and 
 ten or fourscore, in the presence always of the 
 Eternal realities, who has prayed much, learned 
 much, meditated much, may use in his prayer 
 also the same triple title ; and at each stroke 
 of the word his heart will be thronged with 
 memories and images. It is to him no vague, 
 dim repetition of a thrice-told attribute ; but 
 each strong note struck will awake a long series 
 of vibrations, one after another in countless 
 numbers, dying away into the distance of the 
 far-off places ; not one of them really fanciful, 
 but every one the real expression or echo of 
 some apprehended truth of the being of God. 
 
 The meaning of this to me in respect of my 
 prayer is obvious. It means that, be the topics 
 or the language what they may, the richness of 
 my prayer will depend not so much upon these ; 
 it will not be found by looking, so to speak, at 
 the index hardly even by reading the text itself 
 of my private devotions but more vitally upon 
 the richness of meaning to me of my own simplest 
 words ; upon the depth and fulness of the music 
 which old plain notes can set vibrating in my 
 heart. On my own life and mind, what they 
 are ; on my intimacy in spirit with the eternal 
 truths of God's being and the revelation of it, on 
 the reality in short of all that which is, perhaps,
 
 138 THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD [No. 
 
 most nearly expressed to me by the name and 
 habit of "spiritual meditation," will depend my 
 richness of prayer. 
 
 This meditation is no merely separate exercise 
 a minute study of a special and narrow depart- 
 ment only of knowledge. It is the due ordering, 
 arranging, and interpreting of all facts of life, 
 of all knowledge of truth. Every fresh piece of 
 knowledge that comes to me, every fresh open- 
 ing, every fresh need known, should be reflected 
 in my prayerful mind. But all these would come 
 in, not so much as new things, rather as new 
 reflections of the old lights, new aspects of the 
 old words. Do we not find, e.g. perhaps every 
 year of our lives, the old words, "Thy king- 
 dom come," acquiring two or three new hints 
 of meaning shall we say two or three times 
 newly antiphoned ? (And let me use this word 
 " antiphon " for a parenthetical reminder that 
 the actual use of the old antiphons, though 
 impossible to our public worship, is still often 
 wonderfully suggestive, especially on Holy Days, 
 to private prayer.) But to return. The range of 
 knowledge, the variety (so to speak) of sensitive- 
 ness, may be almost limitless ; yet all may be 
 found, when perfectly harmonised, to fall into a 
 very few simple strains. We can imagine how 
 the experience of an aged apostle might gather 
 itself into few and ever fewer words, seeming to 
 contract its range of materials, while in truth it 
 only more perfectly simplified their harmony.
 
 7 ] IS THE ENRICHMENT OF PRAYER 139 
 
 We can imagine how truth after truth would 
 come to be seen merely as a new expression of 
 some Divine attribute, and to be described not 
 otherwise so fitly as by the reiteration perhaps 
 of a single word, as e.g. " Love " or " Father- 
 hood." Not that there really were, or seemed 
 to be, fewer interests or truths in the world : but 
 that all were seen so to converge, that the ultimate 
 expression of them all would be "God." 
 
 And so, for us, the Apostles' Creed is no com- 
 pendium of special knowledge, but it contains 
 the whole world. 
 
 Not so much, then, a clear sight of my own 
 wants, but insight, such as religious meditation 
 gives, into the Truth of God, and specially those 
 attributes, relations, and offices of His threefold 
 Being, which the shortest formal summary of our 
 Christian faith opens out to me, with a rule of 
 method which will preclude me from omitting 
 any part of this in my regular devotions, will be 
 such a discipline of prayer as I may desire. 
 
 There is one revealed standard of prayer. 
 " Lord, teach us to pray. . . . He said unto 
 them, When ye pray, say, ..." What follows 
 is, of course, not merely a form of words to be 
 repeated, whether once or oftener ; but it is an 
 exemplar, by study of which we learn the true 
 lineaments of Christian prayer. 
 
 To that, in conclusion, I appeal. Will not a 
 reverent study of the topics of that prayer, their 
 place, and their proportion, make good this plea,
 
 140 THE PERFECT PRAYER [No. 7 
 
 that the first meaning of prayer is the reverent 
 contemplation of God, His attributes, His glory; 
 and that all else comes in only through this, as 
 it is united with this, and thereby vivified ? One 
 can fancy that a lifelong learning to pray might 
 be crowned at last with the power of once using 
 the Lord's prayer perfectly.
 
 PART II 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL
 
 CONSIDERATIONS 
 
 UPON DISESTABLISHMENT AND 
 
 DISENDOWMENT 
 
 WITH SOME REFERENCE TO A DISCUSSION IN THE 
 
 OXFORD DIOCESAN CONFERENCE, 
 
 SEPTEMBER 26TH, 1894 * 
 
 PRELIMINARY 
 
 IT was my misfortune, at the recent meeting 
 of the Oxford Diocesan Conference, to feel 
 myself obliged to move an unpopular amend- 
 ment to a popular resolution. Of the treatment 
 which, under such circumstances, I received, 
 I have certainly no cause to complain. It is 
 wholly impossible to explain an unpopular posi- 
 tion in ten minutes ; and to many members of 
 the Conference my attitude may well have ap- 
 peared much more perverse and unintelligible 
 than they, in their kindness, allowed themselves 
 to show. 
 
 Nevertheless I had a meaning. And the same 
 considerations which made me then feel it a duty 
 to record an adverse vote, and to say so much in 
 explanation of my vote as the time permitted, 
 persuade me still that I am bound, so far as in 
 
 1 [See page xi.] 
 143
 
 144 LOYALTY TO SUPERIORS: [No. 
 
 me lies, to make that meaning intelligible to my 
 fellow Churchmen. 
 
 I spoke under the disadvantage which natur- 
 ally (and not unfairly) belongs to those who are 
 thought to differ from their superiors. But what- 
 ever advantages may legitimately belong to the 
 judgment of the majority, and of those who 
 direct and inspire it, I must plead once more 
 that it is not only compatible with perfect 
 respectfulness, rather it is a necessary element 
 in the reality of perfect respectfulness, that 
 inferiors whose judgment is invited should ex- 
 press it quite truly. A request to a deliberative 
 assembly to affirm approval of the judgment, by 
 identifying itself with the action, even of its own 
 direct superiors, is, ipso facto, a request to them 
 to affirm their disapproval no less distinctly, if in 
 judgment and conscience they cannot but dis- 
 approve. And what is true of the deliberative 
 assembly as a whole, is no less true also of its 
 individual members, as parts, in detail, of its 
 deliberation. I am convinced that I should have 
 shown, by holding my tongue, more disrespect 
 to authority than can ever be shown by any 
 frankness of criticism, if that criticism is made 
 in a serious and respectful manner, and on a 
 fitting occasion. It is difficult to conceive how 
 any occasion could be more fitting than that on 
 which an expression of opinion has been ex- 
 pressly invited from a deliberative assembly. 
 And I trust that the Conference would acquit
 
 8] UNANIMITY 145 
 
 me, at all events, in my actual argument, of any 
 lack either of seriousness or of respect. 
 
 Before proceeding to the subject itself, I should 
 like to add a few words more on this important 
 question of respectfulness, or loyalty, of criticism ; 
 and in reference to one or two of the censures 
 which I actually incurred at the Conference. 
 
 First, then, it was said, by way of deprecating 
 any criticism at all, that we were in the position 
 of subordinate officers in an army marshalled by 
 its generals for battle ; and that, whatever 
 opinion we might privately hold about the wis- 
 dom or unwisdom of the dispositions of our 
 commanding officers, it was not consistent with 
 loyalty, at such a moment, to express or betray 
 them in any way at all. I should like to protest 
 against the use of this language. We all know 
 that illustrations are apt to be misleading ; and 
 a parallel from physical to moral combat is 
 especially dangerous. The secret of physical 
 victory is aggregate of force. The secret of 
 moral victory is adherence to truth. In a great 
 and complicated moral struggle, in which we 
 can only hope to win ultimately by force of truth, 
 everything which contributes to truth contributes 
 to success. Conceive for a moment, if only for 
 the sake of hypothesis, in an organisation which 
 claims to represent not partisan warfare but the 
 battle of absolute truth, that efforts are being 
 made however generally or however authorita- 
 tively on lines which cannot ultimately be the
 
 146 IS NOT TO BE PURCHASED [No. 
 
 lines of truth or true success : and on that hypo- 
 thesis I submit that every voice raised, within 
 the organised ranks themselves, against com- 
 promising mistake, and on the side of truth, 
 even though it be at the price of some moment- 
 ary appearance (or reality) of disunion, is really 
 a direct accession, not of moral weakness, but of 
 moral strength, to the cause. I especially empha- 
 sise the words within the ranks themselves. Such 
 voices raised outside the host do but tend to its 
 overthrow. Only if raised within do they (all 
 appearances notwithstanding) contribute to its 
 stability. 
 
 I must add (what I think will come home to 
 those who recall with any vividness the Church 
 politics of twenty years ago), that as even one or 
 two voices audibly dissentient in a body which, 
 fighting for truth, is not fighting altogether 
 according to truth, carry a moral value out of all 
 proportion to the importance of those who utter 
 them ; so, on the other hand, the suppression of 
 individual divergence of judgment, in deference 
 to whatever laudable motive, and the unreal 
 appearance of unanimity among those who are 
 not unanimous, and who are sacrificing far more 
 than any individual judgment or dignity in pro- 
 fessing to the world, and brandishing as a weapon 
 of moral warfare, a unanimity which is not ac- 
 cording to truth, is a disaster of the first magni- 
 tude ; is capable indeed of becoming, just in 
 proportion as the questions at stake are questions
 
 8] AT THE EXPENSE OF TRUTH 147 
 
 of eternal truth and sacredness, a nearer and 
 nearer approach to irretrievable catastrophe. 
 
 The same sort of thought may serve as answer 
 to the charge (advanced in the subsequent dis- 
 cussion) that the objections raised were "aca- 
 demic," that they had reference to the contingent 
 possibilities of another generation, that they were 
 therefore irrelevant to those whose business was 
 with the things at their feet. In an argument 
 which must rest ultimately upon truth, it is quite 
 as practical to be particular that the position 
 which we take up is true, as to show zeal in 
 obeying the call to take up a position at all. 
 Considerations tending to show, by reference to 
 the possibility of future modifications of circum- 
 stances, that the lines of our present contention 
 are not absolutely right, and may become, by 
 quicker or slower degrees, manifestly untenable, 
 possibly may appear for the moment academic, 
 but only, I must submit, to a temper of intel- 
 lectual impatience. They are really of crucial 
 importance, if we are to distinguish between 
 truth and untruth in our present attitude ; if we 
 are to avoid the catastrophe which is, sooner or 
 later, incurred by all those who endeavour to 
 maintain even a just contention upon untenable 
 grounds. 
 
 Again, it was suggested that, if it is a misfor- 
 tune for the Church, as a whole, to be ranged 
 exclusively with one of the two political parties 
 in the State, this misfortune is simply the fault
 
 148 NOR THE CHURCH TO BE [No. 
 
 of the political party which attacks the Church, 
 and that Churchmen are therefore not respon- 
 sible for it at all. This I cannot concede. It is 
 true, of course, as simple matter of fact, that an 
 attack upon Church privileges from the Liberal 
 side is, in large measure, the cause of the rallying 
 of Churchmen to the Conservative party. This 
 no one disputes. Nor is it doubtful at all that 
 there is, under the circumstances, a prima facie 
 danger lest Churchmen should hastily become 
 merely party Conservatives, that there is a natural 
 temptation to them to do so. I concede, more- 
 over, that if the attack of a political party should 
 be upon what is essential to the life of the 
 Church, upon her sacraments, her constitution, 
 her fundamental doctrine or discipline, it might 
 be impossible for any Churchman, without dis- 
 loyalty to his Churchmanship, to be otherwise 
 than, for the time, a political partisan. But 
 however necessary this might become in some 
 cases hypothetically, or whatever temptation there 
 may be now for Churchmen to adopt this attitude 
 over-hastily, I maintain that it is precisely for 
 them, as wise Churchmen, to distinguish, with 
 the utmost care, between situations which do, 
 and situations which do not, necessitate a con- 
 sequence so deplorable. That it follows legiti- 
 mately from the present question about dises- 
 tablishing, I unhesitatingly deny. To such a 
 necessity we have, in fact, been indefinitely 
 nearer in former years that we are now. Not
 
 8] IDENTIFIED WITH PARTY 149 
 
 even the clearest opinion about the political duty 
 of corporate religion, or the wrongfulness or 
 robbery of State interference with it, or the 
 extent to which Church activity may be indirectly 
 dependent upon either property or status, would 
 quite justify a contention that these, or things 
 like these, are, or can be, of the essentials of 
 Church life. If it is not so, then the question 
 is not one in which Churchmen, as Churchmen, 
 are bound to be all entirely of one mind. There 
 are, for Churchmen, real arguments on the side 
 of disestablishment as well as against it. But if 
 the question is, so far, an open one, then it is 
 not a case in which Churchmen are bound to 
 submit to the misfortune of becoming political 
 partisans. The opponents or rivals of the Church 
 may be glad enough to see Churchmen all rush- 
 ing one way ; may be glad to incite and impel 
 them to this fatal unanimity. It is for Church- 
 men themselves to draw the essential distinctions ; 
 and by their own calm insight and moral firm- 
 ness, to avert a political identification which 
 would be only the prelude to ecclesiastical as well 
 as political catastrophe. 
 
 But if, in a question like this, which is not 
 a question necessarily foreclosed to Churchman- 
 ship, it would be a profound misfortune if all 
 Churchmen thought and acted the same way ; 
 the misfortune would be enhanced, beyond all 
 calculation, if it were not only, in fact, the 
 aggregate of Churchmen as individuals, but the
 
 150 HOSTILE ARGUMENTS [NO. 
 
 Church herself in her corporate existence, the 
 Church through every organisation which gives 
 expression to her life, the Church through her 
 united episcopate, through her provincial convo- 
 cations, through her diocesan assemblies, through 
 her archdeaconries, rural deaneries, parishes, the 
 Church in all her completeness, and in every one 
 of her representative institutions and persons, 
 which declared herself wholly committed to the 
 approval of one, and to the condemnation of the 
 other, of the views (neither of them inherently 
 impossible to Churchmanship) about established 
 privilege and perpetual endowments. Unfortu- 
 nately it was precisely this very purpose which 
 appeared to be aimed at ; and with which the 
 Conference, by the proposal made to it, appeared 
 to be invited to identify itself. The extreme 
 improbability of any perfect success in such an 
 enterprise is, I must submit, no adequate justifi- 
 cation for embarking upon an attempt in which 
 success, if attained, would be so disastrous. It 
 may be granted, perhaps, for argument's sake, 
 that it is our antagonists who have created for us 
 this condition of strong temptation towards an 
 attitude of simple conservatism. But it will be 
 our critical failure if we fall into the temptation : 
 and to me at least it seems I will content myself 
 with saying a very inadequate rejoinder, to meet 
 a warning on this point, not by measuring gravely 
 the principles which are involved, still less by 
 trying to avert the risk, but merely by urging, in
 
 8] MUST BE FULLY WEIGHED 151 
 
 effect, that, if it is a snare, and if we do fall into 
 it, the fault is with those who laid it for us, not 
 with ourselves. 
 
 I am quite aware that the value of these con- 
 siderations depends on the truth of the pro- 
 position that disestablishment itself is not a 
 question foreclosed by eternal principles of right 
 and wrong, but is open to argument. This is 
 precisely what I contend : and it is to this that 
 real argument ought to be addressed. 
 
 I have been taught to regard it as a funda- 
 mental precept in serious discussion, that a man 
 should give full weight to his adversary's argu- 
 ment. This is to me no mere ideal of chivalry : 
 it is a condition necessary to practical success. 
 Every argument between disputants is really 
 a pleading before a tribunal, the tribunal of the 
 ultimate truth and conscience of mankind. If a 
 man ignores what is true in his adversary's case, 
 it follows ipso facto that his own position cannot 
 absolutely be true. In the long run, the untruth, 
 which he thereby nurses in his own case, will 
 damage him far more than any untruth which his 
 adversary urges against him. In the present 
 case I am not in the least concerned to deny 
 that many untruths are urged as arguments for 
 disestablishing. But if there be in that pleading 
 any elements of truth, I must submit that the 
 marshalling of the Church to fight against dis- 
 establishment as though it were a thing inherently 
 unrighteous, involves the ignoring of those ele-
 
 152 DISESTABLISHMENT IS NOT [No. 
 
 ments, and makes the Church case at once not 
 wholly identical with truth. I utterly disbelieve 
 in fighting Church battles on any other principles 
 than those of exact truth. Whatever may be 
 their place in other warfare, diplomacies are out 
 of place here. A little untruth of defence is more 
 damaging to what ought to be the cause of 
 absolute truth than is much untruth of attack. 
 
 One criticism more was made at the time, to 
 which I may briefly refer. The Conference was 
 warned that I had " slurred over " the fact that 
 disestablishment was one thing with disen- 
 dowment, and that it was even authoritatively 
 admitted to have no other meaning than this. I 
 did say, and I repeat, that it seems to me indis- 
 pensable for clearness of thought on the subject 
 to discriminate carefully between the two. That 
 they are apt to be "slurred" I am well aware. 
 That, with many of those who clamour for dis- 
 establishment, no thought underlies that word 
 but the thought of disendowment, I should not 
 dream of denying. But the more others confuse 
 themselves and us by blurring the words, the 
 more incumbent upon us do I hold it to be to 
 insist upon discriminating. I am not aware of 
 any arguments seriously urged for disendowing, 
 except upon the hypothesis of disestablishment. 
 But, assuming first the possibility of disestab- 
 lishment, the question should be, as I conceive, 
 whether disendowment, either in whole or in 
 part, ought to follow as a necessary corollary of
 
 8] ONE THING WITH DISENDOWMENT 153 
 
 disestablishment. I submit that the question 
 cannot be properly answered until disestablish- 
 ment has been first discussed ; until, in fact, it 
 has been settled, first, what is the general idea 
 intended by disestablishment, and secondly, 
 what are the grounds on which, if on any, it 
 is right to disestablish. I should certainly not 
 have anticipated that this plea of mine for dis- 
 criminating carefully between the two things 
 would be described as a slurring of the " fact " 
 that they were not two but one. 
 
 I will add just one word of a very different 
 kind. If any of my brethren whose minds are 
 clear for disestablishment should feel disposed 
 to claim these pages as their own on the ground 
 that so much is admitted of the premises upon 
 which they are accustomed to argue, I would 
 earnestly ask them, before they lightly assume 
 that the conclusions here drawn must needs be 
 inconsequent or pusillanimous, to review the 
 steps of their own reasoning, and the cogency of 
 consequences which they now draw therefrom. 
 It is just because I can agree with so much of 
 their principles that I feel myself specially en- 
 titled to challenge their conclusions ; and to 
 invite them to consider again, with all judicial 
 seriousness, what does, or does not, legitimately 
 follow from positions which are common to us 
 both.
 
 154 DISESTABLISHMENT IS [No. 
 
 DISESTABLISHMENT 
 
 Let me begin by saying that I am not en- 
 deavouring to argue with opponents of the 
 Church. Rather my object is to clear my own 
 thought as a Churchman, in reference to pro- 
 posals about disestablishment, and therein of 
 course to suggest to other Churchmen the lines 
 upon which, according to my judgment, it is right 
 for Churchmen to be acting in the matter. I am 
 writing as a Churchman [to Churchmen, in the 
 desire to discriminate, from the point of view 
 of Churchmanship, between the true and the 
 false lines of Church conduct. 
 
 I have already pleaded that it is necessary for 
 clearness of thought to consider the case of dis- 
 establishment first of all by itself, uncomplicated 
 by any corollaries about disendowment, and to 
 determine our attitude towards it. 
 
 Our hypothesis is, then, that the nation is 
 challenged with proposals for the disestablish- 
 ment of the Church. What will such proposals 
 mean ? 
 
 It is notoriously almost amusingly difficult 
 to state in concrete detail what are at present the 
 consequences which follow upon establishment, 
 or what change disestablishment (apart of course 
 from disendowment) would actually make. After 
 the statement of one or two insignificant details, 
 the attempt at definition is apt to break ignomin-
 
 8] A POLITICAL QUESTION 155 
 
 iously down. But whatever difficulty there may 
 be about practical details, I submit that as a 
 matter of principle it cannot be questioned that 
 what the word "establishment" really expresses 
 is a certain attitude of the State towards the 
 Church; and that the essence of "disestablish- 
 ment " would be an alteration by the State of its 
 relation to the Church. The Church is the 
 Church, whatever may be the attitude of the 
 State towards it. A proposal, then, for disestab- 
 lishment is a political proposal addressed to the 
 citizens of the State. It is a proposal to which 
 the Church, as Church, is not, in any strictness 
 of thought, a party at all. National favour or 
 disfavour, national aggrandisement or persecu- 
 tion, though not of course unimportant in all 
 sorts of ways, is nevertheless, strictly speaking, 
 external to the life of the Church. 
 
 " Establishment " is an active relation of the 
 State. The Church could not in any case 
 "establish" herself: neither could she, in whole 
 or in the least part, by any action of her own, 
 "disestablish" herself. Establishment and dis- 
 establishment are alike outside her. She in 
 respect of them both is necessarily passive. 
 
 It is not necessary for the truth of this state- 
 ment that we should be able to point to a single 
 explicit act of establishing on the part of the 
 State. The relation may have grown up at first 
 without any active political consciousness. But 
 there was political consciousness, in increasing
 
 156 WHICH CONCERNS CHURCHMEN [No. 
 
 degrees, in its maintenance in succeeding ages. 
 And at any time, just so far as there was political 
 consciousness at all, it was consciousness of this, 
 which indeed was true even without any con- 
 sciousness whatever, that established status 
 meant a status of political character, which 
 the State had conferred, and which the State, 
 and the State alone, could either modify or take 
 away. 
 
 It seems to me of primary importance to insist 
 that when proposals for disestablishment are 
 made, there is no ecclesiastical proposal what- 
 ever before the Church there is only a political 
 proposal before the State. It is not Churchmen, 
 as such, but citizens, and Churchmen so far as 
 they are citizens, who have a proposal before 
 them. No doubt Churchmen, in point of fact, 
 are citizens also. Nevertheless it is upon them, 
 not in their character as Churchmen, but in 
 their character as citizens, that the duty is 
 laid of forming a political decision, and acting 
 upon it. 
 
 It will be felt, of course, that their character 
 as citizens is dominated and informed by their 
 Churchmanship. No doubt it is, if they know 
 what Churchmanship means. But however 
 largely it may be their Churchmanship which 
 forms their conscience as citizens, it is not a whit 
 the less true that in their conduct as citizens they 
 act politically : and that their duty is to do what- 
 ever is politically right. Christianity does not
 
 8] ONLY AS CITIZENS 157 
 
 supersede either political or economical duty. 
 The Christian conscience may introduce new 
 factors and may appear therefore to revolutionise 
 political or economical science. But the duty to 
 which it points in either sphere ultimately, it 
 points to as economical or as political duty ; it 
 reinforces, it illuminates, but it does not super- 
 sede, either social or civic life. The fact, then, 
 that the conscience of a member of the Church 
 of Christ is with him in all his relations as para- 
 mount, does not qualify in the least degree the 
 truth of the principle that proposals for disestab- 
 lishment are political proposals, which come 
 before Churchmen only in their character as 
 citizens. 
 
 From this first form of statement there follows 
 another, which seems to me no less crucially 
 important, namely that a proposal for disestab- 
 lishment, coming before us, as it does, not qua 
 Churchmen so much as qua citizens, is in its true 
 nature an active, not a passive, proposal. The 
 question before us really is, not whether we 
 should or should not submit to be disestablished, 
 but whether we should, or should not, disestab- 
 lish. The passive form of question is misleading 
 and unreal. If it were a practically possible form 
 of question at all, it would, by the force of its 
 terms, necessarily be a question before members 
 of the Church as such. But I have already 
 insisted that establishment and disestablishment 
 are questions necessarily outside of the sphere of
 
 158 THE QUESTION IS [No. 
 
 the Church as such. The Church, as such, has 
 strictly no business with them. It is indeed, 
 I conceive, a matter of high importance for the 
 Church, in her essential life as a spiritual body, 
 as the temple of the Holy Ghost, to be, and to 
 shew that she is, passive and neutral to such 
 political questions as this. I know that it is a 
 matter of some practical difficulty for Churchmen 
 to show to the world, with sufficient clearness, 
 a distinction which may be nevertheless clear to 
 themselves ; to show, for example, that it is as 
 citizens representing the State, rather than as 
 Christians representing the ideal attitude of the 
 Church, that they in this matter take one line 
 or resist another. But though it may often be 
 difficult, it is not therefore either impossible or 
 unimportant. At this moment I submit that it 
 should be one of the first anxieties of Churchmen 
 to show that if they take an active and stirring 
 part as against disestablishment, it is not the 
 Church which is fighting in them. She is what 
 she is, and in strict speech is unconcerned. But 
 they, if they stir, stir as citizens in jealous devo- 
 tion to their country. For the country it is which 
 is challenged to political action, and their con- 
 cern is that the country should not, in them, 
 do political wrong. I need hardly say how 
 grievously this point of important distinction 
 seems to me to be blurred by a cry to the Church, 
 as Church, to rally in the struggle against "being 
 disestablished."
 
 8] 'SHALL WE DISESTABLISH?' 159 
 
 But whilst the question in this direction seems 
 to me in itself unreal, it has the added disad- 
 vantage of carrying away men's minds from the 
 real form of the question that is pressing upon 
 them. It precipitates an antithesis between the 
 Church and the State, between Churchmen and 
 citizens, and causes Churchmen-citizens to range 
 themselves in protest, as if against the hostility 
 of the State, just when it is of primary import- 
 ance that they should be rallying to the State as 
 citizens, to help her to determine her political 
 question according to political right. Preoccu- 
 pation with the (misleading) question whether 
 we ought to submit " to be disestablished " 
 obscures for us the great fact that there is really 
 a question practically before us all in our national 
 relation the question whether we ought "to 
 disestablish." 
 
 The distinction between these two questions is 
 not a formal one. Not only will the lines of 
 argument be, to a considerable extent, different 
 according as the one question is raised, or the 
 other ; but the conclusion itself will not neces- 
 sarily be the same. There are cases in which 
 the question, "Ought I to submit to be disestab- 
 lished?" might receive the answer "yes": whilst 
 nothing but a resolute " no " might be returned 
 to the question, " Must I disestablish ? " 
 
 I say, then, that the question of disestablish- 
 ment is a political question, which comes before 
 us in our capacity as citizens ; and that the only
 
 160 ESTABLISHMENT DEPENDS [No. 
 
 legitimate form of the question is Are we, or are 
 we not, to disestablish ? 
 
 It is, then, upon this basis that I should desire 
 to examine the different considerations that may 
 be urged as grounds for disestablishing. 
 
 It has already been urged that " establish- 
 ment " is in its nature a political fact ; the 
 adoption, or maintenance, of a national relation 
 towards the Church. It is difficult to see how 
 anyone can admit this statement without thereby 
 admitting also that continuance of establishment 
 must be dependent on the continuance of the 
 national will to establish. There is no ground 
 on which establishment can claim to outcast the 
 national will. The divine character of the Church 
 does not constitute a divine obligation on the 
 nation to maintain a particular political attitude 
 towards it. An unestablished Church is not of 
 itself, ipso facto, a political sin. 
 
 The Church, if it be a small minority of the 
 nation, can claim no divine right to be " estab- 
 lished " in despite of the nation. " Establish- 
 ment" is a national act, and national acts depend 
 necessarily upon national will. National will can 
 mean only the will of the clear majority of the 
 nation. There may be, no doubt there is, an 
 immoral rashness in rushing into large revolu- 
 tionary changes on the basis of a narrow, a 
 doubtful, or a temporary, majority. But given 
 a majority at once large, indisputable, and un- 
 hesitating, on the side of disestablishment, and
 
 8] ON THE NATIONAL WILL 161 
 
 it seems to me that, upon that hypothesis, there 
 is no ground of claim which could be raised from 
 any other source for continuance of establish- 
 ment. If this is true and to me it seems little 
 else than a truism I submit that it is most 
 desirable for truth that it should be clearly dis- 
 cerned and avowed by Churchmen. I can only 
 maintain a true defence of establishment by clearly 
 detaching myself from such lines as are false. 
 It is desirable to sweep away all vestige of sus- 
 picion that we try to maintain establishment, as 
 if by inherent right of divine appointment, upon 
 any directly supernatural sanction. We have no 
 right to maintain it, except by persuading the 
 political majority, on political grounds, that it 
 is their political wisdom not to let it go. I desire 
 that not only the national power, but the national 
 right to the power, should be freely and fully 
 admitted. 
 
 Once more, then, is it right to disestablish ? 
 and here let me introduce, in order to dismiss, 
 two or three considerations which do sometimes 
 present themselves as pertinent arguments but 
 which, I venture to think, are not adequate to 
 carry the conclusion. 
 
 First, then, the fact that I hold that disestab- 
 lishment ought to follow upon the will of an 
 undoubted national majority, is not for one 
 moment any legitimate reason for my so talking 
 or acting as to help to produce such a majority, 
 unless I, quite apart from the majority, think for 
 M
 
 162 REASONS FOR [No. 
 
 myself that disestablishment is the right course 
 and deliberately choose to adopt it as my own. 
 
 So, again, my conviction that, as a Churchman, 
 I ought impartially, or even willingly, to accept 
 disestablishment, carries me in itself no way 
 towards persuading me that, as a citizen, I ought 
 to disestablish. 
 
 Nor, again, does such a conviction, coupled 
 with a strong persuasion or forecast that sooner 
 or later disestablishment is "sure to come," 
 constitute, as yet, any justification for my help- 
 ing it to come. I have no right so to help it, 
 until I am persuaded that both I, and all other 
 good citizens, ought, upon the principles inherent 
 in true citizenship, to be, under the circumstances 
 which actually exist, disestablishers. 
 
 Further still : though I were honestly per- 
 suaded that disestablishment would be, in smaller 
 or in larger measure, a direct emancipation and 
 benefit to the highest interests of the Church, 
 not even so should I be justified in endeavouring 
 as a citizen to promote it so long as it could be 
 conceived that the advantage to the Church was 
 a loss to the nation. Only where the argument 
 took this form, namely, that disestablishment 
 is a gain to the Church, and therefore, through 
 the improved efficiency of the Church, an advan- 
 tage to the nation; only, that is, in its political 
 or national aspect, would even the gain of the 
 Church become an argument valid and adequate 
 for the purpose.
 
 8] DISESTABLISHING 163 
 
 Putting, then, considerations like these on one 
 side as inadequate, I endeavour once more to 
 approach the question on what grounds are we, 
 as citizens, to be persuaded that the existing 
 relation of the nation towards the Church is no 
 longer nationally desirable : that it would rather 
 be to the advantage of the nation to discontinue it. 
 
 Three distinct forms of possible answer occur 
 to me. 
 
 The conclusion would follow if I could be satis- 
 fied (i) that it is not desirable in itself that the 
 organisation of national life should have a reli- 
 gious basis, or any public relation to religion : 
 or (ii) that, though such a religious basis is in 
 itself desirable, yet the existing relation with this 
 particular body, known as the Church of England, 
 has become nationally detrimental, and ought to 
 be changed : or (iii) that though such a reli- 
 gious basis is in itself desirable, and though it is 
 admitted that the Church must be the established 
 body if there be one ; yet circumstances have 
 gradually brought it to pass that the total separa- 
 tion of the public polity from a public profession 
 of religion, though in itself naturally an evil, 
 is nevertheless the lesser of two evils ; and there- 
 fore, relatively, is not an evil, and is to be 
 desired. 
 
 With respect to the first and the second of 
 these alternatives, it is almost enough for the 
 present purpose to name them. The abstract 
 discussion of the first might lead far afield. But
 
 164 (i) NO RELIGIOUS BASIS [No. 
 
 in truth it is not a proposition which is likely 
 to commend itself to thoughtful Churchmen. I 
 venture to doubt whether it would present itself 
 as plausible at all if our imaginations were able 
 to realise more completely what it would mean. 
 So profoundly are we accustomed to the underly- 
 ing religious hypothesis in administrative govern- 
 ment, that we probably hardly realise how help- 
 ful towards what is good are these our half-un- 
 conscious national assumptions ; or how much 
 harm would follow from the sudden avowal that 
 the whole machinery of national life was, and was 
 meant to be, deliberately non-religious. And, 
 in any case, such a theory of government, adopted 
 on principle as the best and truest, seems to me 
 to degrade enormously the whole conception of 
 the nature and function of government. If 
 government is understood to be merely a sort of 
 laborious police committee, the inference may 
 perhaps logically follow. Certainly for my own 
 part I have still far too profound a reverence for 
 the meaning of government on its ideal and 
 sacred side to regard the necessity of its separa- 
 tion (if necessity there be) from a publicly avowed 
 basis of religion any otherwise than as matter 
 of profound regret. I have, moreover, the satis- 
 faction of being able to believe that the more 
 secular and degrading conceptions of the function 
 of government are already becoming, from a 
 variety of causes, more and more generally dis- 
 credited.
 
 8] (ii) A STATE-MADE RELIGION 165 
 
 The second proposition, that the nation should 
 in some way establish religion, but should not 
 establish the Church, may take either of two 
 different forms. It might mean, first, that the 
 nation should adopt and establish some other 
 religious body, whether Roman, Wesleyan, 
 Baptist, Unitarian, or any other, in the place of 
 the Church : or, secondly, that without adopting 
 any body that exists, it should endeavour to create 
 for itself, by State enactment and definition, a sort 
 of establishmentarian organisation, a body, under 
 whatever religious claim or title, which would be, 
 in fact, a merely political creation, the outcome 
 of the sagacity of parliamentary compromise. 
 
 The former of these two alternatives may, for 
 practical purposes, be dismissed. The latter is 
 not by any means an imaginary peril. It has 
 been the ideal of able men. It is not displeasing 
 to the instinct of a considerable number. The 
 history of religious education for the last half- 
 century has brought us apparently, in that de- 
 partment, almost within sight of the verge of its 
 abyss. But, for the present purpose, I must be 
 content to say of it only two things. 
 
 First, then, whatever existence it may have 
 politically, it can never have any existence as a 
 religion whatever. It may be a possibility, 
 temporarily at least and within somewhat narrow 
 limits, for bodies which have real existence 
 on a really religious basis to compromise for 
 certain purposes and work together politically,
 
 166 IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY [No. 
 
 or even in a measure religiously, on positive 
 lines which are common to them all. It may be 
 a possibility, though, as I am convinced, no more 
 than a perilous possibility, and a limited, and a 
 temporary one. But for a religion, or a religious 
 body, to be created by the enactment of political 
 majorities is a total impossibility ab initio. And 
 it is to be remembered that whatever Parliament 
 had made, Parliament could freely vary, or un- 
 make. The new creature would, therefore, be in 
 its ultimate essence the mere breath of a hetero- 
 geneous national majority, the ghost (as it 
 were) of the kaleidoscopic fancy of a perverse 
 and ignorant world. If, on such terms, it is 
 indeed possible that a body might be created, 
 certainly it would never have a religious exist- 
 ence at all. 
 
 And, secondly, I will say that, even if it were a 
 religious possibility, it could be, to the mind of a 
 Churchman, nothing but horror. If indeed such 
 an attempt were ever contemplated in serious 
 politics, Churchmen at all events would be com- 
 pelled to demand, in a tone and temper utterly 
 unlike anything that they have been called upon 
 to use hitherto, that it should utterly let the 
 Church alone. Any attempt by political means 
 to coerce the Church into part or partnership 
 with it, would be, to a Churchman, the worst 
 kind of sacrilege. Better the establishment of 
 the least orthodox of Protestant sects ; better, a 
 thousand times, an absolute national neutrality
 
 8] AND A SACRILEGE 167 
 
 about religion, than the horrible mockery and 
 degradation of the very conception of the Chris- 
 tian Spirit, which is involved in the bare idea 
 of an avowedly Parliamentarian Church. This, 
 to a Churchman, is the enemy indeed. This is 
 not merely exclusion, or contempt, poverty, or 
 hardship, or persecution. Such things as those 
 are not, to the life of Christ's Church, wholly 
 uncongenial. But this is a sacrilegious parody of 
 her essential holiness. The attempt to make use 
 of her position as politically established in order 
 to compel her to submit her very being to the will 
 of the world, is not injustice merely, or persecu- 
 tion, but outrage. A Churchman may be in- 
 different to disestablishment, may even smile at 
 persecution or martyrdom ; but the attempt to 
 turn the very being of the Church into dishonour, 
 an attempt which, if per impossibile it could be 
 conceived to be successful, would literally destroy 
 her out of being, is an attempt which he would 
 feel it a sort of blasphemy in himself to witness 
 without a passion of resentment. 
 
 But there remains the third of the three pro- 
 positions mentioned above. And this one, no 
 doubt, is for us the most practically important of 
 the three. We suppose it, then, to be urged 
 upon us that the course of events has brought 
 about a national condition, in which it is the truer 
 and more upright course, however little it may be 
 ideally desirable, to separate, frankly and com- 
 pletely, the entire fabric of national administration
 
 168 (iii) RECOGNITION OF THE FACT [No. 
 
 and government from any national profession of 
 religion. 
 
 Thus, assuming now that the only practicable 
 profession of national religion is the maintenance 
 of the establishment of the Church, there is the 
 obvious fact that the Church is not, any longer, 
 even approximately, coextensive with the nation ; 
 and that, if the nation nationally professes Church- 
 manship, there is a necessary, and a considerable, 
 unreality in the profession. Moreover, as there 
 is an obvious lack of right in the Church to 
 claim to represent the entire community, 1 and an 
 obvious element of unreality in the complete 
 national profession of Churchmanship ; so, too, 
 in detail, the maintenance of the official pro- 
 fession does involve us, from time to time, in 
 scenes of painful religious unreality. We have 
 indeed swept away the profanations familiar in 
 former time through the use of the Holy Com- 
 munion as a civil qualification, or test; and we are 
 becoming accustomed, more and more, to judges 
 of assize who are not Churchmen, or mayors 
 
 1 I am aware that this has been met with the reply that if, in the fact 
 of the establishment of the Church, we allow what is only a majority to 
 stand as the public representative of the whole, this is only what we not 
 merely tolerate, but maintain as a fundamental principle in the working of 
 our political system. For it is a necessary result of the system of party 
 government, that the actual government, which is at any moment in 
 power, is really representative of the opinions only of a majority. Inas- 
 much, however, as it is plain that the equity of government by party 
 depends upon the explicit recognition beforehand of the perfect equality of 
 rights of the different parties, and that every shifting of majorities shall be 
 forthwith a shifting of governments, I must say that the theory of Estab- 
 lishment defended by this parallel seems to me to have little relation to 
 the existing status of the English Church.
 
 g] THAT CHURCH AND STATE 169 
 
 who (it may be with doubtful political propriety) 
 parade their official dissent from the official 
 Church, or public officers, of one grade or another, 
 who are not qualified to take public oaths ; but, if 
 such changes diminish the flagrant insincerity, 
 they do so only by making it so much more 
 manifest that the public Churchmanship is the 
 Churchmanship really of only a portion of the 
 public. Again, the unreality in question is no 
 merely curious defect in logical symmetry, such 
 as distresses no one, and is but racy of English 
 political growth. It does in fact give rise to 
 various misconceptions, jealousies, heartburn- 
 ings, which go to create a movement towards 
 disestablishment, such as, from time to time, in 
 one detailed form or another, has long engaged 
 the attention of politicians. 
 
 Considerations like these, then, go to suggest 
 that the maintenance of a public profession of 
 Churchmanship is less and less, in fact, either 
 true or politic. Thus the conclusion that ''dis- 
 establishment " has become, under the circum- 
 stances, right and wise, would follow simply as 
 the honest recognition of the plain (if deplorable) 
 fact that the nation is too much religiously 
 divided to be able any longer to retain any single 
 corporate religion ; and Churchmen, advocating 
 disestablishment on these grounds, would be to 
 be blamed, if at all, not because they recognised 
 the fact, or allowed its legitimate consequences, 
 but only in so far as their own shortcomings as
 
 170 ARE NO LONGER IDENTICAL [No. 
 
 Churchmen had allowed the fact to become a 
 fact at all. It is to be observed, moreover, that 
 this acquiescence in the practical impossibility, 
 under the circumstances, of a corporate national 
 religion, is not incompatible with a general 
 national desire for religiousness. It is indeed 
 greatly to be doubted whether a broadly irre- 
 ligious movement for disestablishment would, 
 under the circumstances which exist at this 
 moment, have very much chance of coming 
 within the sphere of practical politics at all. 
 
 Such, in general, will be the character of the 
 argument. Are we to acquiesce in its conclusion ? 
 This, I submit, would be somewhat hasty travel- 
 ling. We have hardly, at all events, reached 
 that point yet Nevertheless, if the question is 
 rightly put in this fashion at all, as I believe it to 
 be, it has become plain that it is essentially a 
 question of degree and detail, rather than one 
 simply of principle, and arguments which ignore 
 the reality of the case for disestablishment, and 
 treat it as if it were simply immoral or wrong, 
 must, from this point of view, be felt to be in- 
 effectual, because not quite relevant to the truth. 
 
 For good or for evil, we have advanced a 
 considerable way from the old possibility of 
 assumption of the identity of Church and State, 
 which was the natural basis for establishment. 
 It may be held that the divergence has proceeded 
 so far, in fact, that disestablishment has become 
 the only right course. There is nothing immoral
 
 8] A QUESTION OF DEGREE, 171 
 
 in such contention, which at least has an obvious 
 prima facie case. On the other hand, it may be 
 held that the divergence in fact, though real, yet 
 is not such as to justify disestablishment : that 
 the national disadvantages in maintaining estab- 
 lishment on its present basis are at the most far 
 less than those which would necessarily follow 
 from any measure of divorce, at the present 
 moment, between Church and State. 
 
 But what I am concerned at this moment to 
 insist, is that this question is a question essen- 
 tially of degree it depends upon a mass of 
 evidence in detail. 
 
 The moment it is understood to be in this 
 sense a question of degree, a multitude of con- 
 siderations in detail come in, which would not 
 strictly have been relevant before ; and about 
 which few people probably have at present quite 
 adequate knowledge for a final judgment. 
 
 The question of numbers becomes an important 
 one. What proportion of the people are Church- 
 men ? what Dissenters ? what indifferent to 
 religion ? What proportion of Dissenters feel a 
 serious grievance, or make a serious demand for 
 disestablishment? How far is the grievance 
 that exists religious, or social, or political ? 
 How far is the agitation against establishment a 
 genuine movement ? How far is it rather a manu- 
 factured agitation, the work of a discontented 
 minority making a noise disproportionate to their 
 real numbers and importance ? Again, what
 
 172 OF NUMBERS AND FEELINGS, [No. 
 
 sort of motives are at work in it? Assuming 
 that in this, as in every cause, there are good 
 motives and bad, honest agitators and dishonest, 
 how large a part is played by the dishonest agita- 
 tors or the discreditable motives ? 
 
 Again, even upon the quite untenable assump- 
 tion that all cry for disestablishment is honest, 
 and all motives creditable, what is the comparison 
 between these, at their best and greatest, which 
 disestablishment would satisfy, and those, on the 
 other hand, which disestablishment would out- 
 rage ? I said just now there were heartburnings 
 against establishment which had long been well 
 known to statesmen as elements in the political 
 condition. And certainly, on the other hand, 
 though the fact may be less aggressively familiar, 
 there are hundreds of thousands of Churchmen 
 to whom disestablishment would cause not heart- 
 burnings only, but such sense of outrage and 
 insult, as no wise politician can afford to despise. 
 I speak of men who do not admit the things 
 which I have admitted, who do not even see that 
 disestablishment is so much as arguable. I am 
 not agreeing with them. But if politicians are 
 listening to the sound of jealousies and griev- 
 ances, and are inclined to be by them persuaded 
 that the time is ripe for revolutionary political 
 changes, I would certainly have them pause at 
 least to give full weight to those other and, it 
 may be, more widespread and bitter grievances, 
 which are not eloquent now because they do not
 
 8] OF THE POLITICAL TENDENCY, 173 
 
 yet exist, but which might spring in a moment 
 into formidable life, if such a change were pre- 
 maturely and unwisely made. No doubt on a 
 point of this kind I have little right to an opinion, 
 yet for my own part I cannot but surmise that 
 the grievance to be allayed would pale into 
 absolute insignificance in comparison with that 
 which would be created, if disestablishment were 
 to be carried into effect under anything like the 
 conditions existing at this moment. 
 
 I said at an earlier stage of the argument that 
 a persuasion that disestablishment was "sure to 
 come " would not justify a Churchman in helping 
 it forward, unless he believed himself that it was 
 right. But since then our context is somewhat 
 altered. In the present context, that is to say 
 after the distinct recognition that things have 
 advanced a certain way in the direction of 
 disestablishment, and that the essence of the 
 question is not, in abstract form, whether dis- 
 establishment is right or wrong, but whether the 
 conditions which make towards disestablishment 
 have, or have not, advanced so far as to make 
 its consummation desirable ; if, that is, it is a 
 question of measurement and of degree, it does 
 become relevant to consider, and to give weight 
 to, the general character and direction of pro- 
 gressive development. If we are persuaded that 
 for many generations past things have advanced 
 unswervingly, and that they cannot but continue 
 to advance, towards a consummation in which
 
 174 WHICH IS NOW CHANGING, [No. 
 
 government, as such, must be detached from 
 religion : this persuasion would go some way to 
 justify our setting our faces towards disestablish- 
 ment, and gently helping to pave the way towards 
 it, even (it may be) long before the time for its 
 accomplishment was ripe. But are we to be 
 persuaded of this ? Even if, for a long time past, 
 the development has seemed to be all in this 
 direction, is it so clear that the tide is not begin- 
 ning at this very moment to run with gathering 
 volume the other way ? Progress for a long time 
 past has seemed to identify itself with a steadily 
 increasing development of individualism. The 
 sacredness of the individual, and his liberty, and 
 his rights, and his opportunities this has been 
 its keynote, and its victorious achievements have 
 been towards this. But ideals of progress at this 
 moment seem more and more to be collective 
 ideals. It is the aggregate which is sacred. The 
 individual is to be, after all, for the sake of the 
 community. Government, which seemed on the 
 point of becoming utterly mechanical and secular, 
 begins to recover its sacred and mystic character. 
 Not the individual only, but the community, has 
 a moral responsibility ; and the people, the State, 
 if it is to be moral ultimately, must be somehow 
 corporately religious. I make no attempt to dis- 
 cuss positions like these. I would only ask, Are 
 not things like these in the air? Are they not 
 parts of the tendency and development of these 
 days? And if they are, of what sort are the
 
 8] AND THE LOSS TO THE NATION 175 
 
 corollaries which they naturally suggest on the 
 subject of religious "establishment"? Is it so 
 clear that the whole current is, and must be, 
 straight towards disestablishing ? 
 
 But whilst, for manifold reasons, the case for 
 disestablishment is not clear, there can, on the 
 other hand, be no question at all that there would 
 be very much and very direct loss in the inevit- 
 able throwing away of the national homage 
 towards God, the national corporate acknow- 
 ledgment of the Church of Christ. If I admit 
 that even this might become, through our sad 
 complications of dividedness, a political necessity 
 but only as a relative duty, as the lesser of two 
 evils ; what are we to think of its character, if 
 caught at in rashness, prematurely, when it was 
 in truth not the lesser of two evils, but, it may 
 be, immeasurably the greater ? The implications 
 contained in corporate national Churchmanship 
 are of great value anyhow. The national sacri- 
 fice in parting from them would in any case, even 
 if necessary, be very considerable. The responsi- 
 bility of making it in a spirit of national levity, 
 with all its reckless throwing away of history and 
 cutting to pieces of associations, the best prob- 
 ably and most deeply rooted, in many instances, 
 of all the associations which go to the growth of 
 our national English character, is a responsibility 
 which must which ought to make the lightest- 
 hearted grave. For if we did this thing without 
 need, on false motives, wrongfully, the penalty
 
 176 A MATTER, NOT OF PRINCIPLE, [No. 
 
 which we should nationally pay for our hastiness 
 would assuredly be neither light nor transient. 
 
 So far my object has been to put the question 
 of disestablishment in what I conceive to be its 
 true proportions, and on its true grounds. I 
 cannot express how anxiously I look upon an 
 attempt to organise the Church, ecclesiastically, 
 in protest against "being disestablished." I 
 cannot express how important it seems to me, 
 for practical purposes, to insist that the question 
 is a political one, and to preserve the Church, as 
 Church, from being wholly identified with either 
 side of an arguable political question. I cannot 
 say how much of clearness of thought seems to 
 me to turn upon shaping the question in an 
 active, not a passive, form ; or how fatal a result 
 I apprehend if the position taken by Churchmen 
 at this juncture should be one of undiscriminating 
 opposition to all "disestablishing," as though it 
 were, per se, irrespective of circumstances, an 
 immoral or ungodly proposal. I cannot but 
 believe, for my own part, that disestablishment 
 may only too easily be incurred, through the 
 error of the defenders themselves, if they resist it 
 on grounds in themselves untrue ; and I firmly 
 believe that the attitude which most completely 
 accords with truth is to admit that the question 
 is a real and arguable one, a question of mea- 
 surement and degree rather than of sweeping 
 principle ; that conditions do in some measure 
 already exist which suggest "disestablishment";
 
 8] BUT OF POLITICAL NECESSITY 177 
 
 that, as the years go on, it is fully possible that 
 it may become right for us to disestablish ; but, 
 nevertheless, to say that whilst it is very far from 
 certain whether that time will ever come or no, at 
 all events as things now stand, the case for dis- 
 establishing, involving so mighty a breach with 
 the national past, and so grave a responsibility 
 for the national future, falls far short of being 
 made out. 
 
 I could not but venture, to this extent, to for- 
 mulate my own conclusions. But I do not linger 
 upon the conclusion now. Not less important, 
 perhaps, even than the contention that the time 
 for disestablishment, if it should ever come, has 
 not come now, is the insistence that if, or when, 
 it so comes, it will come as in itself a thing un- 
 ideal, as a relative necessity, as a duty proceeding 
 out of, and attended by, very much that is to be 
 deplored. It will never be an ideal for its own 
 sake. I give prominence to this thought at this 
 point, because I am anxious to go on to a con- 
 sideration of the question of disendowment also ; 
 a question which I conceive ought not to be even 
 raised until the main lines of the position in refer- 
 ence to disestablishment are settled : not only 
 because it has itself no place except as a further 
 inference, upon the hypothesis of disestablish- 
 ment, but also because its treatment largely 
 depends upon the grounds upon which if upon 
 any disestablishment has itself been first ac- 
 cepted as right. 
 
 N
 
 178 THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE [No. 
 
 If ever, by and by, the nation should, rightly, 
 determine that continuance of " establishment " 
 has ceased to be nationally expedient, she will 
 of necessity do so, not in the interests of irre- 
 ligion, but although, if not because, she still 
 ardently desires religiousness, and still looks to, 
 and depends upon, religious bodies, and there- 
 fore especially the Church (which can never, I 
 trust, be less than the most important of religious 
 bodies within the nation), to do for her priceless 
 national services, services which while she can 
 never do them, as State, for herself, she owns to 
 be absolutely essential for her life. 
 
 The nation's act of disestablishing, on such a 
 basis as this, will be a more than respectful 
 separation of political and religious ideas ; a 
 separation animated by no shadow of desire that 
 the Church should be weakened thereby, but 
 rather by the fervent hope that she might con- 
 tinue as strong and effective as ever, nay, if 
 possible, more effective still and stronger, not 
 indeed for her own sake simply, but in the 
 interest of every legitimate object of administra- 
 tive government or of national life. 
 
 DISENDOWMENT 
 
 If ever the hour of disestablishment should 
 come, what are we to hold to be the real right 
 and truth in reference to disendowment? Is 
 the disestablished Church to continue, as of
 
 8] PROPERTY IS NOT ABSOLUTE 179 
 
 course, to hold all her property as before, with- 
 out interference from the State ; or does it follow, 
 as a consequence involved in disestablishing, 
 that the State which abolishes the political 
 status will also withdraw her historic endow- 
 ment from the Church ? 
 
 It is my desire to deal with this question, for 
 myself and for any other Churchmen who may 
 accept my reasoning, as far as possible with 
 exact fairness and truth. And I feel that I 
 cannot do so without saying a few words first 
 about the general conception of property and its 
 relation to the community as a whole. I must 
 begin by suggesting that no right of private 
 property is absolute. Within any organised 
 nation, however generally, or upon whatever 
 principles, rights of private property are in 
 ordinary cases respected, I suppose it is clear 
 that at least in exceptional instances, and for 
 adequate causes, the community does claim and 
 use an ultimate right to override all individual 
 rights whatever. Every Railway Act is, in some 
 measure, an instance of the exercise of this right. 
 The exclusive rights of a private owner, though 
 acknowledged, are not allowed to be carried to 
 a point at which, in the judgment of the com- 
 munity, they would directly contradict public 
 interest.. If there is any controversy about the 
 matter, the whole judgment lies with the com- 
 munity. It is true that the community thinks it 
 right so to exercise this right as to secure to the
 
 i8o IT DEPENDS ON THE SENSE [No. 
 
 owner, under normal circumstances of peaceful 
 government, adequate compensation for his com- 
 pulsory sacrifice. But even so, the conditions of 
 compensation are determined by the community. 
 The individual may be heard on his own behalf; 
 but he does not bargain with the community on 
 equal terms. And no one, I suppose, would 
 dispute that in cases more exceptional and 
 urgent the case of foreign invasion for example 
 the community would not hesitate, where it 
 seemed to be necessary, to treat any private 
 property whatever at discretion ; or that, if any 
 question of compensation should afterwards be 
 raised, the question would be absolutely settled 
 by the community itself. Whether full com- 
 pensation were given, or partial, or none at all, 
 would be wholly determined by the community 
 upon its own principles, and according to its 
 own circumstances. To these the owner would 
 absolutely have to submit. Moreover, whatever 
 opinions might be held as to the expediency or 
 justice of the decision made by the State in 
 particular cases, no one would think of disputing, 
 in principle, the right of the State to make its 
 decision for itself I do not mean its right to 
 decide without principles, but its right to decide, 
 on its own principles, what was right, without 
 reference to the consent of individual holders ot 
 property. 
 
 But if even this is true and I do not see how 
 it can be denied we seem to have got, in it, a
 
 8] OF NATIONAL EXPEDIENCY 181 
 
 principle at once of extreme importance for the 
 purpose. It appears to amount to nothing less 
 than this, namely, an explicit disallowing of any 
 theory which would make the right of property 
 in itself a sacred thing, valid, as if upon a sanc- 
 tion directly divine, in the face of all gainsayers. 
 It is, on the contrary, unmistakably implied that 
 the best rights of property are relative, and that 
 there is an inalienable right in the community as 
 a whole, for adequate cause and under fitting 
 circumstances (of which circumstances and cause 
 the community must be the judge), to vary or 
 overrule them. But if we explicitly disallow an 
 inherent sacredness of right to private pro- 
 perty, what is the sanction upon which the 
 scrupulous maintenance of property really de- 
 pends? Probably the first and most obvious 
 thought that will present itself for reply will be 
 the thought of the national expediency of security 
 of property. There is no doubt that enormous 
 stimulus is given to every kind of activity by the 
 steady possibilities of profit ; and that anything 
 which was felt as a disturbance, great or small, 
 of the general security of industry and owner- 
 ship, would be politically inexpedient to the most 
 frightful degree ; indeed, that it would go a very 
 great way towards dislocating the whole fabric 
 of society by which alone civilised life is possible. 
 This is weighty enough. But is this all that we 
 have to say in reply ? Is the maintenance of 
 property rights to be exclusively based upon
 
 i8 2 AND ON THE DIVINE RIGHT [No. 
 
 political expediency? Is the worst that the 
 State can do towards private property only to act 
 inexpediently ? Is it impossible for it to act un- 
 justly? Is the word "wrong" only partially, or 
 indirectly, applicable to its possible acts of con- 
 fiscation for political purposes ? 
 
 Perhaps I need hardly argue in the abstract 
 that there is such a thing as national right, or 
 wrong, doing. We, for instance, are the suc- 
 cessors of the men who abolished slavery. It is 
 probable enough that in various ways, more or 
 less direct or indirect, that great act may have 
 more connection with our actual national well- 
 being than most of us would recognise ; but it is 
 perfectly certain that, at the time, the appeal 
 of those who promoted it must have been to the 
 national conscience of right and wrong, as such ; 
 any appeal then made to the hope of material 
 advantage, however much in the long run it 
 might be true, could not possibly have failed to 
 mislead. But whence came, in that case, and 
 whence comes in the case of property, that new 
 element which lifts the question above distinc- 
 tions merely of expediency into the atmosphere 
 of right and wrong ? 
 
 I must answer that, as a simple historical fact, 
 the development of the Christian conscience has 
 made certain fundamental ideas a necessary part 
 of the furniture of the minds of the men and the 
 nations which are products of Christianity. I do 
 not say that men or nations cannot possibly get
 
 8] OF THE INDIVIDUAL 183 
 
 rid of such conceptions as are essential to the 
 Christian evolution. But I do say that they can 
 be got rid of effectually only by a very gradual 
 process of deterioration ; the mere abjuring of 
 the Christian faith will hardly eliminate them for 
 many generations to come. Now, whilst I do 
 not admit that the inherent sacredness of 
 private property is to be found among these 
 essential conceptions, I must maintain that they 
 do nevertheless absolutely require that the in- 
 dividual personality should be treated with 
 reverent fairness. If the Christian revelation 
 is the highest ideal manifestation of the brother- 
 hood of humanity, that is, of the very crown 
 of collectivist or socialist aspiration, it is at 
 least as strikingly true, and as characteristic, 
 that it reveals, as nothing has ever revealed, 
 before or since, the divine sacredness of the 
 individual personality ; and that it is by magnify- 
 ing, not by suppressing, the reverence for the 
 individual that it works towards its ideal of 
 collective brotherhood. It was, as we all know, 
 many centuries before this essential truth of 
 Christianity gradually worked out in the con- 
 sciences of Christians the sense that slavery was 
 an absolute wrong. But there is no question 
 that, when the conclusion came, it came in this 
 form not another. And it will be long before 
 the consciences of Christianly descended nations 
 will be able to set up the slave-trade again, with- 
 out unmistakably knowing that in so doing they
 
 i8 4 TO FAIR TREATMENT: [No. 
 
 are guilty of no merely reactionary unwisdom, 
 but of an eternal wrong. 
 
 Now this deeply inwrought conception that 
 the individual has an absolute, a divine, right to 
 equitable and reverent treatment, has to be 
 worked in with the considerations of the national 
 expediency of security of property tenure before 
 we are able to describe aright the character of 
 any claim, against the nation, to private pro- 
 perty ; or of acts, on the other hand, of national 
 confiscation, to which public expediency might 
 appear, from time to time, to point. The 
 individual has no divine right to such or such 
 property, but he has a divine right to be treated, 
 in all matters, as equitably and reverently as 
 possible ; and therefore, so long as the system of 
 private property is held to be nationally expe- 
 dient, he has (not directly, but inferentially) a sort 
 of divine right not to have his property inter- 
 fered with, except upon such principles of equit- 
 able and reverent treatment as the circumstances 
 admit. The community which interferes with the 
 property of individuals, without reference to this 
 condition, a condition which is itself the pro- 
 duct of the evolution of the Christian conscience, 
 is guilty not only of inexpediency, but of 
 positive injustice. And I suppose it may be 
 added that there is at least a certain presumption 
 of such injustice in every case in which any one 
 individual property is interfered with, on excep- 
 tional principles, without obvious and overwhelm-
 
 8] CORPORATE PROPERTY 185 
 
 ing national necessity. At least, to overcome 
 the presumption of injustice, the case for interfer- 
 ence must be very strong. 
 
 Hitherto I have spoken simply of individuals, 
 and only so far of property-holding corpora- 
 tions, as their case may be assumed to come 
 under the same principles which apply to 
 individuals. 
 
 But I have now to point out that the presump- 
 tion of injustice which arises from any exceptional 
 intervention, in reference to property, on the part 
 of the State, is, or tends to be, somewhat less in 
 the case of a corporation than in that of a private 
 person. I do not of course mean that it must be 
 so in every instance. But a corporate body, 
 so far as it has legal rights, has them by political 
 permission in a sense in which it would hardly be 
 true to say the same of individuals. The State 
 has an option about recognising corporate bodies, 
 or allowing them publicly to exist, which it can 
 hardly have, in any similar sense, about the exist- 
 ence of those who are born its citizens. And 
 when they politically exist by virtue of the State's 
 permission, the State claims naturally a certain 
 power of positive superintendence and authorisa- 
 tion in regard to them, beyond the negative 
 restrictions with which it keeps the individual 
 life from illegality ; their conduct is felt to be 
 matter of public concern, as the (not illegal) 
 conduct of any private person is not : there is 
 felt to be in them always some element of the
 
 i86 HAS LESS CLAIM TO RESIST [No. 
 
 character of a public trust : a corporate body 
 which claimed the irresponsible discretion of an 
 individual with regard to its property would be 
 felt to be, ipso facto, an anomaly. This inherent 
 visitatorial power, based upon the fact that no 
 corporate body can exist, in a legal or property- 
 holding sense, except by continuous consent of 
 the State, makes it natural for the State to exer- 
 cise a revision over corporate properties which it 
 does not exercise over private possessions : and 
 for that very reason it is felt that the impolicy of 
 interference, on account of the risk of general 
 unsettlement and insecurity, which is near at 
 hand when the usages of private property are 
 touched, is at least more remote in case of the 
 public revision, by the community, of the tenure 
 of a corporate body. 
 
 Again, I must submit that the presumption 
 of injustice in a national overhauling of the 
 property and tenure of a corporate body tends to 
 diminish in proportion to the greatness of the 
 corporate body itself, and of the property held by 
 it. It is, I suppose, quite obvious that if, by 
 any combination of historical accidents it could 
 be conceived that any corporate body, existing 
 for any imaginable purpose whatever, should 
 have come to hold in its hands, say, four-fifths 
 of the entire total of the national wealth ; it would 
 become at once a pressing political necessity for 
 the nation to review, and to modify, a condition 
 of things so extraordinary and so perilous. Of
 
 8] REVISION BY THE STATE 187 
 
 course I have deliberately put an extreme and 
 even absurd case : but the very absurdity will 
 illustrate the truth which I want to point out. 
 The smaller the scale of the corporation and 
 its property, the more is it equitably possible, 
 other considerations apart, to treat it as a single 
 individual would be treated ; but the larger the 
 proportion of its property to the property of the 
 nation, the more does the whole question of its 
 property become, in equity, a national question. 
 
 Once more, the presumption of injustice, in 
 regard to such a corporate property, tends to be 
 less, not more, in proportion to the antiquity 
 of its title and tenure. I do not mean that it 
 is true, from beginning to end, to say that the 
 newer the title the better its authority : but I 
 have no doubt that it is true that, after a certain 
 lapse of time, every addition to the remoteness of 
 antiquity tends to produce an actual diminution 
 of stability. If any tenure of property in the 
 world could now be carried back to the great 
 political and economical settlement made by 
 Joseph in Egypt some 3,500 years ago, the pre- 
 sumption, from the mere fact of the date alone, 
 would be practically almost overwhelming against 
 its being applicable, or tolerable, under the altered 
 conditions of to-day. Perhaps it will be felt that 
 while this supposition is extreme, a tenure of 
 some 1,200 or 1,500 years would constitute a 
 wholly different case. Why different ? Will the 
 answer be because the earlier date belongs, in
 
 i88 NEITHER ITS SOURCE [No. 
 
 effect, to a really different world ; but the latter 
 falls within the limits of Christianity, and within 
 the limits of Christianity the conditions are 
 essentially unchanged ? I think that such a dis- 
 tinction would tacitly concede the very point I 
 am aiming at. It would imply that the value 
 of an ancient tenure was not based upon its 
 antiquity ; that it depended rather upon the con- 
 tinuity into modern time of such ancient con- 
 ditions as justified the original appropriation of 
 the property. And if so much is conceded as 
 this, I do not see how the further admission can 
 be withheld, namely that the remoter the time of 
 the original appropriation, the greater, prima 
 facie at least, is likely to be the task of showing 
 that the essential conditions are unchanged. 
 
 And here perhaps I may venture to suggest 
 that the circumstances of the historical origin 
 of such a property hardly appear to me to be 
 a consideration so crucial for determining the 
 rights of the community in respect of it, as they 
 are often thought to be. In the case of a private 
 individual, indeed, I doubt whether they are 
 material at all. Suppose, for instance, that the 
 property left behind by the conqueror of Blen- 
 heim was based, in the main, upon grants from 
 Queen Anne and her parliaments. I fail to see 
 that such a fact would confer upon the nation the 
 least moral right to treat it in any exceptional 
 manner now. The ultimate right to revise or 
 overrule, if necessary, is (I submit), upon this
 
 8] NOR ITS DEDICATION TO GOD 189 
 
 hypothesis, exactly what it is in every other case 
 of private property neither more nor less. I do 
 not say as much as this of corporate property. 
 But I should neither concede, on the one hand, 
 that a public, or even a parliamentary, origin of 
 a corporate property would be adequate proof, 
 in itself, of unlimited national right to control or 
 cancel : nor, on the other, that the fullest proof 
 of an origin wholly private would carry the pro- 
 perty, for a moment, beyond the reach of inherent 
 national rights. 
 
 There is yet another, and perhaps a more 
 serious, application to be made of this sort of 
 thought. As the question does not seem to me 
 to be foreclosed by the legal circumstances of the 
 origin of the property ; so neither does it by the 
 simple fact either of the holiness of the motive 
 or the divineness of the purpose for which the 
 property was originally given. Whatever natural 
 rights in respect of it would have validly existed 
 otherwise are not estopped merely by the fact of 
 a dedication, once for all, to the service of God. 
 If a pious landlord should spend ,1,000 a year in 
 maintaining a chapel, chaplain, choir, schools, 
 etc., on his estate for the glory of God, this fact 
 would not take away from his descendants their 
 natural discretion as to the perpetuation of the 
 expenditure, nor make it sacrilegious in them, 
 under altered circumstances, to arrange their 
 property otherwise. Should he leave money in 
 trust for such a purpose, there would be, of
 
 igo EXCLUDE REVISION: [No. 
 
 course, a legal barrier to their discretion : but 
 inasmuch as the difference would be legal rather 
 than moral, no charge either of sacrilege or 
 wrong need necessarily lie against those who 
 should seek or obtain, for adequate reasons, a 
 legal removal of the legal impediment. Any 
 suggestion that a dedication once for all to God's 
 service makes God so the owner (in the human 
 sense) of a property that it cannot, without 
 sacrilege, be diverted from divine use for ever, 
 suggests (I own) nothing to me so directly as the 
 warning word " Korban." I cannot admit, then, 
 that the plea, " This was dedicated to the service 
 of God," is of very great weight, by itself, to 
 bar any natural rights that may exist. It is 
 obvious, of course, that the plea, if it takes the 
 form, " This was meant to do, and has been doing, 
 and is continuing- to do conspicuous service to the 
 cause of God in the world," is at once altered in 
 character. The very alteration is for my present 
 contention significant. And if it should take the 
 further form, " This is doing such service to 
 religion as to be of priceless value to the 
 community," the plea, if made out, is of over- 
 whelming force not to prevent the community 
 from raising the question of its continuance, but 
 to persuade it to determine the question, when 
 raised, on the side of continuing. But this of 
 course is a wholly different thing from a 
 claim of divine ownership, which it would 
 be sacrilege even to call in question. I cannot,
 
 8] THE PECULIAR CASE 191 
 
 however, pass away from this thought with- 
 out the remark, to which I may have to refer 
 again later on, that things not wrong in them- 
 selves may be wrongly done. What is not 
 sacrilegious in itself may too easily become 
 sacrilegious in the doing. 
 
 Now all the things which I have said hitherto 
 it has been possible to say in an abstract form. 
 Though they are said, of course, with a view to 
 the Church of England as endowed, their truth 
 does not depend upon anything specially distinc- 
 tive of the established Church. I have, there- 
 fore, still to raise one consideration which these 
 more general principles do not touch. 
 
 From the beginning of English history the 
 Church has been, in fact, "established" in 
 England. In the fact of establishment she has 
 (without alteration of her essential life) acquired 
 a secondary existence of a political kind. Qua 
 Church, she is a spiritual body, of divine consti- 
 tution and life. But qua Establishment, she has 
 become a political body also. In a sense, no 
 doubt, every spiritual association is political also, 
 directly it has an existence recognisable by the 
 State, directly, for instance, it owns any property 
 at all. But the Church, qua established, has 
 had, and has, a political existence of very much 
 more developed character than this. As a 
 political body she has been conterminous and 
 co-ordinate with the State : I will not say poli- 
 tically created to be, but politicially accepted
 
 i 9 2 OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, [No. 
 
 as being, the authorised presentment of the 
 religious life of the nation ; and therefore, so 
 far, capable of being described as an aspect of 
 the national existence. The corporate body of 
 the nation, religiously organised as Church, has 
 represented, no doubt, very different ideas and 
 sanctions from those expressed by the corporate 
 body of the nation as State. Nevertheless, in 
 both cases the actual corporate body has been, 
 in idea, at least the same one corporate body. 
 If, then, the Church, being (not essentially but) 
 in this secondary or political sense a presentment 
 of the religious aspect of the State, received and 
 held corporate property, the question may be 
 asked whether she held this property simply in 
 her proper character as Church, without refer- 
 ence to the fact that politically she was also the 
 religious presentment of the State, or simply 
 as the State in its religious aspect, without 
 reference to her own essential independence as 
 Church. It may well be, indeed, that the 
 question could not possibly be answered : for 
 by the hypothesis, neither alternative without the 
 other could be absolutely true. Nevertheless, 
 "disestablishment" is a raising of the question ; 
 and the question so raised must be dealt with, 
 even though no answer simply given may be 
 quite the whole truth. Is this property the 
 property of the Church, as such, however widely 
 the Church may be sundered from the State ? or 
 the property of the State, as such, of the State
 
 8] ONCE IDENTICAL WITH THE STATE 193 
 
 (no doubt) for Church purposes, while the State 
 still chooses to be, in one aspect, one with the 
 Church, but still of the State ultimately, sup- 
 posing 1 the Church aspect of the State should 
 come to an end ? and those who at different 
 times have conferred wealth on the Church, 
 whether kings, or public councils, or private 
 men, how far did they in every case endow, or 
 intend to endow, the Church whether nationally 
 established or not, or the Church because she 
 was nationally established ? 
 
 It has seemed to some minds that because it is 
 difficult to claim either of these propositions as 
 absolute truth, therefore the truth must lie 
 nearer possibly to one than to the other, but 
 still somewhere between them : and that, if the 
 truth lies between them, it would follow that, in 
 the case of this particular corporate property, the 
 State may claim not only on general principles 
 an ultimate oversight, but something approach- 
 ing, more or less, to a joint ownership. How, 
 it is asked, can we suppose that the property 
 would have grown as it did, or would have been 
 preserved as much as it has been, except upon 
 the hypothesis of the identity of the Church and 
 the State, except, that is, by virtue of the contri- 
 bution of the political guarantee, worth practically 
 (if indirectly) no small sum of money, for which 
 the Church is indebted to the State ? And if, 
 after all these centuries of identity, the union 
 is at last to be dissolved, ought not the State, as 
 o
 
 194 THE RIGHT OF THE STATE [No. 
 
 < 
 in the case of a dissolution of partnership, to 
 
 claim at the least some, perhaps indeterminable, 
 mixedness of ownership with the Church ? 
 
 I cannot but think it well worth while to put 
 this case, not only because some such feeling has 
 a place, in fact, in many minds, but also because 
 I am persuaded that there is in it some element 
 at least of truth, which it would be perilous for 
 us to ignore. 
 
 For the present moment, however, I merely 
 make use of this thought as a sort of climax to 
 the considerations going before : and upon them 
 all I must certainly say for myself that, in the 
 event of the great political change known as 
 'disestablishment, I concede, ex ammo, that the 
 State would have not only the power, but the 
 right, not only the right, but the duty, to go most 
 fully into all the details involved in determining 
 the question of disendowment. So far from 
 being able to agree in any claim that all question 
 of property should be left alone, as if either 
 sacrilege or robbery or injustice would be neces- 
 ,sarily involved in touching it, I should rather 
 .hold that it would be a palpable dereliction of 
 .duty on the part of the community to let that 
 .mighty revolution take effect without trying to 
 get, even painfully, to the bottom of the question 
 of the .continuance of the endowments, as a com- 
 plex question of the highest political responsibility. 
 I concede,. moreover, that whatever exaggeration 
 there may be in simply calling Church endow-
 
 8] TO REVIEW BEING CONCEDED, 195 
 
 ments national property, there is some exaggera- 
 tion also in simply denying that they are national 
 property at all. The phrase requires, indeed, to 
 be examined most carefully : the more so because 
 it is at once both passionately asserted and 
 passionately denied ; and those who assert and 
 those who deny alike, do so with conscience of 
 a truth, and the certainty that nothing which 
 contradicts them can itself be perfectly true. 
 
 But, after all, though it has seemed to me 
 important to say these things, they are but pre- 
 liminary to the main question. Is it, then, or is 
 it not, upon all the data, expedient, or right, that 
 the property, in whole or in part, should be 
 diverted from the disestablished Church ? 
 
 Again, in this question, as in the previous one 
 about disestablishing, I must insist that the 
 active form is the only form in which it ought 
 rightly to be put. We approach the question 
 as citizens, as part of the voice and conscience 
 of the nation which has to determine it. The 
 question is not whether we, as Church, ought to 
 suffer disendowment. The Church, as Church, 
 is in such matters necessarily passive ; accepting 
 justice with gladness, and injustice with patience, 
 but in either case accepting, as of course. The 
 question is, whether we, as State, ought or 
 ought not, on the hypothesis of disestablishment, 
 to determine to disendow. If we had nothing 
 to do with the matter except as Churchmen, we 
 should have no question to determine at all. If
 
 196 THE QUESTION IS [No. 
 
 we had nothing to do with the matter directly, 
 as Churchmen, but indirectly only as helping to 
 influence the judgments of those who were to 
 determine it, the question we should try to deter- 
 mine indirectly in them would still be the ques- 
 tion in its active form, whether they were, or 
 were not, to disendow. But, as it is, we have 
 not an indirect, but a direct responsibility, in 
 determining a question which is laid upon our- 
 selves : a question, moreover, of which I will 
 venture to predict that it depends upon Church- 
 men-citizens to settle in this sense at least, that 
 it will not, for many generations at all events, be 
 settled against the clear conscience and voice of 
 united Churchmen. 
 
 If the question were merely "Ought we to 
 submit to disendowment ? " there would be much 
 to be said for the answer "aye," which must 
 now be dismissed as irrelevant. The question 
 laid upon us is a graver one than this, namely, 
 " Ought we, all things considered, in conscience 
 and in truth, to take ourselves a part in dis- 
 endowing? " 
 
 Now when the question is raised in this, its 
 true form, it seems to me obvious to suggest at 
 once that the true answer must, in the main, 
 depend upon the grounds for disestablishing. 
 
 Thus, if it should be determined to "dis- 
 establish " the Church on the ground that the 
 nation had changed its mind about religion, and 
 thought Church doctrine and morality hurtful to
 
 8] 'OUGHT WE TO DISENDOW?' 197 
 
 the State, I think that the public relation to the 
 property is such that the case would be very 
 strong for refusing to listen to any plea that it 
 should still be left in the hands of the discarded 
 corporation, and for insisting upon its transfer, 
 in large part at least, to other and more valuable 
 purposes. I mean, of course, that on such a 
 hypothesis the State would be not only likely, 
 but right to divert the property in greater or less 
 degree. Those, therefore, who really hold this 
 to be the case are consistent, upon their premisses, 
 in disendowing. To a Churchman-citizen, how- 
 ever, this hypothesis is itself impossible. If a 
 majority of others adopted it, however right they 
 might be on their own premisses, he could merely 
 be in the position of submitting to a wrong. 
 
 But if ever the time should come when dis- 
 establishment should be accepted as the right 
 course, even by Churchmen, on a ground very 
 different from this : because, as suggested above, 
 the dividedness of national religion had reached 
 such a point as to make establishment, though 
 ideally as desirable as ever, yet no longer fairly 
 justifiable, and this is the only ground (as I 
 conceive) on which real Churchmen have a right 
 to become disestablishers, what would be the 
 practical meaning of the situation ? The nation, 
 if it acted on this hypothesis, would not desire 
 irreligion, but religion. Even for its own essen- 
 tial national.. life, it would earnestly desire the 
 highest possible welfare, and the most effective
 
 198 THE NATION WOULD DESIRE [No. 
 
 practical success, as of other religious bodies 
 within the State, so, not least emphatically, of 
 the historical Church with which its own life had 
 been for so many centuries linked, and from 
 which it had at last severed itself, not for sever- 
 ance sake, but under necessity ; not in contempt 
 and hostility, but with reverence and regret. 
 
 Now in case of a separation, such as this, of 
 Church and State, every possible motive would 
 exist for the most reverent and sympathetic 
 treatment of the separated Church, which was 
 compatible with equity. The single fact, itself 
 felt as a pity, that it seemed right to sunder the 
 national organisation from the Church, would, if 
 anything, rather go to enhance, than to diminish, 
 the national desire for the Church's well-being. 
 It is obvious that it makes an enormous difference 
 in what way the question of disendowment is 
 raised. If the question should be raised in a 
 form which, assuming that disestablishment must 
 carry disendowment, merely asked, in disendow- 
 ing, first, how much, nevertheless, (if any) of the 
 property it might still be necessary to leave in 
 the hands of the Church, and then, what methods 
 the secular nation could most prudently devise 
 for the spending of the newly-gotten treasure ; 
 I fear that, human nature being what it is, 
 answers to questions so framed would have little 
 chance of being in accordance with any very dis- 
 interested principles of equity. But to me it seems 
 to be almost axiomatic that, if the question is
 
 8] THE CHURCH'S WELL-BEING 199 
 
 not decided according to disinterested principles 
 of equity* it is bound to be decHed amiss. Self- 
 interest, entering on this point into the national 
 decision, would be as a taint of poison, incom- 
 patible with healthiness. For the possibility of 
 a rightful decision to disendow, purity of motive 
 is a sine qua non. I submit, then, that the 
 question raised should rather be, assuming that 
 the disestablishing nation sincerely desired the 
 ; best success of the Church, and was bent upon 
 according her, in all equitable ways, the most 
 reverent treatment possible, how far, neverthe- 
 less, the truth of the highest national interest 
 or equity might demand and require that the 
 revenues so long occupied in Church work 
 should, in whole or in part, be diverted to some ; 
 purpose of more national importance for the 
 future. 
 
 If the revenues which the Church possesses 
 are regarded as being, in fact, the property of 
 the Church ; if the question to be decided is 
 therefore regarded as being, in the main, the 
 question of the attitude of the State as a whole, 
 at a moment of important political change, to- 
 wards the property tenure of an exceptionally 
 large, and reverend, and ancient corporation, 
 which has long held property within it : there 
 would be in, the first instance, as I conceive, an 
 equitable presumption that at least under the 
 circumstances just supposed the property of the 
 corporation would not be interfered with.
 
 200 IS HER PROPERTY TOO LARGE? [No. 
 
 There are two considerations, however, which 
 occur to me, either of which might rebut this 
 favourable presumption. These would be, first, 
 that the amount of property was so great, even 
 in relation to the total national wealth, that its 
 retention in the hands of a single corporation 
 would be in itself a cause of political or economical 
 risk to the welfare of the community as a whole. 
 I profess no knowledge of statistics. If this, or 
 anything like this, could be made out, I for one 
 should be ready to admit that the State was called 
 upon to interfere. But meanwhile it is difficult 
 to believe that there can be even a serious con- 
 tention of this. Again, the presumption might 
 be rebutted, if the amount of the property, with- 
 out being perilously large in proportion to the 
 wealth of the nation as a whole, were neverthe- 
 less so large as to constitute a foolish and mis- 
 chievous excess, in proportion to the value of the 
 work sustained by means of it. It is, I think, 
 both striking and pertinent to observe that any 
 such assertion as this would be nothing less than 
 a manifest absurdity. Large as the income of 
 the Church, regarded by itself, may seem to be, 
 it is a fact only too glaringly patent, that it is, 
 even miserably, insufficient for the mightiness of 
 the work which has to be done, and which in fact 
 is being done, by means of it. Nor would it be 
 easy to find a stronger form of testimony to the 
 value of the Church, as viewed even from with- 
 out, than this, that its work is so vast as to make
 
 8] THE CLAIM OF THE STATE 201 
 
 its actual endowments, in spite of any superficial 
 appearance of largeness, thus miserably, nay, 
 appallingly, inadequate : so inadequate that the 
 underpayment, not to say the actual poverty of 
 the clergy, though for many causes largely dis- 
 guised, has nevertheless itself, in the last few 
 years, been approaching to something almost like 
 a national problem. 
 
 In the face of these facts it would certainly 
 seem to me that, in the event of a disestablish- 
 ment conceived and carried out upon the hypo- 
 thesis sketched above, the balance of equity 
 would certainly lie not towards, but against a 
 national removal from the "disestablished" cor- 
 poration of whatever property could be fairly 
 regarded as having really belonged to the cor- 
 poration before. 
 
 But it is necessary to remember that there is 
 another hypothesis, the hypothesis that the 
 property was not, or was not altogether, the 
 property of the Church before, the hypothesis, 
 if not of an ultimate national possession, at 
 all events of a divided ownership with the 
 State. 
 
 Now I have been anxious to concede to the 
 uttermost (at the least for argument's sake) every- 
 thing that had, or might have, truth behind it. 
 For this reason I have felt constrained to admit 
 that there is something of real truth in the mind 
 of those who plead that endowments conferred 
 at different times and in different ways upon the
 
 202 TO A PART OWNERSHIP [No. 
 
 Church, while its identity with the State was, in 
 the minds of all, a matter of course, can hardly 
 be claimed as private corporate property in quite 
 the same sense as if they had been conferred 
 upon the Church as a separate, private, and 
 exclusively spiritual body. But if I concede that 
 there is exaggeration in such a claim on the 
 Church side, I must certainly insist that there 
 would be (to put it at the lowest) a similar 
 exaggeration if it were claimed upon the side of 
 the State, that the property had never been 
 either meant to be conferred, or conferred, in 
 fact, upon the Church, as Church, at all ; but 
 that it had always been, and that it is wholly 
 now, the property only of the nation, as such, a 
 property in which the Church, in the event of 
 disestablishment, would have no proper right or 
 interest at all. I fancy that historians could 
 make, if not a flawless, yet a fairly strong case 
 for thinking that the political character of the 
 Church, without having so much as is sometimes 
 assumed to do with its original aggrandisement, 
 became afterwards almost, if not quite, as effec- 
 tive in limiting, or alienating, as in conserving 
 its property. I fancy that no one except a 
 theorist, arguing a priori out of modern ideas, 
 could seriously contend that the Church alone 
 among ecclesiastical bodies, in spite of the age- 
 long devotion of the thousands who have striven 
 to dedicate of their lands or their wealth to her 
 service, is now and always was without property
 
 8] DOES NOT HOLD 203 
 
 of her own at all. Any such extremer form of 
 theory, therefore, which would claim all Church 
 endowment as property simply national, I must 
 put altogether aside. 
 
 Still there remains the theory that, however 
 impossible it may be to ascertain the proportions, 
 there is at all events some case for a claim on 
 either side : that there is really, therefore, a 
 divided ownership, and that in the event of 
 disestablishment, as in the case of a dissolution 
 of partnership, the true equity would be, by some 
 compromise, albeit in this case necessarily a 
 rough one, to recognise the justice of the case of 
 either claimant. 
 
 I am not prepared for my own part to contend 
 that such a view is without foundation; or to 
 speak in any strong language of those who would 
 endeavour to frame a serious policy upon such a 
 basis as this. Nevertheless, in a question of 
 infinite complexity, in which the one thing wholly 
 plain is the exceeding difficulty of exact truth, I 
 must say that I am not convinced that this is, after 
 all, what the justice of the matter really requires. 
 And certainly in some respects this language 
 requires careful scrutiny. Thus an analogy with 
 dissolution of partnership is at the most an im- 
 perfect analogy. The union, indeed, of a capital- 
 ist partner, who does no work, and a working 
 partner who brings no capital, is a familiar case. 
 If it could be contended that, in the union of 
 Church and State, the State had found the money
 
 204 ILLUSTRATIONS [No. 
 
 and the Church the work, the dissolution of 
 partnership might perhaps be carried out upon 
 intelligible principles of finance. But it will hardly 
 be urged, as matter of history, that Church en- 
 dowment means endowment simply conferred by 
 the State upon the Church. It would be, if less 
 simple, at least as plausible an interpretation of 
 their pecuniary relation to maintain that the 
 property was given to the Church by those who 
 gave it (amongst whom some more or less re- 
 presented the State) very largely upon the 
 strength of the State's guarantee. But this is 
 hardly a case of partnership. It is not that A 
 does the work, while B finds the capital. Rather 
 it is that A, without capital, sets himself to work, 
 with a subscription, perhaps, and the strongest 
 of recommendations from B ; and other owners, 
 one by one, gradually subscribe to enlarge and 
 maintain A's work, moved thereto partly by direct 
 affection for A, partly in deference to B (who 
 gives A his name and guarantee), and to A 
 because backed by B no one, it may be, dis- 
 tinguishing, or even knowing, how far he really 
 loved A for his own sake, or for B's because B 
 loved him. And in this case, if subsequently B 
 withdrew his support and insisted that A should 
 stand altogether alone, it would be very hard to 
 make any equitable statement of a claim on B's 
 part to the capital subscribed for A's work even 
 though he himself might, to some unknown 
 extent, have attracted the subscriptions, and
 
 8] OF THE RELATIONSHIP 205 
 
 might have been from time to time amongst 
 the subscribers. 
 
 Or suppose the case of an independent mediaeval 
 barony, or a modern African chieftainship. The 
 baron or chief introduces the Church its 
 priests, its bishop encourages, establishes, 
 supports them. He himself finds them a habita- 
 tion, builds them a church, and gives them gifts, 
 and encourages all his followers to do the same. 
 Gradually, by innumerable offerings, there is 
 built up an important, though, it may be, not 
 superfluous endowment for the ever increas- 
 ing work of the Church there localised. The 
 gifts, themselves in time and place countless, are 
 given, many of them, out of genuine gratitude for 
 spiritual benefit, to the Church and her work ; 
 some, on the other hand, from clan-feeling, and 
 mere loyalty to the lead of the chief. After some 
 generations, the descendants of the chief or 
 baron, for one cause or another, wholly withdraw 
 all patronage, friendship, or help. What then ? 
 It will perhaps be assumed that at least in any 
 imperfectly settled society, such as the words 
 chief or baron may suggest, the withdrawal of 
 favour will naturally be followed by despoiling. 
 Possibly : but for us the question rather is how 
 far, in the highest development of moral civilisa- 
 tion, with all its evolved conceptions of reverence 
 for every detail of personal right, with all its 
 evolved conscience of Christian equity, it is right, 
 and necessary for perfect justice, that the great
 
 206 DISENDOWMENT REQUIRES [No. 
 
 act of withdrawal of chief- and clan-friendship 
 that friendship which before it was withdrawn 
 was itself one great factor in the Church's en- 
 riching should constitute for either chief or clan 
 a claim to part possession in what had at least 
 been supposed to be the property of the Church. 
 I cannot help fancying that, at least in the cases 
 supposed (even if the withdrawal of countenance 
 were, more or less, unfriendly much more if it 
 claimed to be an act of conscientious and re- 
 spectful necessity), the pressure of any such claim 
 would be felt, by the conscience of civilised equity, 
 to be a retrograde and shortsighted step. And I 
 cannot help asking whether the cases, as sup- 
 posed, do not supply an analogy at least as 
 pertinent to our present question as any phrases 
 about joint property or dissolution of partnership : 
 whether, therefore, any claims in the direction of 
 disendowment, based on such phrases, are really 
 justifiable, after all, in the light of the highest 
 equity. 
 
 The question is fraught with difficulties in 
 detail. For perfect acquaintance with its con- 
 ditions a vast mass of antiquarian knowledge 
 would be requisite. It is possible that accumula- 
 tion of knowledge might alter the balance of 
 evidence as at present apparent. In such case, 
 I think I may fairly profess myself open to con- 
 viction. But meanwhile I must say that I am 
 not convinced. 
 
 Before I put my hand to a work so morally
 
 8] PURITY OF MOTIVES 207 
 
 perilous as "disendowing," I am quite sure that 
 I ought to be clearly convinced of its necessity. 
 This follows to me not only upon the true con- 
 servative principle that prescription and authority 
 have a right to prevail until the case for change 
 is certainly made out ; but because in this par- 
 ticular proposal there are risks of national 
 catastrophe which nothing, I believe, could 
 justify the nation in running, upon less than the 
 clearest conviction that conscience of equity 
 absolutely demanded them. The risk to the 
 nation that disendows is enormously great. It 
 is to be remembered that what is not immoral 
 in re may in modo very quickly become immoral, 
 and what is not sacrilegious in itself may easily 
 turn into sacrilege in the doing. 
 
 The real quality of such an act on the part of 
 the nation would depend ultimately, I suppose, 
 upon the purpose and meaning with which it was 
 done. What is the reality of the motive towards 
 it, of the meaning in it, with which we should 
 enter upon it, if we entered upon it now? No 
 doubt, in great and difficult political movements, 
 mixed and doubtful motives often, as it were 
 automatically, unconsciously, I had almost said 
 by a sort of professional necessity, clothe them- 
 selves as conscience. Is the inner heart of 
 this measure, both in those who propose it 
 and in those whom they conciliate by proposing 
 it, a genuine obedience to the prompting of con- 
 science and duty?
 
 208 THE DANGER OF [No. 
 
 But even if the original motive be, in the main, 
 pure, there is very much in the detail of what 
 would follow which might, only too imper- 
 ceptibly, turn to demoralising. It seems to me 
 abundantly clear that there is in no sense any 
 other great object of at all primary importance, 
 upon which there is anything like a call of 
 national necessity or conscience in this genera- 
 tion to be spending the endowments which have 
 hitherto been regarded as the property of the 
 Church. I do not, of course, say that objects, 
 of more or less interest, may not presently be 
 found. But if the Church should be disendowed, 
 the question will spring at once into existence, 
 as a new question not without its own special 
 embarrassments, how best the nation can spend 
 the fortune of which it has suddenly possessed 
 itself. This question itself makes appeal to, and 
 lets loose, a host of ignoble desires. It is in- 
 evitably fruitful in suggestiveness of evil. States- 
 men may try to minimise this evil by answering 
 the question as rapidly as possible, and making 
 believe that they have answered it before it has 
 arisen. But the conspicuous absence of any- 
 thing like an alternative use, which can even 
 seem to compare, for one moment, with the 
 dignity or sacredness of that use from which the 
 endowments would be transferred, makes the 
 question, with all its suggestiveness, to be already 
 present, as an inherent element, in any serious 
 proposal to disendow.
 
 8] NATIONAL DEMORALISATION 209 
 
 Moreover it is not only at first that the ques- 
 tion will present itself. More and more, the 
 working out of the details of any possible answer 
 or set of answers will tend to nourish and stimu- 
 late, progressively, the very feelings and motives, 
 the existence of which must frightfully imperil 
 the moral character of the entire proposal. The 
 moment the instinct of greed, the temper or 
 spirit of despoiling, was fairly awakened, and 
 men yielded to the natural pleasantness of divert- 
 ing a store of money to uses which immediately 
 touched themselves, I believe that the individual, 
 or country, or nation, which so accepted and 
 rejoiced in this comfortable sense of self-enrich- 
 ing, would be directly, through its handling 
 of the money, on a lower level morally. And 
 if to this pleasantness there should be added also, 
 albeit in the second instance (but increasingly 
 when it once has begun), some element of 
 jubilant, perhaps mocking, exultation over the 
 impoverishment of the Church, and the difficulties 
 and humiliation of Churchmen because they were 
 Churchmen : who will venture to say that the 
 policy entered upon, it may be with the fairest 
 promises, arguments, and hopes, might not 
 prove to have turned, imperceptibly, uncon- 
 sciously, irresistibly, to the consternation of its 
 sponsors, and the deep and abiding degradation 
 of the people, into a monumental act, after all, 
 of national immorality, perhaps even of national 
 sacrilege ? These certainly are not imaginary, or 
 p
 
 2io NO ADEQUATE CAUSE [No. 
 
 light, perils. They are not contingencies which 
 thoughtful-minded statesmen can afford to ignore. 
 Nor can measures of such vast and revolutionising 
 import as disendowment be entered upon, in light- 
 ness of heart, as experiments. I am far from 
 saying that a just or moral disendowment is 
 never conceivable. But if in this matter the 
 nation should, without adequate cause, upon 
 motives which either began, or ended, in greed 
 and levity, do rashly what really was wrong, 
 before God and man ; I cannot doubt that the 
 disaster to the national life, incurred thereby, 
 would be at once profound and irreparable. 
 
 I must, then, conclude by saying that, even 
 upon the hypothesis of disestablishment what- 
 ever I may hold that the Church should passively 
 accept in the way of "being disendowed," which 
 is emphatically not the question, I am by no 
 means yet convinced that it is nationally right 
 to disendow. I am open, indeed, to be convinced. 
 I am far from thinking that I have the whole 
 data before me. Complete judicial knowledge 
 of all that is involved would require innumerable 
 details of intricate, and often most obscure, 
 history, national alike and local, which are very 
 imperfectly known to most of us. By all means 
 let every possible form of responsible and serious 
 inquiry go on, searching out facts and accumu- 
 lating light upon this great question, whereof 
 nothing is quite so manifest as its immense com- 
 plexity. But till that large body of Churchmen
 
 8] HAS BEEN SHOWN AS YET 211 
 
 (upon whom, more than upon any others, the 
 determination of this great question does, I am 
 convinced, ultimately depend) have surer reason 
 than appears at present to be convinced that 
 truth and equity demand disendowment, I must 
 hold that it is their duty to refuse to disendow. 
 
 THE QUESTION OF WALES 
 
 After venturing to say so much in reference to 
 the subjects of disestablishment and disendow- 
 ment in general, it would seem undesirable to 
 conclude without a few words upon the special 
 question of Wales. It is assumed, in reference 
 to Wales, that disestablishment is to carry dis- 
 endowment. Indeed, there are strong reasons 
 for supposing that those who support the change 
 do so much more directly with reference to dis- 
 endowment than to disestablishment. I have no 
 doubt that this is beginning at the wrong end, 
 and that it exposes the entire movement, with 
 some justice, to suspicion. Solid reasons for 
 disestablishment are quite conceivable, and real 
 grounds for disendowing as a result of disestab- 
 lishment. But in no case whatever can the desire 
 to disendow become itself a legitimate ground 
 for disestablishing. I shall not, however, dwell 
 upon that now ; and after merely pointing out 
 that that which actually is proposed in Wales 
 appears to be, in fact, a disendowment, by the 
 method, and under the name, of disestablish-
 
 212 THE ARGUMENT FOR [No. 
 
 ment, I shall be content to go on, for the present 
 purpose, simply calling the proposal, as it calls 
 itself, a proposal for disestablishment. 
 
 What I do desire is to make one or two re- 
 marks upon the form of argument by which the 
 measure is urged upon us as an act of necessary 
 justice and right. Practically that argument 
 appears to be addressed to our thought in syl- 
 logistic form, thus : In any nationality in which 
 there is a clear national decision for disestablish- 
 ing, establishment ought to be abolished : Wales 
 is a nationality in which there is a clear national 
 decision for disestablishing : therefore in Wales 
 establishment ought to be abolished. 
 
 After what has been already said, I do not 
 desire to argue the major premiss : though I am 
 not sure whether it is sufficiently, as yet, beyond 
 the reach of argument to be generally accepted 
 as the major premiss of an important consti- 
 tutional argument. As to the minor, it will be 
 observed that it contains two assertions, both 
 of which are assumed, for the purpose of the 
 argument, to be truths beyond challenge. These 
 are, first, "Wales is a nationality," and secondly, 
 " In Wales there is a clear national majority for 
 disestablishing." Now it is necessary to insist 
 that both these statements are assumptions. 
 There is something to be said for each of them. 
 But there is also a good deal to be said against 
 both. They need both of them to be made good 
 by argument. Even supposing that careful argu-
 
 8] DISESTABLISHMENT IN WALES 213 
 
 ment could make them both good, assuredly 
 neither of them may be assumed at the beginning 
 of argument. 
 
 As to the first proposition, "Wales is a nation- 
 ality," it seems to me that those who try to watch 
 the whole controversy with dispassionate minds 
 have some reason to complain of the little effort 
 that is made, on either side, to examine seriously 
 into the truth or falsehood of this statement, upon 
 which the whole edifice of argument absolutely 
 depends. It is apt to be assumed, on the one 
 side, that because Wales is a distinct nationality, 
 therefore such and such things follow indisput- 
 ably. It is apt to be assumed, on the other, 
 that because Wales is not distinct, but an integral 
 part of a larger nationality, therefore certain 
 precisely contradictory conclusions must hold. 
 But though the cogency of either argument 
 depends wholly upon the original aye or no in 
 the fundamental assertion, strangely little effort 
 has been spent upon a serious examination of the 
 truth, or even the meaning of the assertion itself. 
 Is Wales a nationality ? What is meant by being 
 a nationality ? If it is true, what, and how wide, 
 and how varied, are the consequences which 
 follow from the truth ? I must own that it seems 
 to me quite an absurdity to suppose that, if the 
 proposition is true, it can be true for the purpose 
 of disestablishing the Church in that district, and 
 for no other purpose whatever. What national 
 prerogatives has Wales, or ought it to have, if it
 
 2i 4 IS WALES A NATION? [No. 
 
 is a nationality? It would be arguing in a circle 
 indeed to claim that it has a right to disestab- 
 lishment because it is a nationality ; and then 
 only to be able to define a nationality as that 
 which has a right to claim disestablishment. If 
 the plea is good at all, it must clearly be good 
 for a great deal more than this. I do not desire 
 to be understood as simply denying the claim. 
 Obviously there is a great deal more of real 
 meaning in claiming nationality for Wales than 
 there could be in a similar claim for Devonshire 
 or for Yorkshire. But whatever dim image of 
 truth may lie beneath the words, truth of a sing- 
 ularly indefinable kind, but still not without its 
 own magic of historical and poetical sentiment, 
 it is obvious that the assertion of distinct exist- 
 ence, as a fact of modern politics intended for 
 prosaic and practical use, is beset with enormous 
 difficulties. All that I am concerned at present 
 to do is to insist that when there is obviously 
 a good deal to be said on both sides, neither 
 party to the argument has a right simply to 
 assume its own view, as if it were self-evident. 
 The exact meaning, and the exact truth, of the 
 proposition that Wales is a nationality ought 
 to be fairly faced, argued out, and determined, 
 before either the proposition itself, or its con- 
 tradictory, is tacitly introduced into a syllogism 
 which is meant to convince. 
 
 Is there not, then, some reason to complain 
 that on neither side is the importance of this
 
 8] IS THERE, IN WALES, 215 
 
 necessary task appreciated at its proper value? 
 Of course each side is ready to proclaim, and 
 in some measure to argue for, its own view : but 
 has either seriously grappled with, or tried to 
 do justice to, the amount of truth which under- 
 lies the opposite case ? 
 
 Perhaps it may seem at first sight as if the 
 other assertion, " In Wales there is a clear 
 national majority for disestablishing," were at all 
 events safer as an assertion of fact. It will, no 
 doubt, be urged that an enormous majority of the 
 Welsh members of Parliament are in fact, and 
 were elected because they are, on the side of 
 disestablishment ; and, at the same time, that 
 the counting of elected members is the one con- 
 stitutional and legitimate method of testing the 
 real force of public opinion anywhere. The fact 
 about the Welsh members is, of course, undeni- 
 able ; but the accompanying doctrine, though 
 it is in some sense true, is not true to the extent, 
 or in the sense, which the argument requires. 
 
 Given a real, undisputed nationality entire, 
 independent, sovereign, legislating for itself with 
 the freedom at once and the responsibility of an 
 imperial people and I shall grant that it is as 
 unwise as it is unconstitutional to attempt to go 
 behind the verdict of the elections to Parliament. 
 But I cannot admit that it follows that it is in 
 any respect either unconstitutional or unwise for 
 the imperial nation, as a whole, in dealing with 
 any specific portion of the country, to refuse, if
 
 216 A NATIONAL MAJORITY [No. 
 
 need be, either to frame local legislation in 
 accordance with the most indisputable local 
 desire, or even to assume in all cases that the 
 local parliamentary majority is the only, or of 
 necessity the most trustworthy, evidence of the 
 nature or extent of local desire. It would be a 
 distinct abdication of imperial duty, if Parlia- 
 ment were to accept the principle that because 
 a parliamentary majority of the entire nation 
 cannot but be the ultimate arbiter of national 
 questions, therefore a parliamentary majority in 
 any portion of the nation ought of right to be 
 the final arbiter or the only evidence in all 
 questions locally raised. The mere fact that 
 Welsh disestablishment is proposed in the 
 Imperial Parliament, while it necessarily leaves 
 the responsibility of the decision upon imperial, 
 and not locally upon Welsh, members, at the 
 same time destroys the adequacy of the appeal 
 to the local parliamentary majority, as if it were 
 the only, or the final, evidence as to facts and 
 feelings in Wales. It is part of the wisdom and 
 duty of the Imperial Parliament to open its eyes 
 to every form of relevant evidence, not to close 
 them to all but one. 
 
 Even in the case of the sovereign nationality 
 the method of counting the elected members is 
 a rough method : it works unevenly ; a small 
 majority in the country may produce a large 
 majority in Parliament ; it is by no means im- 
 possible that a working majority in Parliament
 
 8] IN FAVOUR OF DISESTABLISHING? 217 
 
 may even be produced by an actual minority of 
 the total aggregate of voters. The parliamentary 
 verdict is, nevertheless, final, not at all because 
 it is perfect, but rather because its finality is a 
 kind of compromise, which in the case of an 
 imperial and responsible people it is more ulti- 
 mately dangerous to challenge than to accept. 
 Moreover, there are, in this case, at least two 
 palliating considerations : the one, that the very 
 fact that the nationality constitutes a whole, 
 manifold and complete, gives fair ground of hope 
 that mistake or disproportion in one part will be 
 counterbalanced by very different tendencies in 
 another ; and the other, that a sovereign Parlia- 
 ment, having of necessity to bear the full burden 
 of its own blunders by virtue of the very fact that 
 it is sovereign, is apt to acquire a deeper sense 
 of responsibility than a local and subordinate 
 council. 
 
 Until, then, it has first been settled that Wales 
 is a nation, I cannot admit the legitimacy of 
 either of these two propositions ; either, that is, 
 that the counting of its parliamentary members 
 is the only constitutional, or necessarily the best, 
 method of gauging the force of local conviction, 
 or that the local majority, even if it be conceded 
 in fact to the fullest extent, can therefore be 
 called a national majority. But the change of 
 adjectives would be fatal to the minor premiss of 
 the syllogism. Just try how it runs : In every 
 nation in which there is a clear majority for
 
 2i8 THE QUESTION OF [No. 
 
 disestablishing, disestablishment ought to follow : 
 Wales is a section of a nation in which there is 
 a clear local majority for disestablishing : ergo 
 . . . but it is plain that no conclusion will issue 
 at all. Who would dream of allowing that even 
 if the entire population of Kent or Oxfordshire 
 were keen for disestablishing, either Kent or 
 Oxfordshire would therefore be entitled to a local 
 disestablishment ? 
 
 Thus, then, in the minor premiss of our syllog- 
 ism, until the first of the two propositions implied 
 has been made good, the second has not yet any 
 relevant meaning. Moreover, it may be pointed 
 out, that until that first proposition may be 
 assumed, the major premiss also is somewhat at 
 fault. For we have been compelled to state it in 
 the awkward form : "In every nation in which 
 there is a clear majority for disestablishing, dis- 
 establishment ought to follow " ; a form which at 
 once provokes the question ought to follow by 
 whose act ? or at whose hands ? No doubt the 
 proposition should have run more simply, " Every 
 nation which has a clear majority for disestab- 
 lishment is justified in disestablishing." But it 
 would have been too obvious from the first that 
 such a proposition could have no relevancy ex- 
 cept to a nation exercising national powers. 
 
 It is no part of my present purpose to carry 
 the argument further. I have tried to show that 
 there is a prior question, of no slight magnitude, 
 which must be really resolved, before it is pos-
 
 8] WELSH NATIONALITY 219 
 
 sible to rule by sweeping principles the intricate 
 and difficult question of Welsh disestablishment. 
 It would be far more in order to determine the 
 principles first, and then to consider the question 
 how far they were locally applicable to Wales, 
 than to bring forward first a local measure of 
 practical revolution in Wales, without fairly dis- 
 cussing either on what terms disestablishment is 
 nationally right, or what is the equitable relation 
 between disestablishment and disendowment, or 
 whether Wales is a nation ; but with the certainty 
 nevertheless that the decision in Wales, though 
 crudely made upon most entangled issues, will, 
 as a precedent, become, in fact, the tacit affirma- 
 tion of principles by which the whole country will 
 find itself practically bound. I think, moreover, 
 that I have at least vindicated the relevancy of 
 the plea, which I do not go into, though I con- 
 ceive that it has a weight which neither has been, 
 nor can altogether be, at present disposed of, 
 that any appeal to the fact of immense numerical 
 majority comes with singular lack of grace and 
 ineffectiveness of force from those who have suc- 
 cessfully resisted the simplest and most authentic 
 form of numerical scrutiny. 
 
 I do not enter at all into narrower particulars ; 
 I do not try, for instance, to measure the crooked- 
 nesses and enigmas, the hopeless inequalities and 
 elaborate wastefulness of (perhaps) any possible 
 financial proposal in detail ; or, again, to scru- 
 tinise the false motives, the jealousies, petti-
 
 220 MUST FIRST BE SETTLED [No. 8 
 
 nesses, covetousnesses, which sorely threaten to 
 poison the entire proposal, argued upon whatever 
 disinterested principles, with the taint of corrod- 
 ing unrighteousness. 
 
 All that I have been really concerned to urge 
 in respect of the particular case of Wales, is that 
 it is impossible rightly to determine, and mis- 
 leading to raise, any part of the question, unless 
 and until dispassionate consideration has exam- 
 ined and established the principle, without which 
 every part of the argument falls to pieces, that 
 Wales is, in fact as well as in idea, in prose as 
 well as in poetry, a nation with the coherence, 
 the responsibility, and the rights of distinct 
 nationality.
 
 UNDENOMINATIONALISM AS A 
 
 PRINCIPLE OF PRIMARY EDUCATION 
 
 (1902) 
 
 THE Education controversy has been a sad- 
 dening one. So little has there been of 
 mutual understanding, so much of deep-seated, 
 if not determined, suspicion and bitterness. Now 
 there is a pause for a time ; a pause of an uneasy 
 and anxious character. 
 
 There are, after all, important questions at 
 stake. There is a most serious question of 
 religious liberty. There is even a question of 
 fundamental theological truth. And the pause 
 in itself seems to constitute something more 
 than an opportunity for reviewing the principles 
 involved. There may seem indeed to be little or 
 no political value or meaning in any words said 
 on the subject so far away from the din of 
 politics, or the assumptions which men call prac- 
 tical. And yet it may possibly be a duty to say 
 them. 
 
 There is no need to dwell upon the familiar 
 data of the problem. The fact that education 
 was voluntary before it was national : that it 
 grew up largely from the religious motive, and
 
 222 THE EDUCATION [No. 
 
 under the shadow of the Church : the consequent 
 fact that, when the State set itself to organise 
 education as a whole, it found the field already 
 occupied to a large extent, though by no means 
 adequately, by denominational schools : the fact 
 that one particular religious body, with an imme- 
 morial history, has lived in exceptional relation 
 with the State whether of dependence or of 
 privilege : the fact that Christian denominations 
 in England are sharply sundered one from an- 
 other (though with varying degrees of sharpness) 
 in their theologies, and their ordinances, and 
 their estimate of the value of ordinances and 
 theologies : the fact that, in spite of all differ- 
 ences, the community as a whole does not desire 
 at all to be either irreligious or non-Christian : 
 these facts, and facts like these, may safely be 
 rather assumed than expounded at large. 
 
 The attitude of the community as a whole 
 towards conditions like these has been twofold. 
 First it has tolerated denominational schools. 
 Toleration has included general regulation, an 
 exacting scrutiny as to efficiency, important 
 pecuniary assistance in relation to secular results, 
 and, as far as possible, a complete ignoring of 
 all that constituted denominational or religious 
 value. Side by side with this toleration, which 
 on one side encouraged, while on another side 
 it studiously ignored, "denominationalism"; the 
 community has very largely supplemented all 
 machinery that existed by establishing a large
 
 9 ] FKOBLKM 223 
 
 and ever-increasing system of schools, in the 
 name of the nation, and with practically un- 
 limited command of public money, from which 
 every kind of denominationalism was on principle 
 excluded. 
 
 The system, then, has been a dual one. The 
 community has pretty clearly identified itself 
 with the principle of undenominationalism ; while 
 it has tolerated the existence of denominational 
 schools. Its toleration has included subvention, 
 upon conditions, on the whole, of an undenomi- 
 national kind. But its toleration, and its sub- 
 ventions, have not been such as to promise any 
 permanent continuance of the denominational 
 system. On the contrary, the present crisis 
 largely results from a general recognition that a 
 persistence in the methods of the last thirty 
 years must almost certainly lead to the gradual 
 disappearance of all other than governmental 
 schools. 
 
 The present Government bill aims, on the 
 whole, at preventing the disappearance of de- 
 nominational schools. Probably the larger part 
 of the opposition would prefer that they should 
 disappear. The strength of the opposition rests 
 perhaps mainly in this, that this " undenomina- 
 tionalism " is only the true logical completion of 
 the principle which, on the whole, has been taken 
 for granted as the basis of the national attitude 
 concerning education, since education became a 
 national affair. On the other hand, the difficulty
 
 224 UNDENOMINATIONALISM [No. 
 
 of the Government position turns largely upon 
 this, that they appear to be endeavouring to 
 counteract an outcome of the basal principle 
 which has been for many years taken nationally 
 for granted, without challenging the justice of 
 the principle itself. It is very difficult to justify 
 a large measure of relief to denominational 
 schools on a basis of undenominational principle. 
 If it is an axiomatic principle that all education 
 provided nationally by the community ought to 
 eschew denominational distinctiveness of every 
 kind ; then a national measure for preserving 
 denominational education from being superseded 
 by undenominational is an inconsistency which is 
 open at every turn to the most damaging attacks. 
 To a very large part of the community, strangely 
 enough, the principle just stated does appear to 
 be axiomatic and, indeed, self-evident. No won- 
 der that opponents of the bill are often jubilantly 
 confident : ,n their consistency, and that its sup- 
 porters, even though they feel themselves at 
 bottom to be right, are conscious of a most 
 uncomfortable uncertainty of logic. 
 
 But is the principle true ? Is it compatible 
 with any real justice or any real liberalism ? So 
 long as national "undenominationalism" appears 
 only as a supplement to a serious machinery of 
 denominational education, the inherent vicious- 
 ness of its assumptions is less apparent. But 
 when there is danger of its occupying the whole 
 ground, it begins to be easier to discern its real
 
 9] AS THE PRINCIPLE 225 
 
 character. What does undenominationalism, as 
 a principle, imply ? 
 
 The question, it is to be observed, is about 
 undenominationalism as a principle. Undenomi- 
 nationalism as an accident is quite a different 
 matter. By agreement among individuals for 
 temporary purposes, it would be perfectly pos- 
 sible for Romanists and Anglicans in one direc- 
 tion, or for Congregationalists or Plymouth 
 Brethren and Anglicans in another, to arrange 
 to share common lessons in some particular 
 religious subjects. But the essence of this possi- 
 bility depends altogether upon the voluntary and 
 limited character of the alliance. It might be 
 possible, even to a considerable extent, to fall 
 back upon " undenominational " methods, avow- 
 edly as a pis aller } under difficult and undesir- 
 able conditions, in the teaching of schools. But 
 undenominationalism as a positive principle, im- 
 posed without consent and without limitation ; 
 undenominationalism as a sort of higher unity, 
 carrying with it the forcible prohibition of all 
 distinctive teaching, in the teeth of the judgment 
 and conscience of those to whom distinctive teach- 
 ing is of essential value it is this which is in 
 question. What does undenominationalism, as a 
 positive and coercive principle, imply? It implies 
 that there is a real essence of Christianity which 
 is capable of being detached alike from all specific 
 forms of dogmatic conviction, and from all par- 
 ticular organisations of government or ministry, 
 Q
 
 226 IS UNPHILOSOPHICAL [No. 
 
 and from all corporate obligations of a sacred 
 society including, amongst other things, the 
 whole range of sacramental experience. It im- 
 plies that creeds, ministries, sacraments, corporate 
 responsibilities, and all other such things, whether 
 in themselves more or less desirable, are at most 
 subordinate to, as they are in any case quite 
 separable from, a certain central knowledge and 
 essence of Christianity. The central core, it is 
 conceived, both can be, and is to be, maintained, 
 while the subsidiary expressions, or methods, or 
 outworks, are not only insisted on, but are care- 
 fully, and on principle, suppressed. 
 
 This distinction between the reality itself, on the 
 one side, and, on the other, all the expressions 
 and methods, and even interpretations, of the 
 reality, is profoundly unphilosophical. The fact 
 that men greatly differ as to interpretations, ex- 
 pressions, and methods, does not in the least 
 degree make it more possible to secure the 
 central reality by dispensing with them all. If 
 impartiality is the object of the community, it is 
 in some other direction than this that impartiality 
 is to be found. 
 
 Besides being unphilosophical, which means 
 really, in the last resort, inherently unpractical, 
 the effort of undenominationalism is also intensely 
 narrow-minded and unjust. No doubt it is, at 
 the first blush, rather tempting to treat all de- 
 nominational differences as subordinate. It is 
 the outsider's rough and ready method of attempt-
 
 9 ] AND UNJUST 227 
 
 ing to be rid of all questions which he sees to be 
 difficult, and does not care to understand. But 
 to treat them as subordinate, and to try to dis- 
 pense with them, is in fact already to pronounce a 
 judgment about them. It is to pronounce them to 
 be at best unimportant, and inherently beset with 
 doubt. Men think of undenominationalism as 
 purely negative, as though it taught nothing at 
 all about the things which it omits. On the 
 contrary, it teaches that they are to be omitted ; 
 and this, in respect of such things as creeds, 
 ministries, and sacraments, necessarily amounts 
 to teaching that they are, at the most, im- 
 material ; and this is hardly distinguishable, if 
 distinguishable at all, in experience, from teach- 
 ing that any earnest teaching about them is 
 positively mischievous because positively false. 
 
 It cannot be too often or too strongly insisted 
 that there is no such thing as purely negative 
 teaching. Every negation contains an affirma- 
 tion, and every omission implies a positive 
 precept. You cannot, by any possibility, forbid 
 the teaching of what is distinctive which will 
 include all creeds, catechisms, ministries, sacra- 
 ments, Church duties and privileges, and every- 
 thing that belongs to Christian theology or 
 experience without thereby necessarily teaching, 
 through the very prohibition, that insistence on 
 these things may be amiable but must be untrue. 
 You are not only teaching this, but teaching it 
 with a force the more irresistible because it is
 
 228 IT CREATES A NEW [No. 
 
 silent, and (as it were) automatic. You are teach- 
 ing* a fundamental habit of mind which the pupils 
 whom you mould will never wholly forget. It is 
 only, indeed, by a serious revolt against the whole 
 principle of their own education that they will 
 ever escape from its practical influence. Nor is 
 the position that all denominations are really, in 
 respect of their differences, more or less wrong, a 
 position which makes in fact (as might superficially 
 be supposed) in the direction of a general peace. 
 It makes only towards general contempt for 
 theological definiteness, a general lack of con- 
 viction, and superficiality both of character and 
 of mind. 
 
 The fact is, that undenominationalism, so far 
 from being really unsectarian in character, is itself 
 an instance of the sectarian spirit in its most ex- 
 clusive and aggressive form. It is really itself of 
 the nature of an attempt at a new denomination, 
 more latitudinarian and rationalistic in basis, more 
 illiberal and persecuting in method, than any that 
 before exists. It sins so flagrantly against the 
 first principles of liberalism as actually to attempt 
 the suppression by force of the liberty of every 
 denomination other than itself. And the people 
 are, for the moment, so infatuated with a music 
 of soft phrases, as to applaud the attempt, and 
 believe it to be a triumph of large-hearted 
 liberality. 
 
 What has been said by no means exhausts the 
 injustice of undenominationalism. It professes
 
 9] AND ILLIBERAL DENOMINATION 229 
 
 to be at least a measure of equality to all. It 
 is found to be, in working fact, the most galling 
 of inequalities. It only suits precisely the out- 
 sider, who, with a sort of vague instinct of reli- 
 giousness, has no particular principles or con- 
 victions. It is, indeed, exactly what he holds 
 to be true. It is an attempt to force his in- 
 definiteness and indifference, by legal compulsion, 
 upon the whole community. It invests him with 
 an importance that is ludicrously undeserved. It 
 does direct injustice, whether more or less, to 
 everyone who has serious convictions upon theo- 
 logical subjects at all. 
 
 Meanwhile the injustice which is done to these 
 is very far indeed from being a general equal, or 
 (in that sense) approximately "just " injustice. 
 To a very large number of Nonconformists, and 
 (unfortunately) to a very appreciable number of 
 Church people, it is a comparatively slight in- 
 justice ; so slight that they feel that little or no 
 real sacrifice is involved in the acceptance of 
 it. Indeed, there are those who even accept 
 it with eagerness as a price which they will 
 readily pay for certain immediate advantages : 
 sometimes even, it is to be feared, for the mere 
 satisfaction of seeing it enforced upon those more 
 thoughtful Church people to whom it is an incal- 
 culable wrong. 
 
 Why is it an incalculable wrong to anyone ? 
 Here is a second point (besides the essentially 
 positive character of every negation), which the
 
 2 3 o THE TRUE DIFFERENTIA [No. 
 
 opponents of the bill either generally overlook, 
 or, at all events, make singularly little effort 
 to understand. It is well worth thinking out 
 a little. 
 
 There are widely different conceptions as to 
 where the true differentia of Christianity lies. 
 There are those to whom Christianity means 
 primarily an exalted moral standard. The De- 
 calogue, or the Sermon on the Mount, or the 
 moral ideal of character exhibited on the Cross 
 these, as ethical ideals, represent the whole core 
 of the matter. It is a great appeal to men to 
 conform themselves to a certain type of character. 
 The moral ideal is the great thing, and the 
 greatness of the ideal constitutes in itself an 
 effective appeal. Now, of course, this is one 
 absolutely true aspect of Christianity, an aspect 
 inseparable from its central reality. And, since 
 it is so, there is no difficulty whatever in finding 
 the weightiest scriptural testimony to this most 
 necessary and important aspect of the truth. It 
 constitutes perhaps, nowadays, the most super- 
 ficially popular view of the matter ; while it 
 certainly can claim weighty names among pro- 
 fessed theologians. But is it the heart of the 
 Gospel ? Does the Gospel mean an appeal to 
 motives, a standard of conduct, a rule of life 
 however lofty, or beautiful, or true, or divine, 
 the appeal as appeal, the standard as standard 
 may be ? This is a view of Christianity to which, 
 indeed, churches and ministries and sacraments,
 
 9] OF CHRISTIANITY 231 
 
 creeds and catechisms and theologies, from the 
 least of them to the greatest of them, may well 
 be made to appear subsidiary and almost irrele- 
 vant. But is it, in any sense, distinctively Chris- 
 tian ? Of course it is true that the ethical stan- 
 dard of Christianity is at once saner and loftier 
 as ethical standard, than that of any other religion 
 in the world. But it is probably also true that it 
 is in respect of excellence of ethical standard that 
 some non-Christian religions approach most 
 nearly towards a real comparison with Chris- 
 tianity. There are phases alike of Greek philo- 
 sophy and of Oriental asceticism, which, so 
 far as insight and aspiration go, are very nearly 
 as Christian as Christianity itself. What they 
 lack is not so much moral insight, or the appeal 
 which a moral ideal can make, as any effective 
 means of entering into relation with the ideal. 
 What they lack is power. They see, but they 
 cannot do. They desire, but in the attempt to 
 attain they break to pieces. They are impotent 
 yearning more than they are living experience. 
 
 Again, there are those to whom Christianity 
 means primarily a clear knowledge and a loyal 
 acceptance of Bible history as history and as 
 truth ; an acceptance of the Old Testament as 
 preliminary, but more vitally still, an acceptance 
 of the events of the earthly life and death of 
 Jesus of Nazareth. To know these thoroughly, 
 and accept these loyally, as accomplished and 
 significant facts, this is the Christian's great
 
 232 LIES IN POSSESSION OF [No. 
 
 reality. Now here is a view of Christianity 
 which puts the main stress upon knowledge of 
 certain events. So far it may seem to be a 
 matter of simple teaching. But the knowledge 
 must be believing knowledge ; and belief re- 
 quires something more than study of a text. 
 This conception, then, does not so easily dis- 
 pense with creeds. For if the facts are more 
 than an appeal to ordinary human motives of 
 conduct, their significance must be expounded 
 theologically. Theology becomes indispensable : 
 and if theology, then orthodoxy also. There 
 must be right understanding ; and there must be 
 right belief. 
 
 Once more, it may be admitted that this is an 
 absolutely true aspect of Christianity, and that as 
 such, it may be abundantly vindicated alike in 
 Scripture and in Christian experience. More- 
 over, to speak of these things as aspects is more 
 than to allow them a place as parts of Chris- 
 tianity. It means that it is quite reasonably 
 possible, for certain purposes, and in certain 
 relations, so to view the whole range of Chris- 
 tianity in the light of either of them that either 
 may seem, for the moment, to be a form or 
 rendering of the whole, and either may in certain 
 contexts be so described. But still, is the heart 
 of what the Christian Gospel means quite ade- 
 quately expressed either as ideal moral standard, 
 or as belief in the events of the Gospel story, 
 or even as both combined ?
 
 9 ] THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT, 233 
 
 There is a third view of the matter ; a view 
 which, while insisting 1 indeed upon the moral 
 appeal which Christianity makes ; and insisting 
 upon the vital necessity of faith in the Gospel 
 facts ; yet holds that both of these are aspects 
 and outcomes of something else which is even 
 more the differentia of Christianity than either of 
 them. This something is living power, a power 
 infused by supernatural gift, a power which 
 qualifies, and informs, and transforms, the 
 natural personality. This power is the Spirit of 
 the Christ, which is the Spirit of God, indwelling 
 in man, and constituting him what, in the Spirit, 
 he is capable of becoming. Belief in this Power 
 is belief in God the Holy Ghost. 
 
 The sphere of this Power is corporate and 
 social. The true meaning of the Church of 
 Christ is the Spirit of Christ. The Body is 
 before the individual, and the individual is 
 through as well as within the Body. The 
 normal methods of this Power are sacramental. 
 No doubt the Church can become political and 
 corrupt. Historically it has done so, on a large 
 scale. But this does not touch the true meaning 
 of the Church, which remains the Brotherhood 
 of the Spirit. No doubt God can work outside 
 either Church or Sacraments ; and the Sacra- 
 ments, like the Church, can be abused by the 
 grossest superstitions and degraded by mechani- 
 cal use. But abusus non tollit usum. The 
 Church remains after all the Brotherhood of the
 
 234 WHOSE SPHERE IS THE CHURCH : [No. 
 
 Spirit ; and the Sacraments remain the outward 
 channels, by Divine appointment, of Spiritual 
 Life. 
 
 Now, according to this third view, it is the 
 supernatural life, the life of power, the life which 
 is the meaning of the Church, the life of 
 which Sacraments (spiritually conceived and 
 received) are the normal channels, the life which 
 is the Spirit, and therefore is Christ ; it is this, 
 and this alone, which constitutes the possibility 
 of true faith in the Gospel story, and which con- 
 stitutes the possibility of any real relation, in 
 personal experience, with the moral ideal of 
 Christianity. It is into this that a child is bap- 
 tized at the first. In the fulness of this he is 
 sealed in confirmation. The devout communi- 
 cant life is this. This is the faith, which is also 
 the experience, in which, and to which, he is 
 nurtured in the Church. It is this which is 
 administered, in and by the Body, through the 
 divinely authorised ministers of the Body. It is 
 this which is guarded, explained, familiarised, in 
 creeds, catechisms, theologies. And this is the 
 only access into anything else. Cut off this, 
 this living faith, this living experience of the 
 Holy Ghost in the Church, and the Gospel 
 story becomes, at most, only a very touching and 
 beautiful, but quite unattainable, episode in 
 history ; and the moral and spiritual standard of 
 Christianity becomes, as such, an overwhelming 
 despair.
 
 91 THIS FAITH OF THE CHURCH 235 
 
 Of course, it is here implied that this third view 
 represents, and has always been, the unexagger- 
 ated and unhesitating faith of the Church of 
 Christ. But it is not necessary for the present 
 purpose to attempt to argue that it is true. On 
 the other hand, it is not the least relevant as an 
 answer to all this, if anyone chooses to think 
 that it is false. It is quite enough that, whether 
 rightly or wrongly, it is firmly believed to be the 
 truth by scores of thousands of good Churchmen 
 and citizens. And I think it may fairly be pleaded 
 also for the purpose that, so far from showing 
 any sign of being a merely vulgar prejudice of 
 the more ignorant, it is held most characteristic- 
 ally and clearly, in this as in almost every earlier 
 generation, by those who, as saints and as theo- 
 logians, have entered most deeply into the inner 
 knowledge of Christian faith and experience. 
 Cuique in sua arte credendum. This is what, 
 speaking broadly, saints have meant by saintli- 
 ness, and theologians have understood as theo- 
 logy. It is supernatural Power. It is the non-self, 
 or that which had been outside the self, and 
 known to the self almost wholly in the way of 
 contrast, now more and more essentially charac- 
 terising the self. 
 
 To return to the inherent injustice of unde- 
 nominationalism. Undenominationalism would 
 in practice prohibit the whole of the teaching 
 which alone, to this third point of view, gives 
 either meaning or possibility to the other aspects
 
 236 WOULD BE SUPPRESSED: [No. 
 
 of Christianity. The earthly events of the Gospel 
 story might be known : but there could be no 
 exposition of the work of the ascended Christ ; 
 no unfolding of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost ; 
 no appreciation of the Church as what it is ; no 
 experience of the Sacraments as what they ought 
 to be. The Decalogue and the Sermon on the 
 Mount might be taught, but only as a standard, 
 that is, as Law, not Gospel. The ideal might 
 be held up. But of the experience of Power, by 
 which alone the ideal would become possible, 
 there could be no real word. To those who see 
 no great importance in Church or creeds or 
 ministries or sacraments, it may seem no great 
 injustice to insist on treating them as immaterial 
 accessories. But what is the injustice to those 
 to whom they constitute the real intelligence 
 and possibility of all the rest ? It is not that 
 the Churchman undervalues moral character, or 
 wants to have Church observance added on to it 
 also, whether as of higher or of lower value. It 
 is no question at all of Sacraments as an addition 
 to character ; but of the Holy Ghost as the one 
 possibility of character. The devout communicant 
 does not look down on the life of simple good- 
 ness as inadequate ; but his communion is to 
 him as the core of his experience of Christ, and, 
 therefore, of any simplicity of goodness. What 
 adequate measure can there be of the injustice of 
 the suppression of all distinctive Church teach- 
 ing, in the interest of those who dissent from it,
 
 9 ] THE REMEDY 237 
 
 to those to whom the Christian ethical standard 
 and even the events of the Gospel story would, 
 apart from the experience of the Pentecostal 
 Church, be a dream without hope or power ? 
 
 But if the undenominational method, adopted 
 as a positive principle, and enforced by com- 
 pulsion of law upon those who regard it with 
 abhorrence, is found to be so profoundly un- 
 philosophical in basis and so gallingly unjust in 
 incidence ; where is the remedy ? An education 
 law has become in modern times the business of 
 the community as a whole. The community as a 
 whole does not believe in the Church, and Church- 
 manship cannot be imposed upon the community. 
 Of course it cannot. The community as a whole 
 can only be perfectly just by being perfectly im- 
 partial between denominations. Such perfect 
 impartiality can never be attained by imposing 
 upon them all what is unjust to almost all of 
 them, but unjust in almost incredibly unequal 
 degrees of injustice. How, then, can it be ob- 
 tained ? By precisely the opposite method : the 
 method which gives expression to the only true 
 justice, the only true liberalism ; the method of 
 rigidly impartial denominationalism. 
 
 The community as a whole need not be, and 
 is not, indifferent to religion. It need not, and 
 does not, acquiesce in deliberately non-Christian 
 education. But it must deal with the fact which, 
 whether deplorable or not, is at all events funda- 
 mental for the purpose, that Christians are sharply
 
 238 IS A RIGIDLY IMPARTIAL [No. 
 
 divided from one another. It is not, then, to be 
 impartial as between religious and irreligious 
 education. In England, at least, it does not 
 need to be impartial as between Christian and 
 non-Christian education. But so long as the 
 different forms of Christianity differ as they do 
 differ, it cannot wisely identify itself for this pur- 
 pose with any one denomination more than an- 
 other. Least of all can it, without frantic un- 
 wisdom, invent a new denomination of its own, 
 under whatever specious title, and identify itself 
 wholly with that. It is necessary to insist the 
 more clearly upon the duty of impartiality, 
 because, as a matter of history, the religious body 
 known as the Church of England has had, or 
 been supposed to have, as the nationally " Es- 
 tablished Church," some special, if not exclusive, 
 right to be the exponent and standard of the 
 national religion ; and because it was, to an in- 
 definitely large extent, from the religious motive, 
 and under the shadow of this Church, that the 
 fabric of national education in England grew up. 
 It would, therefore, have been perfectly natural 
 if, in the earlier stages of the education contro- 
 versy, some claim had been put forward, on the 
 Church side, for exceptional rights over public 
 education. But any shadow of such claim is 
 definitely at an end. Whatever Establishment 
 may still mean for other purposes, at least in 
 relation to national education the disestablish- 
 ment of the Church is an absolutely accomplished
 
 9 ] DENOMINATIONALISM 239 
 
 fact. Not a shadow of claim is, or is to be, put 
 forward by Churchmen for Churchmen in this 
 matter, which they would not put forward as 
 emphatically in England for every other Christian 
 body and probably elsewhere, say in India, for 
 instance, for every non-Christian religious body 
 that was morally and politically tolerable. 
 
 How is the community to maintain its attitude 
 of religious impartiality among denominations ? 
 Not by superseding them all, or trying the im- 
 possible task of inventing a new one. But by 
 treating them all with respect, and with precise 
 equality of respect. Respect will mean, in this 
 matter, something more than cold toleration. It 
 will mean something like this. 
 
 The State, as State, will desire the education 
 of all its citizens. The State, as State, will recog- 
 nise that the education which it desires means not 
 only the acquisition of knowledge, but also, and 
 even more importantly, a real training of moral 
 character. The State, as State, will recognise 
 that the basis of moral character is religious 
 experience. The State, as State, will therefore, 
 for its own purposes, not tolerate, but most 
 earnestly desire, the religious training of all its 
 citizens. But the State will recognise that, as 
 State, it cannot provide religious conviction or 
 experience. Religion can only be taught, with 
 real effect, by those to whom it is a definite reality. 
 For religious training the State must look, in the 
 nature of things, to the bodies which are animated
 
 2 4 o THE PRINCIPLE OF [No. 
 
 by religious conviction. The State is not, and 
 cannot make itself, a Church. The State can, of 
 course, if it pleases, select any form of Church, 
 and confer upon it exclusive privileges. Even 
 so, for the religious impulse, it would have to 
 look wholly to that Church. The State might 
 support, but could not be, that Church. 
 
 But in point of fact, in respect of education at 
 least, we have reached a point in England at 
 which this exclusive choice of any one denomina- 
 tion has become inconceivable. The State must 
 remain impartial amongst denominations. And 
 yet it must look to the denominations for the 
 religion which for itself it intensely needs, but 
 which it cannot, save through them, supply. 
 The State desires religious citizens. The pur- 
 pose of the State would therefore be served best 
 of all if schools avowedly denominational, and 
 educating on the basis of religious conviction, 
 could cover the whole ground. The State does 
 not decide whether Anglicanism is better than 
 Wesleyanism, or Wesleyanism better than Agnos- 
 ticism. But the State does realise that religious 
 conviction is better than indifference. It would 
 be served best if all the Anglicans in it were 
 convinced and religious Anglicans, and the 
 Romans religious Romans, and the Wesleyans 
 religious Wesleyans, and the Congregationalists 
 religious Congregationalists, and so on to the 
 end ; the Agnostics conscientious Agnostics, the 
 Mahommetans scrupulously true as Mahom-
 
 9 ] DENOMINATIONALISM 241 
 
 metans, the Buddhists thoroughly sincere and 
 aspiring Buddhists. 
 
 This is denominationalism. It is utterly dif- 
 ferent in principle from an establishment, in the 
 first instance, of a great system at the public 
 expense of " undenominational Christianity " ; 
 and the toleration, in the second instance, on 
 exceedingly unequal terms, of denominational 
 schools. This would put denominational schools 
 as the thing first and most to be desired not 
 from the point of view only of the denominations 
 severally, but from the point of view of the com- 
 munity as a whole. On this basis a measure 
 to preserve denominational schools from extinc- 
 tion by national action would lack no logic 
 and require no apology. And this, in principle, 
 is the true way of reconciling the maintenance of 
 religion with a strictly impartial neutrality among 
 forms of religion. It is probably the only 
 effective mode of conservation. It is certainly 
 the only true liberalism. It is only this which 
 treats different forms of Christianity with respect ; 
 and with precise equality of respect. The forcible 
 exclusion from national education of all definite- 
 ness of religious creed, even if it could be con- 
 ceived to be otherwise desirable, is essentially 
 incompatible with liberal principle. And it is 
 astonishing to try and follow the processes by 
 which so-called " liberalism " has been seduced 
 into the ways of extreme religious intolerance. 
 
 Denominational schools, then, as such, should
 
 242 THE TRUE PLACE OF [No. 
 
 be, to the true liberal, the most to be desired, 
 (including", if it be so, amongst them, the "unde- 
 nominational " sect) and certainly, where such 
 schools already existed, they would be the first 
 and most to be encouraged and sustained by the 
 State. 
 
 But it is true, no doubt, that denominational 
 schools, however liberally encouraged by the 
 State, do not and cannot cover the whole ground. 
 It becomes, therefore, matter of national necessity 
 to supplement them, in the second instance, by 
 schools belonging to no denomination in particu- 
 lar. But these schools should not, therefore, 
 forget the importance of the denominational 
 principle to national well-being. In these schools, 
 no less than in the former, though many denomi- 
 nations meet in them, it should be the denomi- 
 national principle which the State should most 
 earnestly desire to carry out in every possible 
 way. Wherever and however it were possible, 
 all facility should be given for the provision of 
 denominational instruction for the children of all 
 sorts of denominations. The whole of the direct 
 religious instruction should be if only it could 
 be denominational. 
 
 But this again would be too much to be practi- 
 cally hoped for. Denominationalism, that is to 
 say, organised religious conviction really definite 
 and really alive, though encouraged to do the 
 utmost that it could, would necessarily, it is to be 
 feared, leave very much undone. It is in that
 
 9 ] UNDENOMINATIONALISM 243 
 
 case only, as the third alternative, to be fallen 
 back upon as a makeshift, when both the more 
 desirable methods have unhappily broken down, 
 that there is a real place for "undenominational" 
 teaching", that is, for the attempt to give some 
 general foundation of religious knowledge, with 
 a neutral intention, and apart from any particular 
 convictions or ordinances. There may be very 
 considerable importance in such teaching of reli- 
 gious knowledge, if conscientiously given, where 
 more serious training in religion is unhappily 
 impossible. Whether more satisfactory or less, 
 it would at least be an honest attempt to supply 
 deficiency, not a piece of religious oppression. 
 As has been said already, it is undenominational- 
 ism all round, undenominationalism as a positive 
 principle, with the positive prohibition of more 
 serious training in religion, which is a tyranny 
 wherever it is imposed by compulsion, and a 
 tyranny of more and more galling character, just 
 in proportion as the convictions which it overrides 
 are more and more specific and profound. 
 
 There is a further point about which it is 
 important to speak plainly. If denominational 
 schools of all kinds were present everywhere, no 
 doubt every such school might be absolutely con- 
 fined to children of its own denomination. But 
 in point of fact it happens every day that children 
 of one form of faith are, through pressure of 
 necessity of one kind or another, practically com- 
 pelled to attend a school whose principles their
 
 244 EQUITY TOWARDS DISSENTERS: [No. 
 
 parents do not approve. And there is a great 
 number of parishes in which there is, and can be, 
 only one school, although there may be many 
 denominations. In such cases it is most impor- 
 tant, for denominational principle, that provision 
 should be made for the full maintenance of de- 
 nominational liberty. And therefore it is matter 
 of the most profound regret to many Churchmen 
 that the Bill was introduced without an express 
 enactment of the principle that, in any or every 
 primary school in the land, parents might law- 
 fully provide religious instruction for their own 
 children in accordance with their own faith. It 
 is important, for that equity toward Dissenters 
 which is essential to liberal principles, that this 
 liberty should be secured wherever there is one 
 school only, and that one school is Anglican. 
 It is no less important, for that equity towards 
 Churchmen which is essential to liberal principles, 
 that the same liberty should be secured, wherever 
 there is one school only, and that one school 
 is Dissenting or is "undenominational." 
 
 There would, of course, be difficulty of all sorts 
 in detail. You cannot suddenly equalise con- 
 ditions everywhere, especially when the inequali- 
 ties which exist are largely the outcome of a long 
 and serious history. But it is the principle 
 which matters the principle of perfect religious 
 fairness. Once get the principle true, and just, 
 and illuminating ; and much can be done, after 
 all, in the way of making the best of difficulties
 
 9] THE EDUCATION ACT 245 
 
 in detail. Such a provision was an essential 
 feature in the scheme that commended itself to 
 the Committees of the Convocations in July, 
 1901. Its omission is a grievous wound alike 
 to the logic and to the fairness of the bill. Its 
 omission has done much to clothe a measure 
 of justice to the Church with the aspect of a 
 measure of injustice to the Dissenters. 
 
 The present bill is of the nature of a national 
 attempt to prevent the abolition of denomina- 
 tional schools. The instinct of at least a large 
 part of the community recognises that so far its 
 object is true and good. But it is, or is very 
 largely supposed to be, an attempt to maintain 
 them upon the old false hypothesis or at least 
 without any challenge or reversal, and therefore 
 in apparent subordination to the old false hypo- 
 thesis that denominational defmiteness is only 
 as a sort of private fancy, to be tolerated in 
 certain individual bigots or enthusiasts, but that 
 the whole national policy and the whole public 
 machinery must of course be "undenomina- 
 tional." The new measure is not easily com- 
 patible with the old hypothesis. No wonder 
 that upon the old hypothesis it has largely failed 
 to convince, and even given new heart and 
 cohesion to the professional opponents of the 
 Government. 
 
 The present bill may conceivably be the best 
 practical way of attempting to do what certainly 
 needs most urgently to be done. But as things
 
 246 IS DEFECTIVE BECAUSE [No. 
 
 stand, it is no wonder if it does not seem a very 
 perfect measure to anyone. And certain it is 
 that it is infinitely perilous. It seems to aim at 
 saving denominational schools from abolition. 
 But a very little alteration, such as those which 
 were proposed on clause 7 in great numbers, 
 would convert it outright into a measure for the 
 ultimate, if not immediate, undenominationalis- 
 ing of denominational schools, which would be 
 their abolition as denominational. So altered, 
 the bill would be a measure of deadly hostility 
 to the whole system which it seems to be de- 
 signed to protect. Yet the alteration seems a 
 plausible one, because the present fashion of 
 thought, the average unexamined presupposition 
 of argument, is for the most part antidenomi- 
 national. For precisely the same reason, the 
 alteration, if made, could hardly fail, in the 
 present average temper, to be fatal in its work- 
 ing. The present popular temper has little 
 respect for religion which it does not under- 
 stand. It thinks it admirably just to control by 
 the voice of the majority the consciences of all. 
 The alterations, as urged, would everywhere 
 make the average majority supreme even with- 
 in the special work of the minorities. But 
 indeed, whether, under the circumstances of the 
 moment, they appear to be plausible or no, the 
 alterations as urged, are, in themselves, amazing. 
 It comes to this, that a measure may be passed 
 for keeping denominational schools, as denomi-
 
 9] OF ITS PRINCIPLE 247 
 
 national, alive, provided they cease to be managed 
 denominationally. What could be the use, or 
 sense, of denominational schools, if the denomi- 
 national principle were surrendered once for all ? 
 It is the attempt to conserve denominational 
 schools on an apparent basis of undenominational 
 presupposition, which makes possible this most 
 paradoxical claim that denominationalism itself 
 shall be undenominational ! Truly the presup- 
 position of undenominationalism leads to strange 
 conclusions. But it is this presupposition of un- 
 denominationalism which is really the primary 
 untruth. 
 
 Is it mere waste of time to denounce, as 
 primary untruth, what has been, and is, so 
 largely taken for granted as axiomatic ? Is it 
 an absolutely vain crying in the wilderness ? 
 Perhaps so. Certainly these pages are not 
 written under any illusion as to probabilities. 
 They are written rather under pressure of con- 
 science than with any special hope of usefulness. 
 
 But the very fact that the general mind is 
 dominated so largely by this idea may serve to 
 illustrate the principle if any illustration be 
 needed that it is ideas, as such, which, whether 
 for good or for mischief, do dominate the world. 
 It is in the principle that the importance lies. 
 Opponents will concede a good deal, in practice, 
 for the moment, to denominational schools, pro- 
 vided that the principle of undenominationalism 
 be paramount. They are perfectly right in their
 
 248 THE CONFLICT IS BETWEEN [No. 
 
 estimate of the comparative value of ideal 
 principle. And conversely, the most convinced 
 Churchmen might accept a good deal of neutral, 
 undenominational effort in practice, provided 
 only that it were done in strict subordination to 
 the denominational principle the principle of 
 real religious liberty. The real conflict is a 
 conflict of principles, of ideals ; and the conflict 
 of principle is the conflict that matters. It is 
 religious liberty which is at stake. It is religious 
 liberty which Churchmen really claim for them- 
 selves alike and for all. 
 
 The dominance of ideas is conspicuous in 
 every department of popular history. Most 
 peoples have had their innate ambitions or anti- 
 pathies. Again and again there have been 
 places or times in which some one broad general- 
 isation or other has so completely dominated the 
 general imagination and, as it were, possessed 
 the very atmosphere of thought, that any protest 
 on the other side sounded, to the popular ear, 
 like a voice of foolishness, to be laughed down 
 rather than to be considered seriously. So 
 verbal inspiration has had its day ; and unlimited 
 Church authority ; and unlimited individualism ; 
 and materialism ; and philosophic utilitarianism ; 
 and the root principle "every man's hand against 
 every man " as a scientific basis of economics or 
 of politics. It is ideas like these or (too often) 
 prejudices more degraded and ignorant than 
 these, but not less sweeping in momentary
 
 9 ] IDEAL PRINCIPLES 249 
 
 power which seem to men in their day almost 
 self-evident ; which sweep men along with irre- 
 sistible power ; which it is thought almost idiocy 
 to disbelieve, and sheer madness to challenge. 
 There is nothing in the world so practical, so 
 irresistible in practice, as an idea once fully 
 accepted as principle. And now undenomina- 
 tionalism seems to sway the public mind, in the 
 manner of ideas like these. Men do not examine 
 it. They assume it. And by that assumption 
 they test and judge all rival theories. 
 
 Our contention, then, is in the region of 
 ideal principles. Ideals do not always show 
 their full import at the first. But they work 
 themselves out with a relentless exactness, from 
 which, sooner or later, there is no escaping. 
 False ideals carry their own fatal nemesis. The 
 materialistic hypothesis, or the utilitarian, or the 
 fatalistic, or the agnostic, work, in one way or 
 another, bitter havoc in the powers of the spirit- 
 ual life. And similarly it is to be feared, or 
 something more than feared, that undenomina- 
 tionalism, once established as sovereign principle, 
 plausible though it may seem, and obviously 
 just and delightful to the average imagination at 
 the moment, would mean ultimately the decay 
 and death of all specific religious conviction, and 
 therefore also, at the last, of all really religious 
 character.
 
 THE INDEPENDENCE OF CHURCH 
 COURTS 
 
 A LETTER TO THE DEAN OF CHRIST CHURCH 
 
 (1899) 
 MY DEAR DEAN, 
 
 It is said that the Convocation of Canter- 
 bury, of which you are a member, will next week 
 be invited to consider important proposals in 
 connection with the work of the Ecclesiastical 
 Courts Commission, appointed in 1881. I hope 
 you will allow me at such a moment to ask your 
 attention to the contents of a pamphlet on the 
 subject, which I was bold enough to write, as 
 Vicar of Great Budworth, in the early weeks of 
 1886. 
 
 You will not, I hope, think that I am inter- 
 fering with things that are beyond my reach. I 
 am not dreaming, of course, of criticising any 
 practical measures, of which I cannot fully know 
 whether they are, or are not, to be proposed ; 
 and can much less know the exact, or even the 
 general, contents and character. But for that 
 very reason this would seem to be a moment at 
 which it is exceptionally convenient to call atten- 
 tion to some underlying principles ; and, I must 
 
 add, to some fallacies as to underlying principles, 
 
 250
 
 No. 10] A CURRENT FALLACY 251 
 
 which have (it is to be feared) an almost exclu- 
 sive possession of the minds of men in this 
 country, who rely (as for practical purposes I 
 admit that men are often almost compelled to 
 rely) rather upon current impressions than upon 
 careful thought of their own. 
 
 One such current fallacy meets me, alas ! in 
 pages no less representative than those of this 
 last week's Guardian, as a " principle which in " 
 its "general outline must be frankly recognised 
 if any good is to come of the proposed legis- 
 lation." It is the belief, held largely in this 
 country, without the least examination, because 
 it is honestly believed to be a self-evident axiom, 
 that the national establishment of a Church 
 necessarily means the subordination of its judi- 
 cal procedure, in the last resort, to the review of 
 the secular power. If this belief, instead of 
 being assumed as self-evident, were seriously ex- 
 amined, the formidableness of its power would 
 quickly dissolve. Happily the evidence is close 
 at hand by which it can be proved, to absolute 
 demonstration, that neither establishment in the 
 abstract, nor establishment under the British 
 Crown and Constitution in particular, is for a 
 moment incompatible with a real freedom of 
 either Church councils or Church courts. There 
 is one other Church besides our own, which has 
 been all this time, and is at this moment, 
 nationally established, on British soil and under 
 the British Crown. In it no appeal lies from the
 
 252 THE EFFECT ON CHURCH COURTS [No. 
 
 Church courts to the secular power. Because 
 the Church is established under Royal Supremacy, 
 therefore the supreme court of the Church repre- 
 sents the Sovereign in the act of speaking the 
 last word for Church purposes, in precisely the 
 same way in which, for civil purposes, the judg- 
 ment of the secular court of appeal is the Sove- 
 reign speaking her 1 last word. There is no more 
 appeal from the highest ecclesiastical court to the 
 Sovereign, than there is from the highest secular 
 court to the Sovereign : nor does the absence of 
 appeal infringe the sovereignty of the Sovereign 
 in the one case any more than in the other. 
 There is no more appeal from the highest eccle- 
 siastical to the highest civil court than there is 
 from the highest civil court to the highest eccle- 
 siastical. I am speaking, of course, of the 
 Established Church of Scotland. If anyone 
 would take the moderate pains required to read 
 the article by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in the 
 recent volume of Essays on Church Reform, he 
 would find it a simple impossibility ever again to 
 assert that the ultimate dependence of Church 
 courts upon secular revising was in any sense 
 a necessary element in, or consequence of, 
 establishment. On the contrary, I fearlessly 
 assert that it is a direct infringement of what 
 national establishment does, of right, either 
 historically or logically mean. It was not even 
 in England the real meaning of the theory, either 
 
 1 [written in 1899]
 
 io] OF ESTABLISHMENT 253 
 
 of King Henry VIII or Queen Elizabeth, on the 
 one hand, or of the Churchmen who accepted 
 the principle of Royal Supremacy, on the other. 
 I speak positively as the directest method of 
 challenging 4 inquiry on this matter. And mean- 
 while I protest against the use of language, by 
 those who take either or any point of view in 
 the approaching discussions, as if there were any 
 reason whatever in the nature of things why 
 English Churchmen should lay down a principle 
 so inherently untrue as this. 
 
 I am not one of those who regard the main- 
 tenance of establishment as being, in principle 
 at least, of capital importance. The reasons for 
 shrinking from the responsibility of disestablish- 
 ing are indeed serious : but they are practical 
 and historical (to my mind) rather than of ab- 
 stract theory. The point is one as to which I 
 hold that a Churchman, at least as Churchman, 
 should be neutral. But in any case disestablish- 
 ment is always open to the nation. Because (if 
 it be so) the nation disapproves of the legislative 
 or judical development of the Church ; because 
 the nation considers that the Church has become, 
 or is becoming, other than that which it had at 
 first meant, or is willing now, by establishment 
 to recognise and endorse ; or, indeed, for any 
 other cause, good, bad, or indifferent it is open 
 to the nation to disestablish, at any moment, a 
 Church with which it no longer wishes its 
 national life and procedure to be identified. If
 
 254 ESTABLISHMENT [No. 
 
 the nation wishes no longer to accept the organ- 
 isation of the Church as an aspect of itself; if it 
 declines to accept Church legislature, Church 
 judicature, Church corporate life with all the 
 corollaries that are necessary to the corporate 
 life of the Church the first step in logic and 
 equity would be to disestablish. 
 
 I have tried once before, and am certainly not 
 trying now, to discuss, on its merits, the problem 
 of disestablishing. But so long as establish- 
 ment remains, let it be clearly understood that 
 establishment is a condition not of servitude, but 
 of privilege. However far I may be from advo- 
 cating disestablishment, I am quite sure that the 
 Church's worst enemies are those who would 
 conserve establishment as a means of controlling 
 and enthralling the Church. The existing con- 
 dition in Scotland is the true and direct outcome, 
 in logic and equity, of the idea of establishment, 
 and of the principle (I do not say of the practice) 
 of the Tudor Sovereigns in England. It is by 
 a tacit growth, the result largely of inattention 
 and accident, that establishment has come to be, 
 in England, the expression of a principle which 
 precisely contradicts its proper meaning ; and yet 
 is now genuinely believed, by I know not what 
 majority of intelligent people, to be as irreversi- 
 ble as a law of nature, or as self-evident as an 
 axiom of Euclid. 
 
 I should indeed be very far from admitting 
 that the loss of freedom to legislate for herself,
 
 io] AND FREEDOM 255 
 
 and conduct her own justice, within the things 
 which properly belong to her sphere, would 
 rightly or reasonably follow even from the dis- 
 establishment of the Church. The Church in 
 America, a purely voluntary association in a 
 democratic state, is for these purposes no less 
 substantially free than the Established Church 
 in Scotland ; though of course not armed, like 
 the Scottish Establishment, with the majesty of 
 national recognition and secular power. If the 
 instinct of modern thought is wholly wrong in 
 supposing that a Church should be the less free 
 because it is established; it is at least right in 
 assuming that a non-established Church ought 
 to be free. Strange to say, even this, though 
 true elsewhere, is far from being true, according 
 to existing tradition and practice, in England. 
 But I must not enter into detail on these points. 
 This letter, at least, is meant rather to draw 
 attention to them than to argue them. There is 
 something more about them in the pamphlet 
 which I venture to send : not based, of course, 
 on any expert knowledge of my own, but on that 
 which the Blue Book of the Commission of 1881 
 made public to the world. 
 
 I will only add here that, when I speak of 
 " ecclesiastical " legislature or judicature, I am 
 far from meaning, of necessity, the legislation 
 or the judgment of what are commonly called 
 "ecclesiastics." The place of Church laymen, 
 as Church laymen, in Church courts or councils,
 
 256 VISITATORIAL POWER [No. 
 
 though immensely important, is yet, in principle, 
 a question of detail. An ecclesiastical council, 
 committee, or court, is one (however constituted 
 in detail) which is, for the purpose in hand, the 
 genuine outcome and dona fide representative 
 of the Church. 
 
 Meanwhile there is one other form of the 
 fallacy I have spoken of, to which attention is 
 not drawn directly in the pamphlet, which I will 
 ask leave, for that reason, to make plain here. 
 
 It is very frequently supposed that even if 
 Royal Supremacy does not absolutely require an 
 appeal from the highest ecclesiastical to a secular 
 court ; yet at least some reference to such a court 
 or committee may be justified as if it were part of 
 a (supposed) inherent visitatorial power in the 
 Crown, or as if it were parallel to the historical 
 principle of the appel comme d'abus in the 
 Gallican Church. The inherent visitatorial 
 authority of the Crown in respect of ecclesias- 
 tical judicature will be more convincing when 
 it is an established principle and practice in 
 respect of secular judicature. Whether anything 
 of the kind might be tolerable in principle, or in 
 policy, if the historic Church in England were 
 disestablished, is open to argument. But it has 
 certainly no legitimate place while the courts 
 ecclesiastical are themselves the Queen's 1 courts 
 for ecclesiastical matters. 
 
 And the reference to the Gallican Church and 
 
 1 [written in 1899]
 
 io] OF THE CROWN 257 
 
 the appel comme d'abus is altogether fallacious. 
 The appel comme d'abus was the national self- 
 protection against an extra-national system of 
 judicature. As long as Church courts rested 
 ultimately on a basis not national but foreign ; as 
 long as their system of canon law was in the 
 main a foreign system, and the ultimate sanction 
 and authority which lay behind the administra- 
 tion of it was the authority and sanction of the 
 Roman court, that is to say, of an irresponsible 
 foreign power, claiming to be more august 
 than the national sovereignty ; so long it 
 was an imperative necessity that the national 
 sovereignty should have some mode of check- 
 ing and limiting Church courts. No doubt 
 in practice, when the Crown was strong, 
 the appel comme d'abus gave the Crown an 
 almost unlimited opportunity of interference, 
 unreasonable as well as reasonable. But so long 
 as the basis of the Church's authority was foreign, 
 some visitatorial power on the part of the Crown, 
 some power of review and veto in the name of 
 the nation, was indispensable for national free- 
 dom. Now no such machinery of protective veto 
 is, or can be, necessary to guard the freedom of 
 the nation or Crown against a judicature, which 
 is already the judicature of the Crown itself. 
 There is nothing at all of an Erastian nature in 
 acknowledging, what is as true in principle as it 
 is in practice, that all power of exercising a 
 public jurisdiction within the nation comes 
 s
 
 258 THE APPEL [No. 
 
 ideally from the ideal source of all national 
 jurisdiction, that is, from the Crown. There 
 is no other source of jurisdiction in this realm, 
 within the region of material things, except only 
 I do not say (where a Church is nationally 
 established) the secular power, but the Sovereign, 
 who is the sole executive head, whether of secular 
 power or of ecclesiastical. The Sovereign has no 
 need of a power of visitatorial scrutiny to check 
 or to veto herself. 1 
 
 Royal Supremacy represents one theory, the 
 theory of a jurisdiction exclusively national. The 
 appel comme d'abus represents another, and an 
 incompatible, theory, the theory of an extra- 
 national jurisdiction in Church courts. It must 
 be one theory or the other. The appel comme 
 d'abus cannot illustrate, or proceed from, Royal 
 Supremacy. To try to combine these two incom- 
 patible principles, or to make the one the method 
 of the other, is mere confusion. 
 
 Such machinery, then, as this is quite illogical 
 in a Church established under Royal Supremacy. 
 It would be illogical also in a disestablished 
 Church. 
 
 Nevertheless, though I have been driven to 
 write under stress of conviction that some of these 
 most fundamental principles are generally neither 
 recognised nor believed in at all ; I am sincerely 
 anxious, on the other hand, to disclaim the pre- 
 sumptuous desire of interfering with the efforts 
 
 1 [written in 1899]
 
 io] COMME D'ABUS 259 
 
 of my betters to handle practical difficulties in a 
 practical way. And, therefore, if anyone should 
 urge that, in view of its unique national history 
 in the past, the Church of England, if disestab- 
 lished, would still hold so mighty a position 
 within the nation that some machinery analogous 
 more or less to the appel comme d'abus, though 
 corresponding neither to precedent or principle, 
 might yet be as a political expedient wise, if not 
 permanently, yet during a period of transition 
 and experiment; I should not be very careful to 
 resist the contention. I will go one step further, 
 and venture to add that even if, on somewhat 
 kindred grounds, such an expedient should be 
 proposed in an established Church, as for the 
 moment prudent diplomatically, though in prin- 
 ciple unconstitutional and irregular ; even that 
 might lie outside my present argument. I 
 scrupulously abstain from saying one word in the 
 region of present practical politics. I am only 
 endeavouring to protest against false theories of 
 constitutional principle. But, at least, if any- 
 thing should be proposed on politic grounds, 
 which is irregular and illogical in principle, I 
 may urge that it is of the highest practical 
 importance that it should be advocated rather as 
 being, what it is, a politic irregularity, than as if 
 it were, what it is not, an illustration or outcome 
 of principles constitutionally true. 
 
 I cannot but hope that my disclaimer of any 
 desire to enter (save by clearing fundamental
 
 260 REMEDY FOR DISORDER [No. 10 
 
 principles) within the region of immediate practi- 
 cal politics, may moderate somewhat of the grave 
 displeasure which perhaps I must on some sides 
 expect as the penalty of venturing to speak at 
 all. But at least in parting I may say, in general 
 terms, that I write as one who is sincerely con- 
 vinced that the difficulties of the Church in what 
 is called her present crisis (it is strange how few 
 parishes through the length and breadth of the 
 land are conscious, newspapers apart, of any 
 crisis at all) will be settled in the best, the 
 wisest, and the most permanent manner, by the 
 unfettered action of the Church herself. They 
 will be settled effectively just in proportion as it 
 becomes freely possible, in the present and the 
 future, for the Church herself, in councils and 
 courts of her own, without imported excitement 
 or pressure from the outside, to work out by 
 degrees, with all the gravity of the responsible 
 action of a body that is effectively self-governing, 
 the methods and the needs, the judgment and 
 the discipline, of her own life. 
 
 Forgive me, if you can, for my sudden intru- 
 sion upon you. I do not of course venture to 
 presume upon your agreement in the things 
 which I have said. But, indeed, I only wish 
 that I could hope to be as indulgently interpreted 
 by others as I am sure that I shall be by you. 
 
 Yours affectionately, 
 Ch. Ch., R. C. MOBERLY. 
 
 Jan. 30, 1899.
 
 IS THE INDEPENDENCE OF CHURCH 
 COURTS REALLY IMPOSSIBLE? 
 
 (1886) 
 
 " r I ^HAT religion should be absolutely free 
 JL from State control is impossible." This 
 principle, in one form of phrase or another, is so 
 familiar just now upon the lips and in the minds 
 of men, that it is worth while to distinguish some 
 of the possible meanings which may underlie it. 
 The words themselves are borrowed from a recent 
 Charge of Archdeacon Palmer's ; and their con- 
 text in that Charge may suggest at once a dis- 
 tinction which will be convenient at the outset. 
 After asserting the principle Archdeacon Palmer 
 goes on : "The well-known example of the Indian 
 Thugs will illustrate my position. A State can- 
 not tolerate murder, because there is a set of men 
 within its borders who believe it to be the fittest 
 expression of devotion to the deity of their choice. 
 Another instance nearer home may be adduced. 
 Polygamy is a cherished practice with the Mor- 
 mons. Yet surely it is not wrong for a civilised 
 nation to forbid the reintroduction of such a 
 practice." If these be accepted as illustrations in- 
 terpretative of the meaning of the principle, the 
 
 261
 
 262 STATE CONTROL [No. 
 
 principle itself will readily be conceded. But what 
 in that case does the principle mean? It means 
 that whereas it is essential to the constitution of 
 a State to prevent certain kinds of action which 
 would injure the State, it would become necessary 
 for the State to interfere with any religion which 
 should inculcate or encourage such actions. Not 
 even religion would be a sufficient defence for 
 actions which are, per se 1 offences against the laws 
 of a civilised community. The very statement 
 implies a certain instinct that the rules and con- 
 stitutions of religion should, prima facie, be held 
 to be outside of the cognizance of the State. 
 Only it is asserted that this natural presumption 
 might conceivably be rebutted ; that it is not a 
 truth so absolute as to be incapable of exception ; 
 that in certain extreme cases, capable of being 
 hypothesised, the natural immunity of religion 
 might and would be overruled, the State might 
 and would so far overthrow the proper order and 
 distinctions of things as to interfere and coerce 
 within the sphere of religion. The emphasis is 
 upon the word "absolutely": "That religion 
 should be absolutely," i.e. under all conceivable 
 circumstances, and in all its conceivable aspects, 
 so only that it could claim the name of religion, 
 "free from State control is impossible." 
 
 Now in such a sense as this the principle is an 
 undoubted truth. And because there is a sense 
 in which it is true, therefore the words themselves 
 cannot be denied. And because they cannot be
 
 io] OF RELIGION 263 
 
 denied, therefore the statement remains, and is 
 apt to be appealed to as a fundamental axiom in 
 discussion about the relation of the Church to 
 the State. But then the words are ambiguous. 
 And there can be little doubt that the ordinary 
 conception of their meaning, as they are generally 
 used in such arguments, is something extremely 
 different from that which has just been stated. 
 
 " That religion should be absolutely free from 
 State control is impossible." We know that 
 under existing laws and customs in England no 
 religious body is free from State control. This 
 is the case, in point of fact, in a very much wider 
 sense than that just given. It is not only that 
 under the administration of our law no religious 
 body is allowed to interfere with the fundamental 
 moralities of social and national life, but that in 
 all disputed cases whatever, within the circle of 
 any religious body, the civil courts are in fact 
 the ultimate courts of appeal. 
 
 Many typical cases of disputes in Dissenting 
 congregations have within recent years illustrated 
 this fact. If only the dispute be persisted in, its 
 decision will come at last from the civil judge, 
 however many subtle questions of ecclesiastical 
 polity, or of theological doctrine, may be involved 
 in the decision. That this is so in fact has been 
 abundantly insisted on in recent controversy. 
 
 I quote two or three sentences from an article, 
 which is full of information on the subject, 
 published in the Church Quarterly Review of
 
 264 THE PRACTICE OF [No. 
 
 April, 1885: "Our contention is that Noncon- 
 formists are hopelessly subject to the jurisdiction 
 of the State courts for the interpretation of the 
 doctrines in their trust-deeds, and absolutely 
 subject to the discretion of Parliament for their 
 alteration." "Even then [i.e. if they should 
 resign all their property in order to purchase 
 freedom] the Dissenting communities would not 
 be free from State control in matters of religion, 
 for, after all, in such a case there would still 
 remain some necessity in their purely voluntary 
 and non-property-holding communities to exercise 
 discipline, and in relation to their exercise of 
 this right they would still be liable to have their 
 ecclesiastical proceedings reviewed, and their 
 sentences, if need be, reversed by any judge of 
 the civil court to whom an aggrieved party might 
 make an appeal according as we have shown." 
 Again, " It would be sufficient for the purpose 
 of his argument to admit that State control, such 
 as we have described, does not extend beyond the 
 question of interest in property. But though 
 such an admission would be sufficient for the 
 purposes of the argument, it would not be an 
 adequate admission and representation of all the 
 facts of the case, for the truth is that State 
 control extends to questions of discipline of a 
 purely voluntary society, meeting in a weekly- 
 rented upper room, holding no property, and 
 having, as a society, no interest in property 
 whatever." And finally, with reference to the
 
 10] THE ENGLISH COURTS 265 
 
 "Huddersfield case": "Never was the subjection, 
 absolute and helpless, of any religious body in its 
 religious concerns more manifestly and un- 
 questionably complete ; and the more the case is 
 inquired into and discussed, the more readily and 
 candidly this will be admitted by all persons 
 whose minds are open to the irresistible force of 
 the facts stated, which overwhelmingly show that 
 in such a case there is no getting away from State 
 control in matters of religion, even by those who 
 imagine that they are altogether free from it." 
 
 Now when facts like these are loudly insisted 
 on ; when they are urged upon us as arguments 
 of immense force to show not only that the in- 
 dependence of the Church of England would not, 
 but that it could not be attained, either by any 
 smaller change, nor even by the formal separation 
 of "Church" and "State" as they have been 
 urged on many a Diocesan Conference platform, 
 and in many a private discussion ; and when in 
 this connexion words are used like those which in 
 a limited sense were admitted just now, " that 
 religion should be absolutely free from State 
 control is impossible " ; is it not plain that the 
 words themselves have begun to carry a totally 
 different force and meaning from that which we 
 admitted ? They have now become the erection 
 into an abstract principle, and the enunciation in 
 the form of a necessary axiom, of that rule of 
 procedure which is asserted in the extracts just 
 given and no doubt asserted truly to be the
 
 266 DOES NOT REPRESENT [No. 
 
 existing practice of the English courts. They 
 now lay down that it is inevitable, in the nature 
 of things, that any questions, religious or other- 
 wise, in any religious community, established or 
 non-established, must (if the dispute be suffi- 
 ciently persevered in) come up, for their really 
 ultimate decision, before the court of the civil 
 power. Is it at all too much to say that it is in 
 this sense, and with this purpose, that maxims 
 like that which has been quoted are continually 
 being laid down ? laid down as at once of indis- 
 putable authority, and as the basis alike of many 
 arguments, and of many homilies ? 
 
 We have now reached the precise question 
 which it is the purpose of this paper to raise. 
 The question is this : Is it in the least necessary 
 in the nature of things, or is it in the least 
 desirable, that questions of Church discipline 
 (such as almost all the "disputes" in religious 
 communities practically are) should receive their 
 last word of settlement from civil courts? I decline 
 to be answered by any evidence as to what does 
 happen in our law-courts now, whether in re- 
 ference to the Established Church or to Dis- 
 senters. I am ready to concede absolutely that 
 this is the existing and traditional maxim and 
 practice of English courts. That fact is, of course, 
 a weighty one. But whatever may be the exact 
 significance of that fact, I deny that it is any 
 proof that the thing is necessary in the nature of 
 things, or that it could not possibly be otherwise.
 
 io] AN INEVITABLE NECESSITY 267 
 
 I deny that it is any adequate justification for 
 that popular sense which would, I believe, at 
 present be almost universally understood to attach 
 to such a maxim as "That religion should be 
 absolutely free from State control is impossible. " 
 
 Does the received practice of the English 
 courts represent in this matter what is absolutely 
 necessary or right ? 
 
 That it is by no means necessary in the nature 
 of things is indeed a proposition easily demon- 
 strable. But I submit that any such demonstra- 
 tion, however obvious it may be, is at this 
 moment of very real importance. The circum- 
 stances of the present time make it exceedingly 
 desirable that the minds of Churchmen should 
 look forward as clearly as possible to the issues, 
 and to the different alternatives which may open 
 themselves in the future. But so long as it is at 
 all generally supposed that the ultimate deter- 
 mination of its religious questions by civil courts 
 is a necessity which no religious community can 
 escape, so long the whole conception as to the 
 conditions of the future problem, and as to the 
 lines upon which we ought even now to be 
 advancing to meet the future, is, in one most 
 important respect, fatally prejudiced and over- 
 clouded. And yet at this moment I venture 
 to submit that it is, very generally indeed, so 
 supposed ; that is to say, that it is really a general 
 belief not only that the courts do act in this way, 
 but that there is no alternative possible but that
 
 268 A POSSIBLE [No. 
 
 they should act in this way : I submit that this 
 supposition does, in effect, go a very long way 
 towards preventing Churchmen in general from 
 even considering how far the present condition of 
 things in this respect is, or is not, desirable (for 
 no doubt it is futile to argue upon the desirable- 
 ness of what could not be otherwise) ; I submit 
 that the prevailing supposition has really no 
 other ground than the admitted fact of the pre- 
 sent English maxim and practice : and I submit, 
 finally, that if once the phantom of its supposed 
 necessity were really and completely dissipated, 
 there are grounds for thinking that the wisdom 
 of the English people, as it ceased to think the 
 existing practice a necessity, might very probably 
 cease also to think it in any degree desirable 
 or wise. 
 
 If the present condition is arbitrary, and not 
 necessary, what other alternatives are open be- 
 side it? 
 
 I am concerned only to make clear my alter- 
 native, without staying to ask whether it is, or 
 is not, the only form of alternative possible. And 
 I may add that, at the present stage, I am only 
 bound to show that an alternative is fairly con- 
 ceivable. Whether it would or would not be also 
 reasonably practicable in this country or in this 
 generation, is a question which I do not as yet 
 profess to have reached. 
 
 But surely a condition of society is at least 
 imaginable in which ecclesiastical societies would
 
 io] ALTERNATIVE 269 
 
 be allowed to frame their own rules of discipline, 
 and to carry them out, deciding for themselves 
 all questions that might rise within their own 
 body as to the doctrine, ritual, or procedure, 
 discontents or complaints of aggrieved individual 
 members or ministers notwithstanding. Of course 
 there would be a limit to the scope of ecclesias- 
 tical discipline. The religious tribunals might 
 pronounce whether an accused man was, or was 
 not, heretical was, or was not, capable of re- 
 taining his post as an official of his society ; and 
 if they pronounced him heterodox, or insubor- 
 dinate, or otherwise unfit, they might proceed 
 to dismiss him : but of course in no case would 
 they be able to interfere with his citizenship, 
 or any of its rights they could not order him, 
 for punishment, to be fined, or flogged, or im- 
 prisoned. Neither could they, of course, except 
 at their own peril, impose upon any of their 
 members the duty of making overt war against 
 the fundamental laws of society. Subject, how- 
 ever, to the principle that they could not interfere 
 with citizenship, or make war against society, 
 their decisions upon all questions involving the 
 rules of their own community or the enjoyment 
 of its privileges might be final, and might be 
 accepted as such by the civil tribunals ; so that 
 the civil tribunals, without re-trying the question 
 of rules or privileges, would (if need were) compel 
 recalcitrant members to submit, on matters be- 
 longing to the discipline of their community,
 
 270 -RELIGIOUS BODIES HAVING [No. 
 
 to the decisions formally given by the formal 
 tribunals of the community. 
 
 It would, of course, be necessary that religious 
 communities should constitute tribunals and pro- 
 cedure which might be able to be recognised as 
 the accepted tribunals and procedure of the 
 community. Till this were done it would be 
 impossible to say whether the case of Mr. A 
 or Mr. B, appealing for the retention of their 
 position in such or such a religious body, had 
 ever been properly decided upon its merits by 
 the body they claimed to belong to. But the 
 moment it can be said "Mr. A claims or appeals 
 so-and-so : the proper tribunal or synod of his 
 religious society has tried the case according 
 to its own rules, and has pronounced against 
 him " ; from that moment it is possible for the 
 civil tribunals to say "We have nothing what- 
 ever to do with Mr. A's claims : he belongs to 
 a society which has, and ought to have, its own 
 rules and its own power of interpreting its own 
 rules : if they decide that under their rules he 
 is not one of them, then he is not one of them ; 
 if they attempt, indeed, to assault or maltreat 
 him we, of course, are ready to afford all legal 
 protection : but for us, after their decision, to 
 attempt to re-try the question on its merits, 
 whether he is or is not loyal to their doctrine, 
 whether he is or is not to be accepted by them as 
 an orthodox representative and officer, would be 
 much worse than superfluous. It would not only
 
 io] THEIR OWN TRIBUNALS 271 
 
 be useless, but in reference to the proper dis- 
 tinction between the political and religious ad- 
 ministrations, it would be disastrously unwise, 
 and full of nothing but peril to the peace and 
 order of the commonwealth." 
 
 But there is one point which, according to the 
 existing manner of thought on these subjects, 
 would almost certainly be urged here. It would 
 be said these things might perhaps be conceiv- 
 able if no questions of position or property were 
 involved. But every such decision necessarily 
 affects, not only the doctrinal position of a com- 
 munity, but the pecuniary position of an indi- 
 vidual ; and all questions affecting position or 
 property must in the nature of things come before 
 State courts, and therefore the position you speak 
 of is not really imaginable. Now if the eccle- 
 siastical tribunals were affecting to inflict fines by 
 way of penalties, whether of $ or .5,000, this 
 objection might be valid : but they do not. The 
 most which they do, or would do, is to declare 
 that a certain ecclesiastical position is forfeited ; 
 and the pecuniary loss complained of is only 
 a necessary incident (direct or indirect) of the 
 ecclesiastical position. It is true that Mr. A's 
 private estate cannot be touched upon to the 
 extent of a single penny. But Mr. A has no 
 private right whatever to the salary, or other 
 advantages, which are the incidents of his eccle- 
 siastical position. If he has forfeited the position, 
 he has forfeited also its emoluments ; and no
 
 272 AND EXERCISING [No. 
 
 right whatever which really belongs to him, 
 whether of citizenship or of property, is affected 
 at all. It is necessary that the line of distinction 
 should be drawn in the strongest way between 
 property to which there is any private right, 
 and property to which the only right, actual or 
 possible, is a mere result of the tenure of a 
 particular responsible post. It is a distinction 
 which, broad as it is, appears to be continually 
 lost sight of. I utterly deny that there is any 
 necessary reason, any reason involved in the 
 proper constitution of a state, why decisions 
 which affect property that is of the nature of 
 a salary must be capable of being referred to 
 civil courts. If the Wesleyans appoint an officer 
 with ; 1,000 a year, chosen on account of his 
 loyal exposition of Wesleyanism, to perform cer- 
 tain functions of importance to the Wesleyan 
 community ; and if he is subsequently dismissed 
 on account of the formal judgment of the Wes- 
 leyan tribunals that his teaching is no longer true 
 to their principles, I utterly deny that the fact 
 that the position which he forfeited was a valuable 
 one constitutes the slightest reason why the 
 Wesleyan tribunals should not have been the 
 bodies best able to judge of the weight of the 
 grounds on account of which alone it was pro- 
 posed to dismiss him, or why the State should be 
 supposed to neglect any one of its own essential 
 functions, or any just claim of citizenship on the 
 part of the person concerned, if it declines to
 
 io] THEIR OWN DISCIPLINE 273 
 
 review the merits of the decision, but lets it stand 
 as a matter of course, as a point decided by those 
 to whom it belonged to decide it, as much if 
 salary is involved as if it is not. 
 
 I do not, indeed, deny that there might pos- 
 sibly be issues, collateral to the main one, which 
 might have to come before the civil courts, and 
 might carry damages ; as e.g. if a man were 
 avowedly dismissed on the ground of immorality 
 or drunkenness who could prove to the satisfac- 
 tion of the civil court that the imputation in 
 question was false in fact and slanderously and 
 maliciously made and received against him, it is 
 possible that he might claim from the court 
 not, indeed, forcible restitution to the ecclesiasti- 
 cal position (which the court would have nothing 
 to do with) but adequate, and possibly very 
 heavy damages, for the stigma falsely affixed 
 upon his character. But without staying to think 
 further of other extreme or exceptional hypo- 
 theses which might make an indirect appeal to 
 civil courts still undeniable, I do claim that, as 
 a general principle, and in all ordinary cases of 
 discipline such as have come in fact before the 
 English courts in recent years, whether from the 
 Established Church or from Dissenting bodies, 
 it is entirely conceivable as a working condition 
 of things, that the civil power should leave to the 
 ecclesiastical the entire determination of its own 
 questions, and the entire exercise of its own dis- 
 cipline ; and should accept the formal decisions
 
 274 THE PRINCIPLES [No. 
 
 of the accredited tribunals of the several bodies 
 as the proper decisions of those bodies, to which 
 all citizens who chose to be members of the 
 bodies must, as a matter of course, submit their 
 own natural rights of citizenship being always 
 untouched so long as they desired to maintain 
 their membership. The State would thus be 
 absolved from the somewhat absurd possibility of 
 solemnly pronouncing the " Baptist " orthodoxy 
 of one whom the whole Baptist body had re- 
 pudiated as unorthodox ; or the inadmissibleness 
 in the Church of teaching or practices which the 
 Church herself had formally pronounced to be 
 Catholic. 
 
 I decline to despair of the acceptance of these 
 principles. I decline to despair of the prospect 
 of hearing them by and by enunciated as incon- 
 trovertible maxims, at once of common law and 
 of common sense. Can we not imagine the sort 
 of severely grave simplicity with which some 
 impartial Law Court in the future might lay 
 down the lines of its accepted theory as to the 
 due relation of secular and ecclesiastical juris- 
 diction ? lay them down in maxims sweeping 
 and decisive as these? . . . "The decisions of 
 ecclesiastical courts are final, as they are the 
 best judges of what constitutes an offence against 
 the Word of God and the discipline of the 
 Church." "Civil courts have duties and respon- 
 sibilities devolved upon them, and a well-defined 
 jurisdiction to maintain. The Church has more
 
 io] OF INDEPENDENCE 275 
 
 solemn duties, more weighty responsibilites, and 
 an authority granted by the infinite Author of all 
 things. We shall not enter in and ' light up her 
 temple from unhallowed fire." "We have no 
 right, and therefore will not exercise the power, 
 to dictate ecclesiastical law. We do not aspire to 
 become de facto heads of the Church, and, by 
 construction or otherwise, abrogate its laws and 
 canons." "The Church should guard its own 
 fold ; enact and construct its own laws ; enforce 
 its own discipline ; and thus will be maintained 
 the boundary between the temporal and spiritual 
 power." The Church members "joined the 
 Church with a knowledge of its defined powers, 
 and as the civil power cannot interfere in matters 
 of conscience, faith, or discipline, they must sub- 
 mit to rebuke or excommunication, however 
 unjust, by their adopted spiritual rulers." " Free- 
 dom of religious profession and worship cannot 
 be maintained, if the civil courts tread upon the 
 domain of the Church, construe its canons and 
 rules, dictate its discipline, and regulate its trials. 
 The larger portion of the Christian world has 
 always recognised the truth of the declaration : 
 'a Church without discipline must become, if not 
 already, a Church without religion.' It was as 
 much a delusion to confer religious liberty with- 
 out the right to make and enforce rules and 
 canons, as to create government with no power 
 to punish offenders." "In this controversy is 
 involved a greater question, and of deeper mo-
 
 276 INDEPENDENCE IS [No. 
 
 ment to all Christian men, indeed to all men 
 who believe that Christianity pure and simple is 
 the fairest system of morals, the firmest prop to 
 our government, the chiefest reliance in this life 
 and the life to come. Shall we maintain the 
 boundary between Church and State, and let 
 each revolve in its respective sphere, the one 
 undisturbed by the other ? All history warns 
 not to rouse the passion or wake up the fanati- 
 cism which may grapple with the State in a 
 deathly struggle for supremacy." 
 
 There is, it must be owned, a trumpet-like 
 ring, and a very sweeping inclusiveness about 
 some of these last extracts ; but does anyone 
 suppose them to represent a state of things 
 literally inconceivable ? Can such a relation 
 between civil and ecclesiastical courts be found 
 only in the misty places of the imagination ? Is 
 there anything in the nature of things, anything 
 in the essential constitution of states, to make 
 such an ideal relation impossible in the prose of 
 common life ? 
 
 But even if it be admitted to be in a real sense 
 conceivable, we shall still be told, I imagine, 
 that it is not a relation which the practical in- 
 stincts of modern nations will ever really be 
 content to accept. We shall be told, with I 
 know not what precise delicacy of phrase, 
 perhaps that " no state can tolerate the existence 
 of an imperium in imperio," perhaps that "every 
 subject retains always an indefeasible right of
 
 io] POSSIBLE IN PRACTICE 277 
 
 appeal to the sovereign power," or under the 
 spell of some other equally celebrated and 
 equally fascinating dictum, that States, even 
 though, if they would, they might do this, yet 
 will never consent to give so much independence 
 to Churches. No inherent necessity but the 
 jealousy of States will prevent it. They desire 
 to keep Churches more entirely under their own 
 authority. They will not part with any power, 
 with any element, or any means of control. 
 They would be afraid to do it. Out of fear, out 
 of jealousy, out of desire to control and restrain, 
 out of anxiety as to the disorders and discontents 
 which might grow out of overmuch independence 
 they might indeed do it, but they never will. 
 
 Now I might well argue in reply to such an 
 assertion of jealousy, that the conclusion sup- 
 posed to follow from it was, even upon the 
 hypothesis, mistaken and impolitic in the highest 
 degree. The State will best maintain its own 
 dignity and authority, and the order and content- 
 ment of all its citizens, not by retaining in its 
 own hands the maximum of direct authority, but 
 rather by devolving as much as possible, retain- 
 ing so little only as is indispensable. Every step 
 in the practical independence of Churches is a 
 step, not to say a stride, in the direction of 
 national contentment and security. The nation 
 as such, and from its own point of view, ought 
 earnestly to desire such a consummation. The 
 task of deciding all the doctrines of all the
 
 278 AS IN SCOTLAND [No. 
 
 Churches, the burden of universal papacy, is a 
 burden heavier, and more dangerous, than it can 
 bear. 
 
 But to develope arguments such as these is 
 hardly part of my present purpose. I prefer to 
 ask whether, already, the instincts of practical 
 nations have not given the very answer which 
 some of us are inclined to think that they can 
 never give. Does not the testimony of facts 
 already show that the practical immunity of 
 ecclesiastical tribunals from all State revision 
 whatsoever is not conceivable only, but an ac- 
 cepted and most living reality in the States of 
 the modern world ? and if this be so, is it even 
 necessary to plead that the contrary practice in 
 England has not been conducive to greater 
 smoothness among us of relations between 
 Church and State, greater contentment amongst 
 citizens, or, by consequence, greater national 
 dignity or stability ? 
 
 I point to two instances only, but they appear 
 to be the two which should naturally be of 
 greatest weight as examples pertinent to the case 
 of our own Church in England. Besides the 
 Church of England itself (whose condition in this 
 respect is the point now in question) there is 
 one other conspicuous instance of a Church 
 " established " under the British Crown and 
 Constitution, that is the " Established Church 
 of Scotland." On the other hand, if we wish to 
 see the bearings of the matter apart from estab-
 
 io] AND THE UNITED STATES 279 
 
 lishment, by far the most considerable instance 
 of a non-established Anglican Church is the 
 " Protestant Episcopal Church " of America. 
 But whether we look to the great alternative 
 instance of an Anglican Church non-established, 
 or to the great alternative instance of a non- 
 Anglican Church established under the British 
 Empire, in either case, strange to say, we see in 
 full operation that very condition of things which 
 many of our friends at home still seriously regard 
 as hopelessly impracticable at least, if not incon- 
 ceivable. 
 
 As setting forth the accepted doctrine on this 
 subject of the United States of America, there 
 is an elaborate American judgment printed in 
 full in the appendices to the Report of the 
 Ecclesiastical Courts Commission. The judg- 
 ment is that of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and 
 was given in January, 1871. But its significance 
 is even wider than its direct authority ; for it is 
 introduced into the English Blue Book not only 
 on the ground that "the very full way in which 
 the relations between the Anglican Church and 
 the State in America are gone into seems to 
 make it desirable that it should be given at 
 length," but also apparently because "that part 
 of the doctrine laid down which is agreed to by 
 the whole court appears to be generally recog- 
 nised in the United States." 
 
 What, then, is the nature of the doctrine there 
 laid down ? Possibly it may be a surprise to
 
 280 THE ILLINOIS CASE [No. 
 
 some who did not at the moment recognise them, 
 to hear that all those somewhat ringing quota- 
 tions which were made two or three pages ago 
 are taken verbatim et literatim from the text of 
 this formal, and representative, judgment. It 
 may be added that they all (with the possible 
 exception of the second extract) are taken from 
 that part of the judgment which was " agreed to 
 by the whole court." 
 
 The general principles, then, upon which 
 American State courts would approach or 
 decline to approach such questions are singu- 
 larly clear. But it will be worth while to describe 
 the case itself a little more exactly. A clergy- 
 man was accused of omitting certain acts or 
 words which the rule of the Church required 
 him to make use of in public service, but to 
 which he himself entertained objections on doc- 
 trinal grounds. The case was tried before the 
 tribunal provided in the diocese for such a pur- 
 pose ; and the clergyman was condemned and 
 deprived of his position. He thereupon made 
 appeal to the civil courts. The grounds of his 
 appeal which are material were of the following 
 nature : (i) That the diocesan tribunal, purporting 
 to be constituted according to the canons of the 
 Church, was in fact not constituted strictly in 
 accordance with those canons ; (2) that the 
 diocesan tribunal did, through prejudice, decide 
 unfairly upon the merits of the case before it ; 
 (3) that inasmuch as the clergyman's salary and
 
 io] CHASE v. CHENEY 281 
 
 position were involved, and as indeed the very 
 right to preach was in itself property, therefore 
 the deprival of these was an infringement of the 
 clergyman's civil rights ; and that for this cause, 
 if for no other, it was necessary that the diocesan 
 sentence should be reviewed by the courts. The 
 court decided against the clergyman on all three 
 points. It not only decided against him, but 
 decided against his right to a hearing upon the 
 merits of his arguments. It did so in respect 
 of the second and third of these three pleas 
 unanimously ; in respect of the first not unani- 
 mously, but by a majority. The decision of the 
 majority in respect of the first plea was of this 
 nature. After alleging the facts that the diocesan 
 officials had intended and attempted to organise 
 a proper court for his trial, and that the clergy- 
 man complained of a misconstruction or neglect 
 of the canons on their part, and a consequent 
 want of authority in their tribunal to try him, 
 they say: "The same point was made to that 
 [i.e. the diocesan] court, and its power denied. 
 It was urged with the same earnestness, and 
 enforced with the same arguments, there as here. 
 That court overruled the objection, and decided 
 that it had jurisdiction. Five intelligent clergy- 
 men of the Church, presumed to be deeply versed 
 in biblical and canonical lore, were more com- 
 petent than this court to decide the peculiar 
 questions raised. Why should we review that, 
 and not every other decision which involved the
 
 282 THE ILLINOIS CASE [No. 
 
 interpretation of the canons ? It is conceded 
 that when jurisdiction attaches, the judgment 
 of the Church court is conclusive as to purely 
 ecclesiastical offences. It should be equally 
 conclusive upon doubtful and technical questions, 
 involving a criticism of the canons, even though 
 they might comprise jurisdictional facts. It re- 
 quires no more intellect, information, or honesty, 
 to decide what is an ecclesiastical offence than 
 to determine the authority of the court according 
 to the canons. The distinction is without a 
 difference." 
 
 To this particular doctrine, however, in the 
 judgment, viz. that the diocesan court was the 
 exclusive judge of its own jurisdiction, two out 
 of seven judges demurred. 1 
 
 There is, then, a clear difference of opinion 
 upon the one question, whether or no a civil 
 court is at liberty, before compelling acceptance 
 by Church members of the decision of a Church 
 
 1 The statement of the two dissentients is as follows : " We concur in 
 the decision of the case at bar announced in the foregoing opinion, and 
 we also concur in the opinion itself, except as to one principle therein. 
 We understand the opinion as implying that in the administration of 
 ecclesiastical discipline, and where there is no other right of property 
 involved than the loss of the clerical office or salary, as an incident to 
 such discipline, a spiritual court is the exclusive judge of its own jurisdic- 
 tion, under the laws and canons of the religious association to which it 
 belongs, and its decision of that question is binding upon secular courts. 
 This is a principle of so grave a character, that, believing it to be 
 erroneous, we are constrained to express our dissent upon the record. 
 
 "We concede that when a spiritual court has once been organised in 
 conformity with the rules of the denomination of which it forms a part, 
 and when it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, its 
 subsequent action in the administration of spiritual discipline will not be 
 revised by the secular courts. The simple reason is that the association
 
 io] CHASE v. CHENEY 283 
 
 tribunal, to entertain or examine for itself the 
 question whether that Church tribunal was regu- 
 larly constituted according to the rules of the 
 Church under which it professes to act ; though 
 even here a majority of five judges to two 
 affirmed the immunity of the Church tribunal 
 from all such examination. But upon every 
 other point raised the decision of the court was 
 unanimous. As to the plea that the clergyman's 
 citizen-rights were infringed by the penal with- 
 drawal of emoluments, or of that authorised 
 status as minister and preacher, which was itself 
 (he urged) of the nature of "property," or as to 
 his claim to a "vested right" in his status or 
 office, they say : " No parish can form a part 
 of the diocese of Illinois unless with the consent 
 of the bishop and the formation of a constitu- 
 tion, as provided in canon 8, by which it 
 'accedes to, recognises, and adopts the consti- 
 tution, canons, doctrines, discipline, and worship 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church.' The 
 
 is purely voluntary, and when a person joins it he consents that for all 
 spiritual offences he will be tried by a tribunal organised in conformity 
 with the laws of the society. But he has not consented that he will be 
 tried by one not so organised, and when a clergyman is in danger of 
 being degraded from his office, and losing his salary and means of liveli- 
 hood by the action of a spiritual court, unlawfully constituted, we are 
 very clearly of opinion he may come to the secular courts for protection. 
 It would be the duty of such courts to examine the question of jurisdic- 
 tion, without regard to the decision of the spiritual court itself, and 
 if they find such tribunal has been organised in defiance of the laws of 
 the association, and is exercising a merely usurped and arbitrary 
 power, they should furnish such protection as the laws of the land will 
 give. We consider this position clearly sustainable, upon principle and 
 authority."
 
 284 THE JUDGMENT AND [No. 
 
 minister, having been previously ordained, and 
 pledged conformity to the rules and doctrines 
 of the Church, is installed as rector, according 
 to canon 10, by the production of a proper 
 certificate from the bishop. The vestry is 
 required, by canon 12, to obtain the amount 
 stipulated for his support by ' the gathering of 
 offerings in divine service, or by the procurement 
 and collection of subscriptions or of pew-rents.' 
 It would be a mockery of language to say that 
 the agreement for a salary thus made constituted 
 a vested right, a right which could not be sus- 
 pended. The salary depended upon the con- 
 tinued performance of the duties of rector. The 
 contract must be construed and enforced by 
 reference to the canons which form a part of it. 
 If the minister was suspended or deposed for 
 any ecclesiastical offence, the payment would 
 cease. . . . 
 
 "It is also claimed that there is value in the 
 right to pursue any lawful avocation. Of this 
 we entertain no doubt. We have no doubt either 
 of the absolute right of every citizen under our 
 constitution to teach and preach the gospel to 
 whomsoever will listen. But in an organised 
 Church, with written or printed rules, and estab- 
 lished doctrines and modes of worship, the right 
 is qualified. The continuance, power, and 
 emoluments of the position depend upon the 
 will of the Church. The right is contingent and 
 restricted, and as a thing of value is very much
 
 io] THE CLAIM OF 'PROPERTY' 285 
 
 lessened. The sentence of the Church judica- 
 tory, in a proper case, deprives of the position, 
 and salary and emoluments are gone." 
 
 It is, no doubt, obvious to remark that the 
 facts here recounted are in some respects different 
 enough from those with which we are familiar ; 
 but across all such differences the leading princi- 
 ple of the judgment on this point will be none 
 the less significant, viz. that emoluments or 
 privileges incidental to the tenure of an eccle- 
 siastical position can neither possess nor confer 
 any title more durable than the position itself to 
 which they belong, nor are they, in any neces- 
 sary or natural sense, the " property " of the 
 incumbent of the office. If we in England have 
 in any degree artificially made them so, that is a 
 peculiarity of our own, the value of which may 
 usefully be called in question. But perhaps it 
 needs neither Royal Commissions, nor Blue 
 Books, nor Liberationist energies, nor studies of 
 America or any other country, to make thought- 
 ful Churchmen desire that the system of " free- 
 hold " tenure of English incumbencies might be 
 greatly modified. There is always a slightly 
 strange ring about the word "freehold" as 
 applied to a pastor's position. And yet it is 
 just this word, and fact, of " freehold " which 
 seems sometimes to be treated as though it were 
 our one foundation-principle. There is a sort of 
 mysterious spell and fascination about it. We 
 are warned not to come near to touch or to
 
 286 EXTRACTS FROM [No. 
 
 question it. It is clung to, it is idolised, with 
 an almost superstitious reverence. But it is the 
 stronghold of the scandals which discredit and 
 weaken us through the length and breadth of 
 the land. 
 
 As to any appeal upon the merits of the case 
 itself, the answer of the court, with its sweeping 
 repudiation of the functions thus attempted to 
 be thrust upon it, has been already sufficiently 
 given in the vigorous language of the quotations 
 upon pp. 274-5. Without repeating these again, 
 we may add to them an extract or two more. 
 First there are the words (which could not con- 
 veniently be quoted then) of semi-apology for 
 entertaining or noticing some parts of the argu- 
 ment at all. The court preface the substantial 
 judgment by saying : "Without asserting the 
 power of this court in cases of this character, yet 
 on account of the earnest and elaborate argument 
 of counsel, we will notice the objection that the 
 spiritual court had no authority to adjudicate 
 upon the alleged offence." Then, a little further 
 on, they quote, and accept, the following lang- 
 uage of another typical judgment in a somewhat 
 similar case: "The only cognizance which the 
 court will take of the case is to inquire whether 
 there is a want of jurisdiction in the defendant 
 to do the act which is sought to be restrained. 
 I cannot consent to review the exercise of any 
 discretion on his part, or inquire whether his 
 judgment or that of the subordinate ecclesiastical
 
 io] THE JUDGMENT 287 
 
 tribunal can be justified by the truth of the case. 
 I cannot draw to myself the duty of serving their 
 action, or of canvassing its manner or foundation, 
 any further than to inquire whether, according 
 to the law of the association to which both of 
 the parties belong, they had authority to act at 
 all. In other words, I can inquire only whether 
 the defendant has the power to act and not 
 whether he is acting rightly. . . . The refusal of 
 the defendant to issue a commission to take testi- 
 mony, his refusal to grant a new trial, the alleged 
 misconduct of one of the court, are all matters 
 which relate to the mode of procedure, and not 
 to the right to proceed ; and I repeat that it is 
 the latter only that I can take cognizance of." 
 
 There is still one more quotation to be offered 
 from the text of the judgment. "The minister, 
 in a legal point of view, is a voluntary member 
 of the association to which he belongs. The 
 position is not forced upon him, he seeks it. 
 He accepts it with all its burdens and conse- 
 quences, with all the rules, laws, and canons 
 subsisting or to be made by competent authority, 
 and can, at pleasure and with impunity, abandon 
 it. If they were merciful, and regardful of con- 
 scientious examples, he knew it ; if they were 
 arbitrary, illiberal, and attempted to chain the 
 thoughts and consciences, he knew it. They 
 cannot, in any event, endanger his life or liberty, 
 impair any of his personal rights, deprive him of 
 property acquired under the laws, or interfere
 
 288 INDEPENDENCE IS POSSIBLE [No. 
 
 with the free exercise and enjoyment of religious 
 profession and worship, for these are protected 
 by the constitution and laws. While a member 
 of the association, however, and having a full 
 share in all benefits resulting therefrom, he 
 should adhere to its discipline, conform to its 
 doctrines and mode of worship, and obey its laws 
 and canons. If reason and conscience will not 
 permit, the connexion should be severed." 
 
 And now we have done with this most striking 
 and suggestive judgment, and with the con- 
 ception which it so vigorously sets forth as to 
 the proper relations of civil and ecclesiastical 
 discipline. It can hardly be necessary to dis- 
 claim the supposition that it is applicable in all 
 points, as it stands, to the existing condition of 
 things in England. But at least for the purpose 
 for which it was adduced it is most pertinent, 
 and most effective. It demonstrates incontest- 
 ably that it is not ideally only, but most rationally 
 and practically possible, in the most prosaic and 
 modern constitution of things, for the decisions 
 of ecclesiastical tribunals upon questions of eccle- 
 siastical things and persons to be accepted, with- 
 out review, as conclusive, by the highest State 
 courts, if anyone should be so ill-advised as to 
 attempt to move the State courts to review or 
 restrain them. It shows that the American 
 courts not only see their way to affirming this 
 independence, but that they are ready. to affirm 
 it in vehement I had almost said impassioned
 
 10] IN A MODERN DEMOCRACY 289 
 
 language, as the one great safeguarding principle 
 against indefinite confusion and peril. "Shall 
 we maintain the boundary between Church and 
 State, and let each revolve in its respective 
 sphere, the one undisturbed by the other? All 
 history warns not to rouse the passion or wake 
 up the fanaticism which may grapple with the 
 State in a deathly struggle for supremacy." 
 
 Such is the condition of things with a non- 
 established Church in the midst of a democracy ; 
 a condition essentially different, quite as much 
 from that of any non-established as from that of 
 the established communion amongst ourselves. 
 No doubt it cannot but occur to those who read 
 the account of it, and notice the difference of the 
 circumstances implied, to ask themselves how far 
 the relation described is to be connected, in the 
 way of consequence, either with the democratic 
 principle of the Constitution, or with the fact 
 that the Church is there in the simple position 
 of a voluntary body. And there is sometimes a 
 disposition to lay it down that independence and 
 non-establishment stand in a necessary con- 
 nexion with each other ; and that a Church 
 which accepts the privileges of establishment 
 must necessarily purchase them by a greater or 
 less surrender of liberty. 
 
 To this opinion we will refer again presently. 
 Meanwhile that this independence of the Ameri- 
 can Church is not inseparable from either of the 
 two conditions, non-establishment or democracy, 
 u
 
 290 AND IN THE ESTABLISHED [No. 
 
 is shown sufficiently plainly by the fact that the 
 Scottish Kirk, an established communion under 
 the British Crown and Constitution, is itself no 
 less independent. We are indeed told, in refer- 
 ence to the Established Church of Scotland, that 
 it would be rash to deny that cases might con- 
 ceivably arise of such extreme departure from the 
 recognised condition of Church settlement, as 
 might possibly be held by the courts to justify 
 interference : but a proviso of such character as 
 this serves really rather to emphasise than to 
 limit the actual independence for all normal pur- 
 poses whatever. 
 
 The general statement upon the point in the 
 Blue Book appendices runs thus : " No appeal 
 lies to a civil court in matters of discipline or 
 on the ground of excess of punishment. But if 
 under the form of discipline the Church courts 
 were to inflict Church censures (involving civil 
 consequences) on a minister for, e.g., obeying the 
 law of the land, a question would arise similar to 
 some of those questions which arose in 1838-43 
 in connexion with the Strathbogie ministers, and 
 might be brought before the civil court on the 
 ground of excess of jurisdiction. It is believed 
 that in no case would the civil court entertain 
 an appeal from a judgment of an ecclesiastical 
 court on a question of doctrine, or enter on an 
 examination of the soundness of such a judgment 
 before enforcing its civil consequences. 
 
 " Any questions which have arisen on matters
 
 io] CHURCH OF SCOTLAND 291 
 
 of ritual, such, for example, as the introduction 
 of instrumental music in the services of the 
 Church, or the postures to be observed in public 
 worship, have hitherto been decided exclusively 
 by the Church courts. But it can scarcely be 
 affirmed that cases might not arise of such flag-- 
 rant departure from the ' form and purity of 
 worship' established by the Act 1707, appended 
 to the Treaty of Union, as might be held to 
 constitute a violation of the provisions of that 
 Act, and consequently to justify, on the failure 
 to obtain redress from the General Assembly, an 
 appeal to the civil court." 
 
 The position is further illustrated by the quo- 
 tation of a judgment of Lord Lee in 1880. A 
 minister who had been condemned by the pres- 
 bytery, and, after appeal, by the General Assem- 
 bly, attempted to carry the case to the civil 
 court, on the ground of alleged irregularities in 
 the proceedings. The action, we are told, was 
 at once dismissed as incompetent. The follow- 
 ing is an extract from the judgment : 
 
 "All the questions raised by the complainer 
 are questions of Church law and procedure in a 
 case clearly within the province of the Church 
 courts. In such cases it has always been held 
 that the Court of Session cannot interfere upon 
 an allegation that the forms of ecclesiastical 
 procedure have not been observed. As Lord 
 Fullerton said in the case of Campbell, ' If the 
 presbytery have power to proceed independently
 
 292 LORD LEE'S [No. 
 
 of the remit, there is an end of the case. But 
 even if it were assumed that they had not, what 
 is the result ? Only that they, an ecclesiastical 
 court, did, in a case clearly within their province, 
 something which, according to the form of eccle- 
 siastical procedure, they were not entitled to do. 
 But on such a ground the Court of Session is 
 clearly not entitled to interfere.' The opinions 
 of the other judges in that case, and in the later 
 cases, appear to the Lord Ordinary quite con- 
 clusive against the competency of interfering 
 upon such allegations as are here presented. 
 Thus the Lord President Boyle, in Lockhart's 
 case : ' We have just as little right to interfere 
 with the proceedings of the Church courts in 
 matters of ecclesiastical discipline, as we have 
 to interfere with the proceedings of the Court 
 of Justiciary in a criminal question.' Lord Ivory, 
 as well as Lord Fullerton, explained the distinc- 
 tion between such cases and the Auchterarder 
 and Strathbogie cases. 1 Again, in the case of 
 Paterson, where a presbytery was said to have 
 oppressively and illegally proceeded with a prose- 
 cution, disregarding medical certificates of the 
 insanity of the accused, Lord President McNeill 
 
 1 At the same time, a little further on, Lord Lee remarks : " It is 
 impossible to read the opinion of Lord Ivory and the judges who con- 
 curred with him in the final stage of the [Strathbogie] case, without 
 seeing that there was ground for difference of opinion as to the com- 
 petency of interfering even in the exceptional circumstances there 
 presented." Certainly it may be doubted whether this case, as the one 
 prominent exception quoted, does not do more to prove, than to shake, 
 alike the fact and the credit of the usual rule.
 
 io] JUDGMENT 293 
 
 laid it down that the Church courts alone could 
 regulate their own order of procedure in regard 
 to the matter. ' If there was anything wrong or 
 irregular in what the presbytery did, I think the 
 proper appeal was not to the court, but to the 
 superior Church tribunal. It is said that in the 
 meantime evidence might have been led in sup- 
 port of the charge. But that would have raised a 
 question of order of procedure in the ecclesiastical 
 court with which we do not interfere. ' The opinion 
 of Lord Moncrieff (L.J.C.) in the case of Wight 
 is still more distinct and emphatic. ' If there- 
 fore, ' he said, ' this were a case in which we 
 were called upon to review the proceedings of 
 an inferior court, I should have thought a strong 
 case had been made out for our interference. 
 But whatever inconsiderate dicta to that effect 
 may have been thrown out, that is not the law 
 of Scotland. The jurisdiction of the Church 
 courts, as recognised judicatories of this realm, 
 rests on a similar statutory foundation to that 
 under which we administer justice within these 
 walls. It is easy to suggest extravagant instances 
 of excess of power, but quite as easy to do so 
 in regard to the one jurisdiction as to the other. 
 Within their spiritual province the Church courts 
 are as supreme as we are within the civil, and 
 as this is a matter relating to the discipline of the 
 Church, and solely within the cognizance of the 
 Church courts, I think we have no power what- 
 ever to interfere.' "
 
 294 OTHER SCOTTISH [No. 
 
 To these quotations from the appendices of the 
 Commission's report may be added the following 
 extract from Mr. MacColl's evidence before the 
 Commission : " In delivering judgment in the 
 case of Sturrock v. Greig (in 1849), Lord Justice 
 Clerk Hope used these words : 'The first section 
 (of the Confession of Faith) announces a great 
 truth of the Church, liable to misapprehension, 
 doubtless, but a doctrine which is the foundation 
 of the whole authority and government of the 
 Church over its members, that is, that in the 
 matter of discipline, whether as to doctrine or 
 evil practice, or non-observance of Church ordi- 
 nances, the Church is exercising a government 
 through its Church officers, appointed by the 
 Lord Jesus, distinct from the civil magistrates. 
 Whatever questions have been raised as to the 
 wider effect of this declaration, to which I need 
 not now advert, this is undeniable, that in regard 
 to discipline, the authority of the Church, as a 
 distinct and separate government, is derived from 
 that source. To that declaration, as the founda- 
 tion of the exercise of Church censure over the 
 members of the Church, I think courts of law 
 must give full effect as much as to any other 
 statutory enactment. It is not our business to 
 consider the truth of that declaration ; if it were, 
 I should be prepared to defend it. Neither are 
 we to consider whether it will arm men with 
 alarming power, capable of producing great 
 mischief. The statute has given the remedy in
 
 io] JUDGMENTS 295 
 
 the courts which it trusted in the appeals com- 
 petent to the superior Church courts.' He goes 
 on to say that the Church courts ' have been 
 trusted as a separate government. The declara- 
 tion of the authority under which they act 
 assumes that it must be separately administered, 
 free from control, from subjection, or subordina- 
 tion to civil tribunals. They are distinct and 
 supreme, and the authority under which they sit 
 excludes any inquiry into their motives by civil 
 courts.' 
 
 ''Then, in the case of Lockhart v. the Pres- 
 bytery of Deer, the four judges of the First 
 Division of the Court of Session laid down the 
 law in similar terms. The Lord President said, 
 ' We have just as little right to interfere with the 
 proceedings of the Church courts in matters of 
 ecclesiastical discipline as we have to interfere 
 with the proceedings of the Court of Justiciary 
 in a criminal question.' 1 
 
 Now, in the face of all this unimpeachable 
 evidence, it is surely not too much to assert, that 
 much of the current thought and language in 
 England about the impossibility of the ultimate 
 independence of spiritual courts has been shown 
 by the work of the Commissioners, not with any 
 greater or less amount of probability, but to 
 absolute demonstration, to be simply a fallacy. 
 It is surely not too much to claim that the 
 current language on the subject that confident 
 laying down of sweeping principles in an abstract
 
 296 ESTABLISHMENT NEED [No. 
 
 form should be discontinued ; and that those 
 who still assert the "impossibility" should under- 
 stand and admit the very different and qualified 
 sense in which alone their assertion is admissible 
 at all. What the assertion may mean still, and 
 what it can only mean, is (i) that such independ- 
 ence is not compatible with the received tradition 
 and practice of English law ; and (2) that any 
 change in this tradition and practice, such as to 
 admit of it, is (in the opinion of the particular 
 assertors) utterly improbable. The first of these 
 two propositions is undeniable. The opinion 
 which follows may or may not be true. But it is, 
 in any case, arguable ; and I have to submit that 
 it greatly concerns the present generation, alike 
 on the side of the Church and on the side of the 
 State, to examine it far more narrowly, and with 
 far more openness of mind, than has been even 
 possible for those to whom the " impossibility " of 
 independence has appeared a foregone conclusion. 
 I said just now that it is often asserted that 
 (whatever may be the case with voluntary 
 societies) establishment necessarily involves a 
 surrender, more or less, of ecclesiastical liberty. 
 The assertion has a fair and plausible sound, and 
 is apt to be, therefore, accepted without scrutiny ; 
 and yet it is a singularly hollow one. For first, it 
 has been already pointed out that establishment 
 and ecclesiastical independence do actually coin- 
 cide in the case of the Scottish Kirk. And more 
 than this ; the Scottish Kirk is more completely
 
 io] NOT INFRINGE LIBERTY 297 
 
 independent of State control than any merely 
 voluntary association could be. I quote a para- 
 graph from Mr. Spencer Holland's Summary of 
 the Ecclesiastical Courts Commissioners Report 
 (pp. 256-7) :- 
 
 " Such being the admittedly independent 
 position of the Church courts in Scotland, its 
 establishment as a fact secures it more liberty of 
 action than if it were an independent corporation. 
 
 " ' As to forms of procedure, the Established 
 Church of Scotland,' says Mr. ^Eneas Mackay in 
 his text-book of Scotch law, ' has wider powers 
 (than a Dissenting Church), it having a statutory 
 form of legislation as well as a statutory judiciary, 
 and it can make laws or rules of procedure 
 having statutory authority ' ; while as to Dissent- 
 ing Churches, although they equally may delegate 
 governmental duties to representative bodies 
 [here the quotation from Mr. Mackay is resumed], 
 'a question may, however, be raised as regards 
 their constitution which could not be raised as 
 regards the courts of the Established Church, 
 namely, how far provisions excluding the juris- 
 diction of the civil courts are legal.' 
 
 " Again, where the existence or constitution of 
 the Established Church comes in any way before 
 a civil court it is accepted as a body having 
 forms and procedure recognised by and known 
 to the law, whereas a Dissenting Church would 
 have to prove its terms of association and contract. 
 
 " ' The former ' (says Mr. Mackay) ' possesses a
 
 298 ESTABLISHMENT SHOULD BE [No. 
 
 jurisdiction proper directly derived from the 
 Crown, while the latter has only a prorogated 
 jurisdiction derived from the consent of its 
 members.' 
 
 " This, as he says, is the sole distinction 
 between the position of the Established Church 
 or any other religious corporation in the eyes of 
 the law ; a distinction, as has been pointed out, 
 to the advantage of the Established Church." 
 
 Now without going further into this, or caring 
 to settle how far what is here said agrees, or not, 
 with the dicta of the American judgment, it may 
 be useful, from the point of view of this last 
 extract, to canvass for a moment the meaning of 
 the supposition that an established Church is, or 
 should be, less " free " than a non-established 
 one. I submit that such a view, however 
 plausible at first sight, or however generally held, 
 will not bear examination for a moment. It 
 absolutely depends upon a conception of the 
 nature of establishment, which is alien to every 
 possible reading of historical facts ; a conception 
 on which, had it been true, the Church never 
 would have been established. Moreover, it so 
 completely inverts the leading idea of "establish- 
 ment," as to make it a condition of exceptional 
 disability instead of being one of exceptional 
 privilege. And yet surely if establishment means 
 anything, it means at least this : that the religious 
 association which is " established " is more ac- 
 cepted by the State, more trusted, and endowed
 
 10] A POSITION OF PRIVILEGE, 299 
 
 with more powers and facilities than those which 
 are not established. Men allow themselves to 
 speak as though the essence of establishment 
 were that the State gave to the Church money, 
 or something analogous to money ; sometimes 
 as though by its supposed gift of money the State 
 purchased, and paid handsomely for, the right of 
 trampling at will over the Church; or even as 
 though, by authenticating, it had actually created 
 a Church, where no Church before was ! No 
 doubt the State may give money, or it may not ; 
 but in any case this is but an accessory. What is 
 of the essence of establishment is that the State 
 accepts, facilitates, authorises with the stamp of 
 secular as well as spiritual authority, that which 
 the Church is, whether established or no. The 
 Church is what it is. The Church is, before it is 
 established ; for otherwise certainly no establish- 
 ment ever will bring it into being. The State, so 
 far as it establishes, accepts the Church for what 
 it is and authenticates it to the nation. The 
 State has no knowledge of unestablished com- 
 munions : but the Church which the State 
 establishes is known to the State, and acknow- 
 ledged, and authorised by it. Its standards, its 
 principles, its constitution, its procedure, the 
 nation adopts and incorporates as a part of the 
 national system. Is it not an extraordinary in- 
 version of any meaning that could ever rightly 
 attach to the conception of establishment, to re- 
 present that the Established Church means the
 
 300 NOT A DIMINUTION [No. 
 
 one among Churches that the State distrusts, 
 gags, fetters with disabilities ? that all others are 
 free, but that she alone is in servitude ? that all 
 others have, or may have, rules, principles, 
 authorities whom the State may, if it will, treat 
 and listen to with respect, but that she whose 
 whole system the nation has in such sense both 
 known and trusted that it has received and 
 adopted it as being, in its view, the truest and 
 best presentment of Divine Truth, that she by 
 virtue of this very act of acceptance and homage 
 should become the one society, professing to be 
 divinely constituted as a Church, which is to be 
 held, for ever and necessarily, incapable of finding 
 out or of determining any of her own principles or 
 practices for herself? Certainly this is something 
 as remote as possible from anything that " estab- 
 lishment " ever was historically conceived or 
 intended to mean. And if this is what statesmen 
 understand by it now, or if it is for this that they 
 or any of them vlesire to maintain establishment, 
 then the sooner it is plainly avowed that the so- 
 called position of privilege means nothing really 
 but the most degrading of servitudes, the better 
 it will be for us all. 
 
 It is probable indeed that there are very few, 
 other than professed enemies, who would acknow- 
 ledge such a principle. But there are a great 
 many who indirectly imply it, and use it, and 
 build upon it. There are a great many who lay 
 down and think that they are laying down an
 
 io] OF FREEDOM 301 
 
 unimpeachable, almost axiomatic, principle that 
 the Church by the fact of establishment has 
 naturally and necessarily lost its freedom of life 
 and being" as a Church ; as though, indeed, the 
 grip of the State were so fatal that it could not 
 embrace a Church without strangling it ; as 
 though, in a word, the very title " Established 
 Church," instead of representing a great historical 
 reality, were a contradiction in terms ! 
 
 Undoubtedly the truth ought to lie the other 
 way. The position of an established Church 
 ought to be better, not worse, than that of an 
 unestablished. Whatever amount of recognition 
 or respect is capable of being paid, in America or 
 elsewhere, to a Church which is unestablished, a 
 fortiori, much more of the same respectful re- 
 cognition ought to be paid, as a consequence of 
 course, if the Church were recognised and 
 accepted as the established Church of the nation. 
 It cannot be admitted for a moment that the free- 
 dom can reasonably be an incident of the non- 
 establishment. The argument from the one to 
 the other, from the non-established to the estab- 
 lished, can only be an a fortiori argument. In 
 the case of Scotland it has been indicated already 
 that this is so, at least to a perceptible degree, 
 in fact. It should be an essential element in the 
 fact of establishment. Establishment without 
 this is a caricature of establishment. 
 
 It may be worth while to notice incidentally 
 one point about the Scottish procedure which is
 
 302 THE QUESTION OF THE LAITY [No. 
 
 sometimes urged as if it constituted an answer to 
 any arguments based on the autonomy of the 
 Established Church of Scotland. We are re- 
 minded that the General Assembly (which is the 
 final court) " is composed of representatives 
 elected annually by every presbytery in the 
 Church, and numbers about 440 members, in the 
 proportion of about 260 ministers to 180 elders ; 
 the four universities and the royal burghs also 
 send representatives to the Assembly " ; and we 
 are asked whether, if we emulate their independ- 
 ence, we are prepared to imitate the constitution 
 of their Assembly by a large infusion of laymen 
 in our governing bodies? As an argument 
 nothing could be more irrelevant than this ques- 
 tion. We might quite as well be asked whether, 
 because we admire their position in some points, 
 we are therefore ready to adopt their presby- 
 terianism. The point is that their final Church 
 court (however according to their system it may 
 be constituted) is really final unrevised by either 
 State or Crown. If the question is meant to 
 imply that the court is any more a civil, or any 
 less an ecclesiastical court, because lay or semi- 
 lay persons are (by the constitution of their 
 Church) seated as members, it is simply a con- 
 fusion of thought on the part of the questioners. 
 And yet on no other ground is the question 
 strictly relevant. If, however, it is merely meant 
 that we should do well to consider in what way, 
 if we could obtain a similar independence, our
 
 io] IS IRRELEVANT 303 
 
 Church courts should be constituted, and how 
 far both in them and in councils it is right to 
 hear the voice of laymen, the answer is simple. 
 Of course we should do well to consider. Every- 
 thing* ought to be considered. And the particular 
 question of the admission of laymen to such posi- 
 tions, and its limits, appears to be a burden laid 
 specially upon the Churchmen of our own genera- 
 tion. But neither their admission nor exclusion, 
 which is purely an internal Church question, 
 affects in the smallest degree the question of the 
 compatibility of establishment and freedom, or 
 the relation which a Church established ought 
 to bear to the nation. 
 
 We are drawing towards the close of our 
 present argument ; but there are still two matters 
 on which it will be worth while (if it be not too 
 presumptuous) to make some remark, viz., first, as 
 to the nature and grounds of the present method 
 in the English courts ; and, secondly, as to the 
 meaning and outcome of the English " Royal 
 Supremacy." 
 
 It may not unnaturally be felt that even if 
 everything were conceded which has been either 
 said, or inferred, about the Scottish and American 
 Churches, yet the most that is hereby proved 
 the most, indeed, that has even claimed to be 
 proved is that things can possibly be otherwise 
 than they are in England. Moreover, it may be 
 urged that, without any insular boasting of the 
 superiority of our own ways, we are at least
 
 304 THE PRACTICE OF [No. 
 
 entitled to consider that a system which has 
 grown with our growth in England must have a 
 good practical account to give of itself. It may 
 be urged that the mere fact that the English rule 
 and practice are what they are towards every 
 every religious society constitutes an argument 
 of the gravest weight on behalf of them ; and 
 that there is at least undue self-confidence, if not 
 some flippancy, in freely conceding the fact as to 
 English law courts, and yet ignoring the argu- 
 mentative weight of the fact. Why should 
 English law courts and lawyers consistently have 
 taken for granted one view of the proper relation 
 between the courts of the realm and the rules of 
 all religious societies, unless it be that that view 
 is in itself inherently reasonable ? Now if it were 
 impossible to return any direct answer to this 
 question, the argument which is implied in it 
 would be more formidable. But the argument 
 fails directly an alternative answer can be given. 
 Just a word or two to clear the ground first, 
 before suggesting an answer. The conduct of 
 English courts towards the Established Church, 
 on the one hand, and towards the " Free 
 Churches," on the other, must be kept as distinct 
 ideas. The thought which is here meant to be 
 suggested is not so much that the English con- 
 ception of establishment standing by itself is its 
 own justification, but rather that the treatment 
 by English courts of the " Free Churches " is 
 an argument on behalf of the treatment of the
 
 io] THE ENGLISH COURTS 305 
 
 Established Church ; or at least that the corre- 
 spondence between the conduct of the State 
 towards the one and the other, the fact that 
 State courts eventually overrule both alike im- 
 partially, is an argument to prove that she does 
 nothing wrong or unnecessary towards the Estab- 
 lished Church. It is implied that if there were 
 anything oppressive or unjust in the treatment of 
 the State Church, we should see it brought into 
 relief by the contrasted independence of Dissent- 
 ing Churches ; for that it is extravagant to sup- 
 pose that there can be anything but the strictness 
 of equity in the conduct of the State towards 
 them. Is not the subjection of the " Free 
 Churches " an evidence that the subjection of the 
 Established Church is no tyranny? And how, 
 except on good grounds of principle and history, 
 is it possible to account for the undoubted sub- 
 jection of the "Free" Churches? Here lies, 
 then, the real point of the question ; and to this 
 question, in this form, it is perhaps not so difficult 
 to suggest an answer. 
 
 For has not the custom of dealing, as law 
 courts deal now, with the rules of religious 
 societies grown up as a half-unconscious but not 
 indirect result of that theory of the Royal 
 Supremacy, which has traditionally been a sort 
 of underlying principle of all dealing in England 
 with the Established Church ? No doubt it is a 
 growth, and a modern growth, the necessity of 
 
 dealing with voluntary Churches at all. When 
 x
 
 306 IS DUE TO A THEORY OF [No. 
 
 the necessity began to arise, was it not dealt with 
 by men whose minds were saturated with the old 
 establishment theory of the Royal Supremacy ? 
 The practical outcome of that theory has been 
 the reservation, as a matter of tenacious, almost 
 (so to say) of sacred principle, of a revising" power 
 to the Crown behind all ecclesiastical judicature. 
 If the minds of lawyers have come to be tradi- 
 tionally imbued with this as a sort of sacred 
 principle of the constitution, it is natural that 
 when first religious questions in nonconforming 
 bodies began to be brought up to be dealt with 
 by them, they should, as a mere result of the 
 training and atmosphere of which their lives and 
 their courts were full, take for granted that the 
 civil power was to go to the bottom for itself of 
 every question, interpreting all documents and 
 pronouncing upon all creeds (as under the shadow 
 of the theory of the Royal Supremacy) without 
 accepting anything as authoritative from the 
 members of the religious societies themselves. 
 In the Established Church itself something 
 analogous to this was done though, it is true, 
 upon a different theory and under circumstances 
 which, if scrutinised, would be found to be 
 different. In the Established Church the Sove- 
 reign claimed the power as (so to say) from 
 within the Church, by virtue of his Church 
 authority, as supreme Church governor. But I 
 submit that it was the shadow of this theory and 
 practice in dealing with religious questions,
 
 io] THE ROYAL SUPREMACY, 307 
 
 which, before men's minds were awake to the 
 nature of the question, caused the law courts 
 instinctively to deal with Nonconformists' disputes 
 in a method of analogous kind ; and on a 
 principle which, when analysed, is referrible to 
 the Established Church conception of the Royal 
 Supremacy. They acted conservatively as was 
 natural, and by instinct, at a time when the 
 real nature of the choice before them, or its 
 magnitude could hardly have been recognised 
 by anyone. Of course it is not meant that they 
 consciously applied the theory of the Royal 
 Supremacy to the case of unestablished com- 
 munions : but that they used ideas which only 
 the case of the establishment really supplied to 
 them, not being conscious to what they owed 
 them, or from whence they came. Practically, 
 then, their minds were prejudiced by the force 
 of their traditional atmosphere ; and were far less 
 open than e.g. the American law courts to per- 
 ceive in its true bearings, and decide upon its 
 real merits, the question how best to deal with 
 disputes as to conscience or discipline internal to 
 the life of religious societies. May I compare 
 this unconscious debt of the lawyers to the 
 received principles and atmosphere of the Estab- 
 lished Church to the unconscious debt which 
 as has often been, and will have to be oftener, 
 pointed out modern Agnosticism lies under to 
 the principles and instincts of Christian morality ? 
 It acts by them, thinks by them, and knows
 
 308 WHICH HAS LED TO [No. 
 
 not whence or why it is moral : rather it falsely 
 attributes its morality to causes incapable of pro- 
 ducing it. So the lawyers instinctively and 
 unconsciously borrowed from the methods tradi- 
 tionally in use in respect of the Established 
 Church (which methods themselves were due to 
 the theory of the Royal Supremacy) the principles 
 on which they acted, and still act, supposing 
 now, erroneously, that the principles have their 
 foundation in some abstract reason, towards 
 the disputes of religious societies. Were not 
 the American law courts, after all, more prescient 
 and more practically wise ? 
 
 But if there be any shadow of truth in this 
 suggestion, then it is plain, of course, that the 
 fact that the practice of English law courts is 
 towards Nonconformists what it is will not bear 
 the weight of any argument at all. Being itself 
 a mere shadow of the English tradition towards 
 establishment, that practice can contribute noth- 
 ing whatever to determine that which, after all, is 
 the main subject under discussion, viz. the ques- 
 tion of the necessity or wisdom of the English 
 tradition. 
 
 But possibly what has been said upon this 
 matter may lead us to perceive more easily that 
 which appears to be the greatest paradox of all. 
 The implied thought in the above argument was 
 that the independent Churches must be presumed 
 to be treated, as far as it was a possibility, on 
 principles of independence. Therefore, if they
 
 io] A PARADOXICAL RESULT 309 
 
 were overruled, such overruling could be no 
 infringement of the utmost independence possible. 
 Our suggestion in reply, which we believe to 
 be perfectly reasonable and true, is that the 
 independent Churches have really been treated 
 on the pattern of the treatment of the State 
 Church. But if Churches really meant to be 
 treated as independent came to be treated after 
 the pattern of the State Church, is it possible 
 that this may be interpreted after all, and almost 
 per impossibile, into meaning that the pattern 
 of the treatment of the State Church is itself, 
 in its real proper truth, a pattern not of sub- 
 jection, but of independence ? 
 
 Paradoxical as it may sound to some ears, and 
 opposite as its modern results have been to the 
 State Church first, and afterwards, by conse- 
 quence from her, to the Free Churches also this 
 is precisely what appears to be the truth. I sub- 
 mit that the treatment of the Free Churches 
 in English law courts is the more, in a sense, 
 paradoxical, because while it has grown imper- 
 ceptibly as a shadow of the treatment of the 
 State Church, the historical attitude meanwhile 
 towards the State Church (of which it is a shadow) 
 has itself precisely contradicted the real principles 
 on which it was based. The practice which has 
 grown up, indeed, is that all Church decisions, 
 on what points of doctrine soever, are liable to 
 authoritative revision and overruling at the hands 
 of the lawyers. But the theoretical and consti-
 
 3io THE ORIGINAL IDEA [NO. 
 
 tutional position of the Church is independent. 
 The transition from the one state to the other, 
 great as it seems to be, is yet made not un- 
 naturally nor otherwise than easily, under cover of 
 the really ambiguous term, "Royal Supremacy." 
 If I may, without extreme presumption, venture 
 to comment upon the phrase at all, it will at 
 least be a modest contention to begin by insisting 
 that the phrase " Royal Supremacy " is one 
 which has undergone a very practical and very 
 considerable modification. That which it really 
 was first meant to signify, or at least that under- 
 lying principle which first gave it crucial import- 
 ance, was (I suppose we may safely venture 
 to say) the competency of the national Church 
 to determine all its ecclesiastical questions for 
 itself, without being bound by the ties of extra- 
 national allegiance towards Rome. But passing 
 by all discussion of this sense, in which it is 
 directly equivalent to an assertion of Anglican 
 independence in respect of those without, and 
 looking only to the mutual relation which was 
 signified by it between the Church and the Crown 
 at home; yet can it be doubted that it meant 
 something wholly different from what it either 
 does or can mean now? No doubt there were 
 practical usurpations and transgressions of its 
 meaning, but, usurpations apart, did it not mean 
 that the Sovereign, being naturally the fountain 
 of all coercive jurisdiction within the realm, and 
 being moreover himself within the Church, was
 
 io] OF THE ROYAL SUPREMACY 311 
 
 acknowledged by the Church to be both within 
 the Church and without it, both according to the 
 ancient traditions of the realm, and with the full 
 consent of the Church herself, the proper source 
 of all other than strictly spiritual power ? It was 
 not he indeed who conferred upon spiritual 
 officers their spiritual office. But it was he who 
 commissioned them to be a State power in Eng- 
 land. Quite apart from him, bishops of the 
 Church would indeed have been bishops, and 
 would have been possessed of all rights and 
 powers which belong to the inherent authority 
 of their office : but apart from him they would 
 have had no licence to act in any way as bishops 
 within the laws of this realm, and would have 
 exercised their spiritual influence at their material 
 peril. To him as Sovereign they acknowledged 
 that they owed all their public authorisation, all 
 right to act in and through the ecclesiastical 
 processes of the State, all jurisdiction in the 
 region of material things. There was a sense, 
 no doubt, in which the Crown, even if heathen, 
 must still have had sovereign power over all 
 its subjects. But the acceptance by the Church 
 of the Royal Supremacy was a recognition that 
 to a Christian sovereign, himself in things 
 spiritual a dutiful son of the Church, the Church 
 in all its persons and all its processes owed a 
 directness and alacrity of obedience by which the 
 merely necessary submission and loyalty of sub- 
 jects were transfigured into something of a reli-
 
 3i2 A CHURCHMAN SOVEREIGN [No. 
 
 gious character. The Church was willing to 
 receive from him all the civil and national sanc- 
 tion of its functions ; and in acknowledgment of, 
 and in reliance upon, his dutiful Churchmanship, 
 to exercise its high office as spiritual council and 
 legislature only by and with his consent. Apart 
 from his consent indeed, its acts, however spirit- 
 ually regular, could in no case have had any 
 legal validity ; and persons, or actions, or tri- 
 bunals of the Church which were non-legal, 
 could hardly then have been other than illegal 
 also. The loyalty, then, of Churchmen as 
 Churchmen became his due, not merely as sym- 
 bolising the national independence of Rome, but 
 because the Church exercised national rights and 
 powers, and because he was, whilst himself 
 loyally and wholly of the Church and in the 
 Church, the personification of all lawful execu- 
 tive power in the realm. 
 
 There was in all this not so much a submission 
 to an alien power standing coldly without and 
 above, as a cheerful acknowledgment that, in 
 things not expressly pertaining to God, the 
 Churchman sovereign was indeed sovereign over 
 Churchmen. But then this sovereignty of his 
 was to be exercised in a Churchmanlike fashion ; 
 and what fashion this meant was not ambiguous 
 at all. In exercising it he was to be, not the 
 supreme secular person overriding the Church, 
 but rather the Churchman to whom God had 
 entrusted all executive force, and whose privilege
 
 io] SOVEREIGN OVER CHURCHMEN, 313 
 
 therefore it was to give public effectiveness to 
 the Church. He was supreme as Churchman, 
 acting Churchmanly ; just as in the State he was 
 supreme as Englishman, acting within the Eng- 
 lish constitution and laws. He was no more 
 meant to be supreme as against or above Church 
 principles, or the proper ministers of them, than 
 on the civil side he was meant to be supreme 
 as against or above the laws of the land, or the 
 judges who administered them. In either case 
 the judges, ecclesiastical or temporal, were, when 
 acting in their capacity as judges, independent 
 of him ; even whilst in either case they were per- 
 sonally, and for their public position as judges, 
 and for their authority to act in that position, 
 dependent upon him. In either case his supre- 
 macy was the sort of personified, yet half- 
 mysterious force lying behind, to give effect 
 to we may say (if he acted dutifully) to give 
 effective independence to that system (secular 
 or spiritual) behind which it lay. It still signified 
 really the independence, not the subjection, 
 whether of the civil or the ecclesiastical law 
 and judicature. 
 
 I do not contend that there were no exaggera- 
 tions or perversions of this conception on the 
 part of the sovereign, or that there were no 
 high-handed acts of usurpation which had to be, 
 and were, more or less expressly submitted to on 
 the part of the Church (as well as on the part 
 of the secular Parliament and courts) ; but that,
 
 3M NOT THE SECULAR POWER [No. 
 
 exaggeration and usurpation apart, the true con- 
 ception of the Royal Supremacy, that conception 
 which made the submission of Churchmen to 
 it an honest and a reasonable thing, that con- 
 ception which was really present to the con- 
 science of Churchmen from the beginning, and 
 did not die away, but outlived all the more 
 dangerous threatenings of usurpation, was of 
 such a nature as this. Now, herein there is no 
 such thing really as the "temporalty" overriding 
 the "spiritualty." The sovereign, who was 
 ideally supreme, was by no means identical, as 
 a conception, with the temporalty. Rather he 
 was the incarnation of a divinely Sovereign 
 Power, lying behind and over all ecclesiastical 
 and all temporal machineries alike. They are 
 side by side, they are co-ordinate, in their dis- 
 tinct domains, the ecclesiastical and the tem- 
 poral ; they neither override the other : they do 
 not meet, save only in that unique sovereign 
 personality, who is conceived of as the ideally 
 majestic fountain of all the legal jurisdiction 
 of them both. 
 
 In what it came afterwards to be, the " Royal 
 Supremacy " is almost the exact antithesis to 
 the principle which underlies the American judg- 
 ment so largely quoted just now : but in its 
 original conception it would not have contra- 
 dicted it at all. Nay, it is the American method, 
 and not the English one (however lineal the 
 descent of the latter may be), which really illus-
 
 io] OVERRIDING THE SPIRITUAL, 315 
 
 trates and gives exact practical expression to the 
 proper meaning of the old English principle. 
 So directly is this the case that that very Ameri- 
 can judgment can appeal to the old English 
 principle as the direct and original expression 
 of its own controlling idea, in a way in which no 
 modern Privy Council judgment could have done 
 without a manifest distortion of meaning. " The 
 controlling principle " (I quote once more from 
 the text of the American judgment) " is declared 
 in the 24th statute of Henry VIII : 'causes 
 spiritual must be judged by judges of the spiritu- 
 ality, and causes temporal by temporal judges. ' ' 
 
 This statement of principle is not merely com- 
 patible with, but is part of the necessary exposi- 
 tion of, the real purpose and meaning of, the 
 Royal Supremacy. 
 
 But the posture of times has changed. The 
 royal position itself is modified. It is impossi- 
 ble that Royal Supremacy can have for prac- 
 tical purposes an unchanged meaning. Usurpa- 
 tions still quite apart, the growth of events 
 itself has been reading new senses into the 
 phrase. The "sovereign" is now, in fact, 
 identified with the total civil administration. 
 The phrase contains less and less of the person- 
 ality of the personal ruler, be he Churchman 
 or Mohammedan, and more and more simply 
 represents the civil or secular power. It is 
 obvious at a glance that the "supremacy of the 
 secular power " will mean something different in
 
 316 WHICH HAS RESULTED [No. 
 
 kind from what the " Royal Supremacy," on any 
 admissible hypothesis, could ever have been 
 properly intended, or understood to mean. It 
 now becomes the direct contradiction of that 
 which was once, in its own way, in England, and 
 is now elsewhere, and for justice and for safety 
 should everywhere and always be, the maxim at 
 least of modern States about Churches, viz. that, 
 established or unestablished, they should them- 
 selves be the guardians of their own rules, and 
 should execute their own discipline within them- 
 selves. The State can certainly nowadays dis- 
 establish a Church which it no longer trusts. 
 But to attempt to overrule a Church in its own 
 subject-matter is, at least in modern States, 
 fundamentally impolitic. And this is precisely 
 what we have been brought to in England not 
 so much with open eyes and deliberate intention, 
 as by the gradual shifting of the import of 
 political terms, by the modification nay, the 
 reversal of the meaning of the once all-import- 
 ant phrase, "Royal Supremacy." As pressed 
 upon us nowadays it is really pressed with no 
 other outcome of meaning except that the civil 
 power shall override the spiritual ; except (in 
 other words) that the Church shall not be inde- 
 pendent ; except (that is) in direct and fatal con- 
 tradiction of its own proper meaning and value. 
 
 Is this inevitable ? The Royal Supremacy was 
 once, it is suggested, an ideal sovereignty, lying 
 behind both ecclesiastical and secular machin-
 
 io] THROUGH POLITICAL CHANGES 317 
 
 eries, both the "spiritualty" and the " tempor- 
 alty, " which were themselves, in the constitution, 
 parallel. In both these spheres the phrase and 
 the idea remain. Call it fiction, or call it con- 
 stitutional principle : it is retained equally in 
 both, but with the most widely diverse significa- 
 tion. In the temporal sphere it now means 
 practically that the " body temporal " is guaran- 
 teed in perfect independence. In the ecclesi- 
 astical sphere it now means that the " body 
 spiritual" is held in subjection to the "body 
 temporal." Is this contrast of meaning inevit- 
 able ? Is it impossible that in the spiritual as 
 well as the temporal sphere it should mean (that 
 which would be now, I submit, its proper mean- 
 ing according to the modifications of the modern 
 conception of sovereignty) a guaranteed inde- 
 pendence ? If this is really impossible, if it is 
 really true that Royal Supremacy nowadays can 
 have no meaning except such as necessarily 
 contradicts what it ought to mean ; is it wise, 
 is it conservative, to continue to be enamoured 
 of the phrase ? 
 
 If indeed it should be urged that the ideal con- 
 ception of sovereignty has but been gradually 
 transferred in fact from the personal sovereign 
 to the "body politic"; and that all else that has 
 followed has only followed as a necessary corol- 
 lary of that transfer ; it must be answered that 
 the considerations half practical, half mystical 
 which really justified to the conscience of
 
 3 i8 THE PRIVY COUNCIL COURT [No. 
 
 Churchmen once the recognition of an excep- 
 tional Church position in a loyal mediaeval 
 Churchman sovereign, could not possibly be so 
 transferred as to be made applicable to the hetero- 
 geneous Parliament of modern days. Such a 
 many-headed despot cannot possibly be supreme 
 as Churchman, or as the Church's half-con- 
 secrated champion. Supreme it can be, no 
 doubt ; but supreme only as Caesar, the great 
 impersonation of secular authority, the power 
 of this world, external to and in contrast with 
 the Church. 
 
 Until the last two or three years, indeed, we 
 might have been told that the Privy Council was 
 no more external to the Church than the Sove- 
 reign had been conceived to be ; but that the 
 voice it spoke with was indeed a Church voice. 
 They are no adverse court (it would once have 
 been said) overriding the Church, but they are 
 themselves the supreme court of the Church ; 
 they are the Church's own last word. So long 
 as this language was capable of being used, it 
 greatly aggravated the Church's wrong. Church- 
 men could far better have borne the undisguised 
 yoke of coercionist, or even of persecutor ; but 
 to be relentlessly overruled by a will and force 
 essentially alien, and yet told in all sweetness 
 that this alien and unintelligent force was itself 
 but the voice of the Church claiming spiritual 
 loyalty, was the bitterest injury and insult of all. 
 The Ecclesiastical Courts Commissioners have
 
 io] IS NOW NO CHURCH COURT 319 
 
 probably saved us from all such language in the 
 future. They have done all that seemed to them 
 practicable to narrow the sphere of the Privy 
 Council Court ; and to strip it of all appearance 
 of being a final overriding court of appeal. 
 Every single thing that they have done in this 
 direction has been of real value, and deserves 
 lasting gratitude. And yet, in their tenderness 
 to the venerable but shifting conception of the 
 Royal Supremacy, they have, after all, essentially 
 left the court, and with it the elements of the 
 former complications. Men can see now that the 
 Privy Council Court is no Church court. Men 
 can see now that the Privy Council Court 
 ought to have no power of final overruling, 
 no voice in really ecclesiastical decisions. Yet 
 in the last resort it retains the power ; nor 
 is it easy to doubt that practically all the ecclesi- 
 astical tribunals, as lower courts subject to 
 its ultimate revision and overruling, would (if 
 ever the recommendations of the Commission 
 were tested in practical working) come by and 
 by to administer and interpret Church principles 
 and rules, and be, in effect, compelled to admin- 
 ister and interpret them, not independently of, 
 but in accordance with, the administering and 
 interpreting of the court of the Privy Council. 
 But if it be so, the essence of the confusion has 
 not yet been removed. Neither will it be, until 
 the Church of England, whether it be disestab- 
 lished, or still more, much more, if it con-
 
 320 
 
 THE NEED OF REFORM 
 
 [No. 
 
 tinue to deserve and command the national trust 
 as established, shall have been in all its ecclesi- 
 astical processes and discipline, and in all their 
 rightful consequences, wholly and absolutely 
 emancipated from all secular overruling. 
 
 It is possible that the change in English tradi- 
 tion and procedure which I venture to plead for 
 may still seem, on many sides, exaggerated. 
 Possibly some would say that so great a modifi- 
 cation of existing conditions necessarily involves 
 perhaps even that it amounts to disestablish- 
 ment. Others, with no less show of reason, might 
 answer, No : but it rather is the prudent reform 
 which most truly conserves the establishment by 
 averting at once the danger and the need of revolu- 
 tion. Upon any such dispute as this I have no 
 concern now to intrude. Only upon whichever 
 hypothesis, and under whichever title, I submit 
 that the modification is in itself a reasonable one ; 
 and is necessary for the preservation of health. 1 
 
 1 [The following are the references to the Report of the Ecclesiastical 
 Courts Commission: 
 
 The quotations on pp. 274-6, 279-88, are from Report II. 638-41 
 290-1 II. 601 
 
 291-3 
 
 294-5 
 
 321 
 
 322 
 
 323-4 
 
 324-5 
 
 II. 600 
 II- 313 
 1-35-6 
 1-73 
 II. 367 
 II. 1-
 
 io] HENRY VIII ON ROYAL SUPREMACY 321 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 EVEN Henry VIII himself, whose exaggerated pre- 
 tensions are undeniable, could write and urge [I quote 
 from Bishop Stubbs' historical appendix to the Com- 
 mission's Report] " that the title should not be strained 
 so as to imply a denial of the sole and supreme lord- 
 ship of Christ, or to claim a headship of the mystical 
 body of Christ, or as more than meaning headship of 
 the clergy of England ; he insists that the headship is 
 not limited to temporal matters, but that 'all spiritual 
 things, by reason whereof may arise bodily trouble 
 and inquietation, be necessarily included in princes' 
 power': that the spiritual things, the ministration of 
 which is by Christ committed to the clergy, are not so 
 far extended as the modern use of the word spiritual 
 assumes, but that as to persons, property, acts, and 
 deeds, the clergy are under the king as head ; that 
 this headship does not imply superiority in things in 
 which emperors and princes obey bishops and priests 
 as doers of the message of Christ and His ambassadors 
 for that purpose ; the addition in temporalibus would 
 be superfluous, ' as men, being here themselves 
 earthly and temporal, cannot be head and governor 
 to things eternal.' If spiritualities 'refers to spiritual 
 men, that is, priests, clerks, their good acts and deeds 
 worldly, in all this both we and all other princes be at 
 this day chief and heads.' He alleges, as illustrations 
 of the existing headship, the Convocations assembled 
 under royal authority, the fealty of the bishops, licence 
 and assent to the election of abbots, cognisance of 
 certain offences of the clergy ; ' so as in all those 
 articles concerning the persons of priests, their laws, 
 their acts, and order of living, forasmuch as they be 
 Y
 
 322 QUEEN ELIZABETH [No. 
 
 all temporal and concerning this present life only, in 
 those we, as we be called, be indeed in this real caput, 
 and, because there is no man above us here, be indeed 
 supremum caput.' " 
 
 Queen Elizabeth's explanation after the abandon- 
 ment of the supremum caput, is, perhaps, more entirely 
 reassuring. "And further, her Majesty forbiddeth 
 all manner her subjects to give ear or credit to such 
 perverse and malicious persons which most sinisterly 
 and maliciously labour to notifie to her loving subjects 
 how by the words of the said oath it may be collected 
 that the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the 
 crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry 
 of divine service in the Church, wherein her said sub- 
 jects be much abused by such evil disposed persons ; 
 for certainly her Majesty neither doth nor ever will 
 challenge any authority than that was challenged and 
 lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, 
 King Henry VIII and King Edward VI, -which is 
 and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this 
 realm; that is under God to have the sovereignty and 
 rule over all manner of persons born within these her 
 realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either 
 ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other 
 foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over 
 them. And if any person, that hath conceived any 
 other sense of the form of the said oath, shall accept 
 the same oath with this interpretation, sense, or mean- 
 ing, her Majesty is well pleased to accept every such 
 in that behalf as her good and obedient subjects, and 
 shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained 
 in the said Act against such as shall peremptorily or 
 obstinately refuse to take the same oath." With this 
 runs the language of the 37th Article: "Where we 
 attribute to the Queen's Majesty the chief government, 
 by which titles we understand the minds of some 
 slanderous folks to be offended ; we give not to our
 
 io] ARCHBISHOP GRINDAL 323 
 
 princes the ministering either of God's Word or of the 
 Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately 
 set forth by Elizabeth our Queen do most plainly 
 testify ; but that only prerogative, which we see to 
 have been given always to all godly princes in holy 
 Scriptures by God Himself; that is, that they should 
 rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge 
 by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, 
 and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and 
 evil-doers." 
 
 The following passage from Dr. Liddon's evidence 
 may be added : 
 
 " I should like to be allowed to refer to the language 
 of Abp. Grindal, soon after he was appointed to the 
 see of Canterbury, when a difference had arisen be- 
 tween him and Queen Elizabeth about the Puritan 
 prophesyings. It shows how little the legislation of 
 Henry's reign had destroyed in the representatives of 
 the Church of England the sense of what was due to 
 the spirituality in matters of Christian doctrine and 
 discipline. I quote from his ' Remains ' in the Parker 
 Society's edition, p. 387. ' I beg you, Madam, that 
 you would refer all these ecclesiastical matters which 
 touch religion, or the doctrine and discipline of the 
 Church, unto the bishops and divines of your realm ; 
 according to the example of all godly Christian 
 emperors and princes of all ages. For indeed they 
 are things to be judged (as an ancient father writeth) 
 in ecclesia, seu synodo, non in palatio. When your 
 Majesty hath questions of the laws of your realm, you 
 do not decide the same in your court, but send them 
 to your judges to be determined. Likewise for doubts 
 in matters of doctrine or discipline of the Church the 
 ordinary way is to refer the decision of the same to 
 the bishops, and other head ministers of the Church.' 
 Then he goes on to address to Elizabeth the language 
 which was used by St. Ambrose to Theodosius and to
 
 324 JAMES I, LORD COKE [No. 
 
 Valentinian ; and he quotes with approval the state- 
 ment of the same father, that Constantius fell into 
 Arianism 4 because he took upon him de fide intra 
 palatium judicareS Grindal represents what may be 
 termed the extreme point of the Puritan impulse which 
 succeeded the Reformation ; Grindal is more of a 
 Puritan than either Parker or Whitgift. This language 
 shows how mistaken it is to suppose that the sensitive 
 feeling about the transfer of purely ecclesiastical duties 
 to the Crown or to laymen began with the High 
 Church Caroline reaction. 
 
 "7389. Have you any evidence that Elizabeth con- 
 ducted her ecclesiastical business in that way, that she 
 withdrew the business from the House of Commons 
 because not fitted for the laity ? Yes, she did. 
 
 "739O- Was that her interpretation of it? That 
 was her interpretation of it. The 37th Article refers 
 to her injunctions. And there is a passage in James 
 the First's ' Apology for the Oath of Allegiance ' which 
 shows how he himself understood this oath of supre- 
 macy. James had sufficiently high notions of the pre- 
 rogative, yet he writes as follows : ' I never did nor 
 will presume to create any articles of faith, or to be 
 judge thereof; but to submit my exemplary obedience 
 unto them [the bishops of the Church] in as great 
 humility as the meanest of the land ' (p. 269). To the 
 same effect Bishop Andrewes, who was selected by 
 James to defend his supremacy against Bellarmine 
 (Tortura Torti, p. 380) : ' Docendi munus vel dubia 
 leg-is explicandi Rex non assumit." 
 
 Mr. MacColl concludes his evidence with a further 
 quotation: " If I might express my opinion in the 
 language of Lord Coke, I should like to be allowed to 
 do so. What he lays down is this : ' As in temporal 
 causes the King by the mouth of his judges in his 
 courts of justice doth judge and determine the same 
 by the temporal laws of England, so in causes eccle-
 
 io] MR. GLADSTONE 325 
 
 siastical and spiritual . . . the same are to be deter- 
 mined and decided by the ecclesiastical judges accord- 
 ing to the King's ecclesiastical laws of this realm.' 
 And in the fourth of his Institutes he says : ' And 
 certain it is that this kingdom has been best governed, 
 and peace and quiet preserved, when both parties 
 that is, when the justices of the temporal courts and 
 the ecclesiastical judges have kept themselves within 
 their proper jurisdiction, without encroaching or usurp- 
 ing one upon another. And where such encroachments 
 or usurpations have been made they have been the 
 seeds of great trouble and inconvenience.'" 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in his letter to the Bishop of London 
 in 1850, wrote : " It is an utter mistake to suppose that 
 the recognition of the royal supremacy in matters 
 ecclesiastical established in the Church a despotic 
 power. The monarchy of England had been from 
 early times a free monarchy. The idea of law was 
 altogether paramount in this happy constitution to that 
 of any personal will. . . . Thus everybody knew 
 that there were laws superior to the Sovereign, and 
 liberties which he could not infringe : that he was 
 king in order to be guardian of those laws and liber- 
 ties, and to direct both the legislative and all other 
 governing powers in the spirit which they breathed, 
 and within the lines which they marked out for him : 
 ... in making Church law he was to ratify the acts 
 of the Church herself, represented in Convocation, and 
 if there were need of the highest civil sanctions, then 
 to have the aid of Parliament also ; and in administer- 
 ing Church law he was to discharge this function 
 through the medium of bishops and divines, canonists 
 and civilians, as her own most fully authorised, best- 
 instructed sons, following in each case the analogy of 
 his ordinary procedure as head of the State. 
 
 " It is a well-established principle that the Sovereign 
 cannot administer justice in his own person, unless
 
 326 MR. GLADSTONE [No. 10. 
 
 authorised to do so, as any officer of state might be, 
 by statute. ' Edward I frequently sat in the Court of 
 King's Bench ; and in later times James I is said to 
 have sat there in person, but was informed by his 
 judges that he could not deliver an opinion.' l And it 
 is now an undisputed principle that 4 though the king 
 should be present in a court of justice, he is not 
 empowered to determine any cause or motion but by 
 the mouth of his judges, to whom he has committed 
 his whole judicial authority.' 2 The doctrine of this 
 passage is, I believe, that of the great legal authorities. 
 Thus while the immense latitude of nominal preroga- 
 tive was overshadowed, on the one side, by the superi- 
 ority of the combined legislature, it was, on the other, 
 barred from arbitrary excess by the necessity of 
 operating through responsible instruments. The ideal 
 or legal monarch was invested with these high attri- 
 butes, while the living one was on almost all sides 
 limited by law, in order that the actual authority under 
 which the work of government is carried on throughout 
 the country in its details might be one and undivided, 
 revered and resistless." 
 
 It may perhaps, then, be also remarked that, however 
 fair and constitutional it may sound at the first blush, 
 there is no more logical ground for laying down that 
 there must be an essential right of appeal to the person 
 of the Sovereign in ecclesiastical than in ordinary civil 
 or criminal cases. It is no principle of the constitution 
 that the Sovereign in person, or through his personal 
 counsellors, may always be called upon to re-hear and 
 revise what the Lord Justices of Appeal have pro- 
 nounced upon. Neither is it necessary for the safe- 
 guarding of any constitutional or essential rights of 
 the subject, that the ecclesiastical courts of appeal 
 should not be final. 
 
 1 Blackstone, iii. p. 41, note. 2 Allen on the Prerogative, p. 93.
 
 CHURCH MEMBERSHIP 
 AND LAWS OF MARRIAGE 
 
 (A paper read at Warrington on Nov. 7th, 1884. ) l 
 
 1 r* ROM city to city the Apostles of Christ went, 
 JL and in every place that which they did was 
 this : they organised a society. They were estab- 
 lishing a great association which was to be 
 world-wide, and they never obtained a footing 
 anywhere without inaugurating and properly 
 organising a branch of this great society. The 
 society which they everywhere organised had, of 
 course, its officers, its rules, its ceremonies ; but 
 the question it mostly concerns us to notice to- 
 night is that it was a society for personal holiness. 
 No matter what nation or country it might be 
 established in, those who became members of the 
 society were bound by the society's rules of 
 personal holiness. Need I say that this great 
 association for personal holiness which the 
 Apostles everywhere so industriously formed and 
 ordered was that which we by Baptism became 
 members of that which we in the Apostles' 
 Creed declare our belief in the Holy Catholic 
 Church ? 
 
 1 [See page xiii.] 
 327
 
 328 THE CHURCH HAD [No. 
 
 Now it was to be expected, if the society thus 
 divinely founded was to be a society for personal 
 holiness, that it should have its own strict laws 
 on the subject of marriage. And so we very 
 quickly find that it had. If a man transgressed 
 the principles of the Church about marriage, he 
 was turned out of the Church, and to be turned 
 out of the Church meant to be turned out of the 
 society of Christ, which alone possessed either the 
 means or the hope of holiness ; it meant to be 
 handed over to Satan for chastisement and bodily 
 ruin in the hope indeed that out of that ruin 
 and misery the wretched soul might in penitence 
 humbly seek to be reconciled and restored to its 
 place among the brethren again. I am not using 
 the language of any corrupted Christianity, of 
 Jesuits, or of Popes ; I am using the language 
 of St. Paul. Let anyone examine for himself the 
 language used by St. Paul to the Corinthians 
 in the fifth chapter of i Corinthians and the 
 second chapter of 2 Corinthians, about that 
 Corinthian whom he first solemnly turned out 
 of Christ's Church by excommunication, and 
 afterwards on his penitence restored, and see 
 whether I have at all exaggerated. And 
 what was the offence of this man ? He had 
 flagrantly disobeyed the law as to restrictions 
 upon marriage, which was binding on the con- 
 science of members of Christ's Church. We 
 see then very clearly that this great society of the 
 Church had its own rules and its own discipline,
 
 n] ITS MARRIAGE LAW 329 
 
 and in particular that it had its own rules about 
 marriage, which if a man disobeyed, he must 
 be turned out without pity as a heathen and an 
 outcast from the Church. 
 
 Of course at this time the Church had no 
 shadow of political power ; on the contrary, as 
 far as lawyers or judges knew of it at all, they 
 would have had to treat it as an illegal society. 
 But this Church, however humble, or despised, or 
 persecuted, had nevertheless her own rules. A 
 man could disobey them no doubt without doing 
 anything illegal only he would cease to be a 
 Christian. If he wished to be a loyal Roman 
 subject, he had to obey the laws of the Roman 
 Empire. But if he wished to be a member of 
 Christ's Church, he must obey the Church rules ; 
 if he defied the rules of Christ's society he could 
 not be a member of the Church of Christ. There 
 was nothing in this which would be in the least 
 perplexing to the mind of St. Paul and his 
 contemporaries. 
 
 But, in process of time, there came a certain 
 great change over the circumstances, no less a 
 change than this : that the Roman Empire itself 
 became Christian, and accepted for itself the 
 fundamental laws of Christ's Church. And it 
 followed before long, as a natural consequence, 
 that the rules of the Church of Christ on the 
 subject of marriage became the basis of the 
 imperial laws. I do not suppose that this made 
 any very great change at the time in respect of
 
 330 WHICH BECAME [No. 
 
 forbidden degrees of relationship ; for even the 
 laws of Pagan Rome on this subject had been 
 guided by so sound an instinct that no great 
 contrast of principles was needed. The subject 
 on which they were incredibly lax, and on which 
 the Christian principles made necessarily an 
 enormous change in the imperial laws, was the 
 subject of divorce. Whether, however, the 
 changes which had to be made in the old Pagan 
 code were greater or less, the point which concerns 
 us now is this : that as a consequence of the con- 
 version of Constantine and the Empire, the rules 
 of the Church of Christ became, and in all the 
 Christian nations of Europe continued to be for 
 centuries, without dispute, the basis of all the 
 national laws and customs of marriage. 
 
 I will ask you to notice particularly what 
 followed from this. This consequence followed : 
 since the laws of each Christian nation were 
 absolutely based upon the rules of Christ's Church 
 on earth, Christian men and women no longer 
 needed, as in primitive days, to ask themselves 
 two separate questions, viz. first, whether their 
 union was permitted by Christ; and secondly, 
 whether it was legal according to the laws of the 
 land. But since the laws of the land were framed 
 upon the rules of the Church, they were able to 
 take it for granted, without further question, that 
 whatever the law of the land allowed was allow- 
 able also in the Church of Christ. I say they 
 were able to take this for granted, and they did so.
 
 ii] THE LAW OF THE STATE 331 
 
 In the times of St. Paul, of course, no Chris- 
 tian could have dreamed of considering only the 
 laws of heathen Rome. He must have asked him- 
 self not only, Is this marriage legal ? but also, Is 
 this marriage permitted in that society of holiness 
 to which I belong, i.e. the Church of Christ 
 upon earth ? Whereas for hundreds of years 
 past it has been enough for us and our fathers 
 simply to ask ourselves, Is such and such a 
 marriage "legal"? because we have learnt by 
 immemorial habit to assume that the laws were 
 Christian, and that as Christians we could rely 
 upon them. 
 
 So inveterate, indeed, has this habit become, 
 so completely have even Christian people learned 
 to rely upon the law, and to look to that only, 
 that if the law were to-morrow to legalise some- 
 thing which was plainly forbidden to Christ's 
 Church, I am afraid that we should find a great 
 many respectable people, meaning to be good 
 Christians, who would at once begin to think 
 that the thing, because it was legal, ought there- 
 fore to be tolerated among Christians. Christian 
 people have learnt to forget, to an extent which 
 is most astonishing and full of peril, that they 
 must look for their rule of right and wrong to 
 Christ, and to that great society of Christ upon 
 earth of which they profess to be members, and 
 only to the laws of the land if, or so far as, they 
 are conformed to the rule of Christ's society. 
 Now I want to insist with all the emphasis I can
 
 332 BUT THE TWO LAWS [No. 
 
 that it is absolutely necessary for Christian 
 people to remember that Christ's rules for His 
 Church, and the laws of this or any other par- 
 ticular country, are really two different things. If 
 they coincide, so much the better for us. But 
 even when they speak the same things they are 
 still two voices which happily agree together ; 
 they are not the same voice ; and they may 
 differ. It is perfectly within the power of the 
 English or any other nation to pass a law which 
 shall flagrantly contradict the plainest commands 
 of Christ. No one would deny in the abstract 
 that an English Parliament or a French Assembly 
 could do this; and yet, incredible as it may seem, 
 such is the power of old habit with us that even 
 if an English Act of Parliament did plainly 
 contradict Christ's rules, there would be found a 
 great many respectable ladies and gentlemen, 
 meaning to be Christians, who would not notice 
 the fact that the law of marriage was being 
 paganised, but would cling still to the old instinct 
 of supposing that because a law allowed a thing, 
 therefore a Christian might do it without forfeit- 
 ing his membership in Christ. 
 
 Do I seem to anyone to be making a violent 
 supposition ? Alas ! it is not supposition at all : 
 the thing is already plain fact and notorious fact. 
 Persons who have been divorced in the law courts 
 consider themselves at liberty to marry whom 
 they will ; even guilty parties those with whom 
 they have been guilty. Am I not speaking of
 
 ii] MAY AGAIN DIVERGE 333 
 
 things which are notorious ? for they have not 
 been done in a corner. Now I say nothing at 
 present of the question of the second marriage of 
 the innocent party while the guilty one still 
 lives ; because, though I might have much to say 
 in argument about that, I know at least that some 
 doubts may be pleaded, and that doctors of the 
 Church have held conflicting opinions on the 
 question. But as to the marriage of the guilty 
 party with his or her paramour, surely if words 
 mean anything, the lips of Christ Himself have 
 pronounced that it is adultery for ever. Yet by 
 the laws of England it is lawful marriage. 
 
 Am I dreaming if I say that I fear there 
 are many, even among educated English gentle- 
 men and ladies, even among loyally minded 
 Christian men and women, communicants them- 
 selves in the awful Communion of Christ's 
 Church, who are prepared to condone such 
 things as these, and though their taste may be 
 somewhat offended for awhile, yet in time at 
 least, to accept the adultery as marriage, and to 
 frown with a sort of spurious indignation if the 
 officers of Christ's society dare to remember 
 that the Body of Christ committed to them 
 is holy ? 
 
 But what does all this mean ? It means that 
 people are so much accustomed to rely upon the 
 law, that when the law begins, after long cen- 
 turies of union to part company with the rules 
 which bind the consciences of members of Christ's
 
 334 WITH CONSEQUENT [NO. 
 
 Church, there is a most imminent and fearful 
 danger of a great confusion of Christian con- 
 sciences ; and that even in this matter of divorce 
 and marriage after divorce, where, to Christian 
 consciences, there ought to be no doubt at all. I 
 fear it cannot be denied that the deliberate de- 
 parture of an English law in modern times from 
 Christian principles has produced a great con- 
 fusion among many Christian consciences. I am 
 not complaining at this moment so much of the 
 direct harm done by that law as of the indirect 
 harm to the general conscience. Nor am I speak- 
 ing of the more thoughtful minds of the more 
 accurately informed Church members ; but it is 
 true, I fear, of a great mass of our people, not 
 specially thoughtful or well informed, yet honestly 
 desiring to be Christian, that by that unchristian 
 law their conscience as to right and wrong will 
 become, and is becoming, perverted and con- 
 fused; their old instinct of keen discrimination 
 between good and evil is blunted ; they are be- 
 ginning in some cases to accept wrong as right. 
 Yet the Church of Christ and her ministers can- 
 not pare away or make exceptions to the rule 
 of Christian holiness. Now, I say, if this pro- 
 cess of confusing of the national conscience 
 proceeds much further, and Church and State 
 differ more and more in their standard of marriage, 
 and men and women are misled (as they will be 
 misled) thereby, then the struggle and agony of 
 soul which will be caused by and by in many
 
 ii] CONFUSION OF CONSCIENCE 335 
 
 individual cases is fearful even to contemplate. 
 And, alas ! it is not future only, this very thing 
 is already beginning. 
 
 I have spoken of one point in which already 
 the law of the land and the law of Christ stand 
 in the sharpest conceivable contradiction. The 
 divorced adulteress and her paramour may be 
 legally married, but do you suppose that any- 
 thing in the world could justify my receiving 
 them in the Church as lawful man and wife? 
 And now, from this point of view, I ask you 
 to think for a few moments of another change 
 in the national marriage law, about which there 
 has been, as you know, a most persistent agita- 
 tion for many years past. It is proposed to 
 legalise marriage with a wife's sister. But how? 
 What is it exactly that is proposed ? It is pro- 
 posed to pass an Act of Parliament which shall 
 stamp such unions with legality. Now, of course, 
 an Act of Parliament can make them legal, as 
 it has already made marriage with a woman 
 divorced because of adultery legal, and might 
 another time, if it pleased, make a man's marriage 
 with his own mother legal ; but it must be borne 
 in mind that though Acts of Parliament can make 
 any divorce or any union legal, they cannot do 
 more than this ; they cannot make them per- 
 missible to members of the Church of Christ if 
 they are really against the Church's law. Is it, 
 then, a matter on which the society of Christ's 
 Church has no judgment and no rule of its own ?
 
 336 MARRIAGE WITH [No. 
 
 Is it a matter of indifference to the Christian 
 society ? Are we prevented from these marriages 
 only by Act of Parliament? If we are prevented 
 only by Act of Parliament, then, and then only, 
 can a new Act of Parliament make them allow- 
 able to us. 
 
 Now I am perfectly well aware that there are 
 many who advocate the change, both in Parlia- 
 ment and out of it, who really are of opinion that 
 it is, from the point of view of Christ's Church, 
 a fairly open question ; and, moreover, I quite 
 believe that there is so little general desire to 
 make a contradiction in the matter between 
 English law and Christian right, that the measure 
 would not command anything like the support it 
 does if it were not for this opinion. But it must be 
 remembered that this is only at most the opinion 
 of individuals, and an opinion, moreover, which 
 hardly bears examination. Is it seriously con- 
 tended that the Church in any age has regarded 
 these marriages as within the Christian right? Is 
 it in the least capable of being disputed that if 
 the Church should sanction and bless them now, 
 she would be doing a new thing turning her 
 back upon the whole of her own historical judg- 
 ment in the matter and for the first time scatter- 
 ing to the winds the whole of one of the two clear 
 and consistent principles upon which her code of 
 marriage prohibitions has been based from the 
 beginning ? 
 
 But then, in the private opinion of many in-
 
 ] A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER 337 
 
 dividuals, Scripture would warrant her even in 
 this gigantic change. Now, I am not here to 
 attack the right of private judgment, though I 
 think we have run a little wild upon it. But do 
 let us remember that all this is private judgment. 
 Is it so much as suggested in any serious or 
 businesslike way that the Church in this land 
 should remove her prohibitions? 
 
 Are there any proposals for the enactment of a 
 new canon? Surely no informal declaration would 
 suffice for the purpose even from the most august 
 ecclesiastical bodies. But who is expected to 
 make even such a declaration ? The Bishops ? 
 the Convocations? the assemblies of dioceses, 
 whether clerical, or lay and clerical combined? 
 And do you know what these bodies would say if 
 they were invited to make such an innovation in 
 the rule of Christian life ? Indirectly, indeed, the 
 question has been already before them, almost 
 every one of them. There is hardly a diocese in 
 England which has not spoken. Do you know 
 what they have said ? It is really almost as idle 
 to imagine that the Church would sanction such 
 a revolutionary innovation now as to contend 
 that it would not be a revolutionary innovation ; 
 that it would not be a tearing to pieces of the 
 whole judgment of the Church in all ages as to 
 what Christian marriage meant and was, if she 
 did sanction it. But why do I use such strong 
 words ? Why do I speak of it as a gigantic 
 change and revolutionary innovation ?
 
 338 THE PRINCIPLE OF AFFINITY [No. 
 
 I think I can justify the phrase by this simple 
 thought. If my wife's sister is to me before God 
 a marriageable person, then it follows that re- 
 lationship by marriage is no relationship. She 
 is my sister by marriage. If relationship by 
 marriage is a reality, I cannot, by God's law, 
 marry her. If I may, under God's law, marry 
 her, this must mean that relationship by 
 marriage is before God no relationship. But if 
 relationships by marriage, relationships (as we 
 call them) of affinity, are nothing, then these 
 two great results follow first, that the table of 
 marriage prohibitions received in the Universal 
 Church from the beginning is altered, not in one 
 single particular only, but from top to bottom ; for 
 then so far as God's law is concerned I may marry 
 my wife's mother, or niece, or daughter, or grand- 
 daughter, or my step-mother, or my son's widow, 
 for they are all to me nothing whatever in the 
 way of relationship : secondly, that man and wife in 
 their marriage were not really altogether one, and 
 that sequels deduced from their real oneness were 
 gratuitous mistakes, for that really they still were 
 two. In that case the Church has been at fault 
 in all ages in her interpretation of the Master's 
 most solemn declaration about the meaning and 
 nature of marriage ; and that declaration itself, so 
 far from really bearing its most obvious meaning, 
 would be understood more easily and more 
 correctly if it were paraphrased thus "they 
 twain shall be one flesh; but so that they continue
 
 n] IS BASED UPON CHRIST'S WORD 339 
 
 still to be two separate persons, distinct in all 
 their relationships, and not merged in one ; not 
 one, still essentially twain " ; and yet "no more 
 twain, but one flesh," were His words. It is, I 
 think, impossible for anyone to dispute the truth, 
 in history, of these two historical facts first, that 
 the whole scheme of Christian law and custom 
 about marriage has been built upon the belief 
 that relationships by marriage are absolutely real 
 relationships ; and secondly, that this belief in 
 their reality has itself been understood to be 
 based upon, and asserted in, the words of our 
 Lord's great declaration about marriage in the 
 Bible. The Church has seen this meaning in her 
 Lord's declaration, both according to the plain- 
 ness of its own words, and also as they are further 
 commented upon and elucidated by the whole 
 course of God's revelation of His will in respect 
 of marriage from the beginning of the Bible to 
 the end. 
 
 Now, if anyone holds the opposite opinion as 
 to what the Church's judgment ought to be accord- 
 ing to the Scriptures, I submit that his task must 
 be to persuade the Church (if he can) to modify 
 the judgment which she has held from the begin- 
 ning. I have not been arguing this question 
 this evening. There may be a time to raise the 
 question for discussion whether the Church's 
 immemorial judgment is right or wrong; to open 
 and discuss the whole Scriptural argument. I 
 may be allowed just to mention that a few months
 
 340 THE DISASTROUS EFFECT [No. 
 
 ago, at a series of meetings with my clerical 
 brethren in the neighbourhood of Chester, I 
 ventured to attempt this very thing, and to draw 
 out from the Scripture the whole outline of argu- 
 ment as I conceived it, which proved that the 
 Church's interpretation was the right and neces- 
 sary one. 1 
 
 To-night I have barely indicated that argu- 
 ment ; I have been concerned rather to call 
 attention to what the facts are ; rather to remind 
 those who have allowed their thoughts to become 
 confused, that the Church always had, and must 
 always have, her own laws ; rather to insist upon 
 the importance and the reality of the marriage 
 laws which do exist for the society on earth of 
 Christ's Church than to prove from Scripture that 
 those laws were absolutely true and right. Yet 
 absolutely true I am convinced that they are ; 
 and I am quite certain that you cannot possibly 
 alter them in respect of sisters-in-law without 
 shattering to pieces one of their most funda- 
 mental principles, and letting in what will soon 
 prove to be a great tide of unchristian and un- 
 natural licence. 
 
 The proposal, then, if carried at all, will be 
 carried, I affirm, only because misconceived. It 
 will be carried by the support of those who, 
 through confusedness of thinking, will think that 
 Parliament has power to make such marriages 
 lawful for Christian people ; and who, if the 
 
 1 [See page xiii.]
 
 ii] OF LEGALISING MARRIAGES, 341 
 
 marriages should be legalised, will actually sup- 
 pose them to be lawful to Christians. There is a 
 true point of view from which it might really be 
 held to be less mischievous if a law were passed 
 which bade us marry at once our mothers, sisters, 
 and daughters, for at least no Christian conscience 
 would be deceived by that. There is not one 
 who would not know that the use of that law 
 would mean the rejection of Christ. But now, 
 alas! there is in the proposal as made a certain 
 kind of uncertainty and seeming ambiguity. Yes, 
 our long dependence upon the law in Christian 
 countries, followed by the blow which was dealt 
 to Christian consciences by the Divorce Acts, 
 and the mischief of the persistent agitation for the 
 present proposal, have wrought this grievous 
 wrong, that the consciences of our people are so 
 far confused that they no longer think and feel 
 with the strength of a keen and sure instinct 
 between right and wrong as to marriage. 
 
 Yes, that ambiguity, that confusedness of clear 
 sight, that misleading uncertainty as to the voices 
 which profess to guide us, it is that which I fear 
 most of all. It is humiliating, indeed, to think 
 of the national wrong which will be committed if, 
 as a nation, we adopt a standard of marriage laws 
 inconsistent with that of Christ's Church ; but I 
 grieve most deeply of all to think of that vast 
 tale of yet unwritten agonies of soul and con- 
 science which will wring the hearts by and by of 
 many of our sons and our daughters if, through
 
 342 WHICH ARE SINFUL [No. u 
 
 the fatal confusedness of the public conscience, 
 they shall be (as they will be) misled and betrayed 
 into condoning or making unions, which they 
 indeed may not intend as sin, but which never- 
 theless are, and cannot but be for ever, in the 
 sight and conscience of Christ's Holy Church, 
 sinful.
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE 
 CHRISTIAN LAW OF MARRIAGE 
 
 (A speech delivered in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury 
 on May gth, 1901. ) l 
 
 [The report of a Committee on marriage with a deceased 
 wife's sister having been presented, its adoption was proposed 
 as a gravamen. In due course Bishop Barry moved the 
 adoption of clause (2), viz.: "That such unions [i.e. with a 
 deceased wife's sister] are, in the belief of the undersigned, 
 contrariant to the principle of marriage revealed in Holy 
 Scripture, a principle recognised in the Church from early 
 times and emphatically reaffirmed by the Church of England. "] 
 
 I AM sincerely sorry that there is no possibility 
 of hoping that this clause will be affirmed 
 unanimously, but I still venture to hope that it 
 may be affirmed, if not unanimously, at all events 
 by the voice of a great majority. I should like 
 to say a word or two about the principle [viz. of 
 marriage] which has been challenged. The Dean 
 of Chichester has spoken of what the principle 
 exactly is [viz. "the great principle of Christian 
 marriage is announced in our Lord's words, that 
 man and wife become one flesh, and therefore 
 the relations of the husband become the relations 
 of the wife "]. I should just like to ask you to 
 
 1 [See page xiii.] 
 343
 
 344 THE OLD TESTAMENT [No. 
 
 recollect for a moment further the relation on this 
 subject between the Old Testament and the New. 
 In the Old Testament there is, as far as I can 
 see, no clear enunciation of a principle which 
 would, as a principle, luminously assert itself in 
 all possible relations. But there is a very con- 
 siderable amount of what I may call education 
 in detail towards the understanding of a principle. 
 Take the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus, for 
 instance. It is full of particular enactments. 
 But these enactments do not, I apprehend, cover 
 the whole ground. Every possible instance is not 
 enumerated ; but there is instance after instance 
 which, if you ask for anything that underlies 
 them, will point towards one great leading prin- 
 ciple. That great leading principle is in fact 
 affirmed by our Lord in the Gospels as a principle 
 which had been in fact inherent in the institution 
 of marriage from the Creation forward. The Old 
 Testament is most important for our purpose, not 
 because we are bound either to one or more par- 
 ticular enactments in the Book of Leviticus, as 
 serving for us in place of explicit statute law, 
 but because we desire in the light of the Old 
 Testament to interpret aright the principle which 
 we find in the New. Now, it is perfectly true 
 the principle as announced in the New might, 
 so far as words are concerned, be capable of 
 more interpretations than one. We want to know 
 the true and right interpretation of the principle 
 which conies to us from our Lord, and we find
 
 ii] AND THE MARRIAGE LAW 345 
 
 it by observing the line along which the religious 
 education of the chosen people had been pro- 
 ceeding before. If we suppose for one moment 
 that the principle as given by our Lord in the 
 Gospels does not so affirm the relation of man 
 and wife as to carry with it what we should now 
 call the recognition of a principle of affinity, then 
 I submit that we should have before us this 
 curious phenomenon a series of educational 
 precepts delivered in the Old Testament as part of 
 a process of the religious education of mankind 
 which led up to nothing at all. They would be 
 left entirely suspended. Whereas the Old Testa- 
 ment at once falls into its absolutely true place in 
 relation to the New, if we recognise it as being 
 the gradual leading towards what in the Christian 
 Church is to become luminous and complete. If 
 we are not able to affirm that principle, which 
 seems to me to be absolutely true ; if we are not 
 able to affirm that the legalisation of marriage 
 with a deceased wife's sister is in our judgment 
 contrariant to the principle of marriage revealed 
 in Holy Scripture, then it really becomes a 
 matter of extremely little practical importance 
 whether we have anything to say about the 
 matter at all. I submit, first of all, that it is 
 eminently desirable that we should now affirm, 
 it not unanimously, yet by the greatest possible 
 majority, that a certain proposal contravenes the 
 principle, the clear and far-reaching principle 
 progressively made manifest in the religious
 
 346 THE WESTERN CHURCH [No. 
 
 education of mankind, and culminating in the 
 announcement of our Lord Himself. And I 
 would suggest that the allusion to this principle 
 by reference to the relation betwixt Christ and 
 His Church is something more than merely an 
 illustration. The union betwixt Christ and His 
 Church is rather the fact which the sanctity of 
 the marriage union approximates and expresses, 
 as it were, in another form. So much then as to 
 that point. 
 
 In reference to the second clause, I venture to 
 think that this principle has been in fact recognised 
 throughout the course of Christian history. It 
 may be true that there have been from time to 
 time differences of opinion and of usage. But I 
 venture to suggest that all those instances which 
 were referred to by Canon Gore this morning, 
 though they may point to some hesitation as to 
 the precise way in which those Christians were to 
 be treated who had contravened the principle, 
 yet, nevertheless, even in treating them one way 
 or another, more or less leniently, the principle 
 was recognised. I suggest also that, whatever 
 may be said and whatever perplexity may arise 
 from what was done in the Western Church from 
 time to time in the way of dispensations, yet the 
 very fact of these dispensations constitutes a 
 recognition of the essential principle. And I 
 hardly imagine that if we recognise that fact we 
 shall be disposed to let our minds be influenced 
 to any great extent this afternoon by the existence
 
 n] THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 347 
 
 of somewhat exaggerated claims to a power of 
 giving dispensations. 
 
 One word more. As to this last point, that the 
 principle has been emphatically reaffirmed by the 
 Church of England, I cordially agree with every 
 word spoken by Bishop Barry. I feel myself 
 somewhat at a loss to understand what it is which 
 the Archdeacon of Lincoln proposes to put over 
 against the fulness of the title of the Table of 
 Prohibited Degrees. But I should rather quote 
 the words which the Archdeacon has referred to 
 in the Marriage Service itself [viz. "otherwise 
 than God's word doth allow "] as enormously 
 accentuating the solemnity which attaches, in 
 the corporate teaching of the Church of England, 
 to that principle which is expressed not only in 
 the title at the head of the table, but in almost 
 every line of the table from end to end. When 
 I read in the Marriage Service the caution that 
 " so many as are coupled together otherwise than 
 God's Word doth allow, are not joined together 
 by God, neither is their matrimony lawful," I 
 feel that the Church of England is laying down a 
 principle which is in itself of the most tremendous 
 solemnity, and which finds its own further inter- 
 pretation in detail in the schedule, as it were, 
 attached in the Table of Prohibited Degrees at 
 the end of the Prayer-book. 1 . 
 
 1 [The clause was carried, with only one dissentient.]
 
 DOCTRINAL STANDARDS 
 
 (Two lectures delivered at Pusey House in the autumn of 1897.) 
 
 I. THE CREEDS 
 
 I SUP POSE that every thoughtful man who 
 is, and desires to be, a Christian, must at 
 times have asked himself, in all seriousness of 
 candour, if not with anxiety and misgiving, 
 whether he does, after all, believe the character- 
 istic doctrines of the Christian religion to be the 
 very truth. Thus, the doctrine of the Incarna- 
 tion, that Jesus, the Son of Mary, the carpenter 
 of Nazareth, was, in the fullest sense of which 
 the words are capable, the actual personal revela- 
 tion, within human nature and conditions, of the 
 Eternal God this, as against every higher and 
 more reverential form of Arianism ; it is what 
 the Church has always insisted upon ; it is the 
 basis and kernel of the Church's historic creed : 
 but is it, actually and exactly, without overstate- 
 ment of fancy, the mere truth of fact? Again, 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, the essential three- 
 foldness and mutuality of Divine Personality : 
 it may be said to have grown out of the Christian 
 form of the doctrine of Incarnation ; but is it, as 
 stated in the Creed, so essential to truth, that to 
 
 348
 
 No. 12] THE CHRISTIAN FAITH 349 
 
 lose touch of it, in the understanding of the 
 Spirit, would be to wander from the possibilities 
 of a spiritual insight into truth ? Or is it per- 
 haps, after all, a corollary of old-world meta- 
 physics, based just upon the materialising over- 
 statement of the true Incarnation doctrine, and 
 maintained as if it were a fundamental of spiritual 
 thought, by a spiritually unintellectual conserva- 
 tism ? Or again, the Christian doctrine of Atone- 
 ment the life of obedience, the Death, the 
 Blood the reconciliation through Blood : I do 
 not of course attempt now to characterise or 
 explain it : it is difficult ; it needs to be 
 explained ; it needs to be thought over, with 
 the most absolute sincerity of soul ; but is it, 
 after all, more or less fictitious a strange, old- 
 world, rather hideous way of putting things, 
 which, whatever be their kernel of allegorical or 
 indirect truth, cannot possibly be the cardinal 
 truth of the relation in this world between God 
 and man, in the form or in the sense in which 
 Christian thought has conceived them, and apart 
 from which they would not be that which 
 Christian faith has always meant in believing 
 them? 
 
 I have pointed to what seem like very central 
 doctrines. But then, perhaps, does it occur to 
 us that there are others? and are we inclined 
 to distinguish, and perhaps resent what we are 
 disposed more or less to think an unnecessary 
 multiplication of secondary beliefs ? Such beliefs,
 
 350 A CLERGYMAN'S BELIEF [No. 
 
 perhaps, as the virgin-birth, the resurrection 
 of the body, the catholicity and the unity of the 
 Church, or the practical use of the Sacraments ; 
 are these, or any of them, accretions unnecessary, 
 at least, if not disputable ? 
 
 Now, as such questions as these must at some 
 times, as I conceive, have presented themselves, 
 with the utmost possible seriousness, to almost 
 every baptized Christian who was both intelligent 
 and sincere upon the religious side : so, to young 
 men who have thought, in any degree, of the 
 possibility of seeking Holy Orders, they can 
 hardly fail to come home with even exceptional 
 directness of emphasis. Do I really, and not 
 conventionally, accept and believe it all ? What 
 are the intellectual and spiritual obligations to 
 which, in reference to these, a clergyman is com- 
 mitted ? 
 
 Well, if he is a sincere man, he will have done 
 his best to think what the doctrines of the Trinity, 
 and the Incarnation, and the Atonement, and the 
 coming of the Holy Ghost, and the Church, 
 really mean to himself. We cannot wish him to 
 shirk or cover up anything : we can wish him 
 to be docile and humble-minded as well as sincere 
 in his attempt ; to be able to receive things which 
 he cannot fully understand, where it is reasonable 
 that he should receive them and reasonable that 
 he should not understand them ; we can see for 
 him how the temper of docility and intellectual 
 lowly-mindedness really contributes to his capacity
 
 12] MUST BE SINCERE 351 
 
 of spiritual insight, and is not a mere method or 
 excuse for accepting insincerely : but whatever 
 place we may assign to humility of character as 
 a method of insight, we do wish him to be per- 
 fectly true. We would not have him deceive 
 himself any more than us. We do not want him 
 to pretend to accept what he thinks that he does 
 not accept ; or blind himself into thinking that 
 he accepts what, if he were more transparently 
 straight and true, he ought to know that he really 
 does not. We do not want him to compromise 
 truth by accepting the doctrines in one sense, 
 when he feels in his heart that their real and 
 proper meaning is another. We do desire that 
 his acceptance of them in the end should honestly 
 mean, that he honestly, and not unreasonably, 
 believes himself to believe what he honestly, and 
 not unreasonably, believes to be the true and 
 proper meaning of the doctrines in the Church 
 of Christ. For him and for ourselves we do 
 desire to take our stand quite unreservedly upon 
 truth. We do not believe in taking liberties with 
 truth ; or that the cause of truth can be sub- 
 served by anything that is not perfectly sincere. 
 
 Well, we have before us the thought of our 
 young man, feeling his feet, clearing the eyes 
 of his soul, upon these central principles of the 
 Christian faith. I am not, of course, going to 
 attempt, here and now, to go through them, 
 exegetically or apologetically. Nothing, it may 
 be, in his life is more vitally important than the
 
 352 HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS [No. 
 
 work, intellectual and spiritual, which he goes 
 through, while he is trying to understand and be 
 sure that he does personally believe and mean 
 these things. But this stage, at all events, I 
 must assume. I can say only that for anything 
 like honesty in clerical life, I believe the positive 
 result to be a sine qua non. If he cannot believe, 
 himself personally, that Jesus Christ is very 
 God ; if he cannot believe that Jesus Christ, the 
 Son of God, died upon the cross for the sins of 
 the world ; and that He rose again and ascended 
 into heaven ; and that the Spirit of Jesus, who is 
 the absolute revelation, in humanity, of God 
 Himself, is the Breath and Life and Being the 
 beginning and the consummation of the Church : 
 whatever else his spiritual history may be (and I 
 do not say that it may not be rich, in its own 
 way, with blessings to himself and to mankind ; 
 but whatever else his spiritual experience may 
 be), I at least can have no hesitation whatever in 
 saying that he would not be in place as an author- 
 ised officer and interpreter of Christ's Church 
 upon earth. He cannot rightly, without that 
 basis, seek to be ordained. 
 
 Assuming, however, that he is, thus far, in 
 essential harmony with the Christian position, 
 there are questions which will confront him again 
 in a somewhat different form. He has no doubt 
 that he is, essentially, a Christian believer. But 
 he is not quite sure whether his agreement is 
 absolute with the forms in which Christian belief
 
 12} THE BELIEF OF THE CHURCH, 353 
 
 is expressed, and the interpretations and assump- 
 tions with which Christian belief has historically 
 been, and is generally, held, within the society 
 of the Church. He is not sure whether he fully 
 agrees with, or can be formally identified with, 
 the "belief of the Church." 
 
 Now, this phrase, the "belief of the Church," 
 as I have just used it, covers various things. 
 I should like for the present to distinguish them 
 as three : viz. first, the creeds the formal and 
 official utterances and declarations of Catholic 
 belief; secondly, the more or less authorised 
 theology a great body of theological comment 
 upon Church doctrine, some of it possessing a 
 considerable measure of formal authority, at least 
 locally and temporarily, in the form of concordats, 
 articles, catechisms, synodical declarations or 
 judgments, some of it just the writing of private 
 theologians, held for various reasons in high, but 
 varying, respect ; and thirdly, the general popular 
 instinct or opinion of the mass of ordinary 
 Christians. 
 
 Now, the moment I divide this belief of the 
 Church up into three heads, you will feel that it 
 is capable of being subdivided into many more. 
 Even the first head, "the creeds," is not quite 
 homogeneous. The Apostles' Creed is, in the 
 most absolute sense of all, a conditio sine qua non. 
 It is the test with which every candidate for 
 Baptism is challenged. Then and there he is 
 required to profess it ; and only on condition of 
 
 2 A
 
 354 AS REPRESENTED [NO. 
 
 that profession is he received to Baptism at all. 
 And when he is baptized into Church member- 
 ship, he is expected to repeat his Christian 
 profession in the form of his baptism that is, in 
 the form of the Apostles' Creed weekday and 
 Sunday, day and night, as part of his unchanging 
 worship, practically, you may say, every time 
 that he enters the House of God for worship 
 at all. 
 
 The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is not 
 similarly used as a test, nor is it part of every 
 morning's and every evening's aspiration. Never- 
 theless it stands as a monument for ever of the 
 most deliberate affirmation of theological truth 
 ever reached by the Church, as Church, through 
 those sore struggles of the fourth and fifth cen- 
 turies so ancient in mere time, but as intellectual 
 problems so vividly modern and living ; and it 
 remains as an immemorial and inherent element, 
 if not in the quasi-private worship of every day, 
 yet in that which is most characteristically 
 Christian worship, the very heart and soul of 
 what Church faith and Church life mean, the 
 Communion of the Body and Blood of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 The Athanasian Creed, of unknown origin and 
 authority primarily moral, though capable enough 
 of being called a creed, and certainly in its own 
 way wholly invaluable, yet belongs to a some- 
 what different set of conditions. It is an en- 
 thusiastic outpouring of Christian adoration the
 
 i 2 ] IN THE CREEDS, 355 
 
 jubilant worship of truth. It is not a test formula ; 
 its phrases have not been, one by one, hammered 
 out through the Church's agony. It is conse- 
 crated indeed by the Church's joyous acceptance 
 of it, through the centuries, as true ; and yet, to 
 say the least, it would be impossible to rule 
 that a discussion, say as to the balance of some 
 incidental phrase in it, would be as prima facie 
 inconsistent in a Christian as a demur to some 
 article in the formal baptismal creed. I say this 
 not in the least with a view to depreciate in any 
 sense the Athanasian symbol, or any clauses in 
 it, but because there is, after all, some perspective 
 in these things ; and because in the interest of 
 truth, which is often delicate and difficult enough 
 to ordinary minds, it is very desirable that per- 
 spective and proportions should not be lost 
 sight of. 
 
 I say "perspective." You will observe that 
 the practical meaning which this word perspective 
 represents is something like this : viz. that "the 
 creeds " mean essentially the baptismal creed ; 
 and the other two as legitimate expansions of 
 that. The three are not, in their own nature, 
 of perfectly parallel authority. I am, of course, 
 not now speaking of the question of their merely 
 legal authority in the established Church. But 
 going back behind that, I say that the real 
 answer to any hesitation about the terms of the 
 two later creeds is to show that they do not 
 really travel outside of what is virtually contained
 
 356 DEPENDS ON HIS ATTITUDE [No. 
 
 in the baptismal creed. It is obvious, of course, 
 that this is the nature of their historical claim. 
 Neither in the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, 
 nor in the more informal acceptance of the 
 Quicunque^ did the Church ever dream of adding 
 one iota to the sum of faith. Expansions of 
 statement had no meaning but to conserve, and 
 no justification if they did not rightly conserve, 
 the simplicity of the one essential creed. 
 
 But still, with all their possibilities of distinc- 
 tion, we take them broadly together. A man 
 believes the essential faith of the Church as faith. 
 What is his attitude to the creeds of the Church 
 as creeds? What is his attitude, that is, to par- 
 ticular forms of expression of his faith, regarded 
 as authoritative ? 
 
 Now, I cannot help feeling that, from the out- 
 set, his mental attitude towards creeds, as such, 
 will be profoundly affected by the nature of his 
 conception of a corporate Church. If the cor- 
 porate character of the Church is to him a truth 
 primary and essential, a necessary result of the 
 nature of man, and of God ; then the abstract 
 necessity of a corporate expression of truth will 
 be so obvious that, though of course he is not 
 thereby dispensed from any personal responsi- 
 bility for truthfulness in his own acceptance of 
 any particular creed, yet at least the presumption 
 in favour of a creed which can fairly be said, as 
 matter of history, to represent the corporate faith 
 of the body will be enormous. The presumption,
 
 12] TOWARDS THE CHURCH 357 
 
 a priori, will be immense on the side of the 
 creed, in proportion to the completeness of its 
 de facto acceptance historically. 
 
 On the other hand, if his mental instinct is to 
 think of his faith primarily as a principle working 
 in the recesses of the individual conscience, and 
 rather to resent the corporate organisation with 
 all its necessary conditions of external order and 
 government, as a more or less unfortunate ad- 
 junct to the Church's real being a clumsy 
 human expedient, overlaying, if not caricaturing, 
 the methods of the Spirit ; the creeds, as such, 
 will only at their best be part of the imperfect- 
 ness which he deprecates ; and there will be, 
 from the first, some presumption that they will 
 have to be carefully watched, if not struggled 
 with, in the interests of spiritual truth. 
 
 For the purpose, you will see that the differ- 
 ence between these two is very great. In the 
 latter case, indeed, he may be able to accept the 
 creeds glad to find that there is nothing in them 
 after all which is positively wrong, or incapable 
 (at all events) of a fairly reasonable explanation : 
 but they are always just a little irksome to him ; 
 he is instinctively on the defensive towards them ; 
 he would rather dispense with them ; ideally he 
 feels that they ought not to be ; and the moment 
 a question arises about any phrase in them which 
 let us say is capable of receiving, or has 
 received, a popular interpretation, somewhat 
 exaggerated or materialistic, on the side of un-
 
 358 A BELIEF IN THE CHURCH [No. 
 
 truth, or which asserts as true a fact of the truth 
 of which he cannot independently convince him- 
 self, his whole natural instinct is to criticise and 
 object to the expression of the creed. 
 
 I will ask you to notice by contrast the sort of 
 thing which happens, under similar conditions, 
 to the other man. To him, corporate existence, 
 and organisation, and order, and government, 
 and expression, are in themselves, in the abstract, 
 not antithetical to spiritual life, overlaying or 
 caricaturing it, but are the indispensable expres- 
 sion, in outwardness, of spiritual reality. They 
 are, to the Church, what a man's body is to 
 himself. A human body is the necessary is the 
 only method and condition, on earth, of spiritual 
 personality. It is capable, indeed, of expressing 
 spirit very badly ; it is capable of belying it ; 
 indeed, it is hardly capable of expressing it quite 
 perfectly ; it is, in fact, almost always falling 
 short of at least the ideal expression of it. And 
 yet body is the only method of spiritual life ; 
 even as things are, spirit is the true meaning of 
 bodily life ; and bodies are really vehicles and 
 expressions of spirit ; whilst the perfect ideal 
 would certainly be, not spirit without body, but 
 body which was the ideally perfect utterance of 
 spirit. He does not, therefore, wish to separate 
 between the Church's belief and its formal utter- 
 ance ; it is by no unfortunate condescension, but 
 essentially and even ideally, that the Church's 
 faith implies to him the Church's creed. And
 
 i2] AS THE BODY OF THE SPIRIT 359 
 
 when he is dealing with those forms of words 
 which, as a matter of history, undoubtedly are 
 the formal and authorised expressions of the faith 
 of the Church as a whole throughout the cen- 
 turies that is, the Apostles' Creed, in the 
 directest and completest sense conceivable ; the 
 Nicene Creed (so called), with a completeness 
 practically almost indistinguishable from that of 
 the Apostles' ; and at least all the positive and 
 actual meaning of the so-called Athanasian Creed : 
 so far from being on the defensive against 
 what may be expected to be more or less mis- 
 leading, he is in the presence of what may 
 naturally be presumed to be the simplest and 
 most necessary utterance of that which is the 
 very life of the Church's faith. 
 
 Now, if such a man is confronted with contro- 
 versial questions about particular clauses say, 
 the descent into hell, the resurrection of the 
 body, or the virgin-birth you will observe the 
 practical effect of his mental premisses. The 
 first impulse of the other man was to think the 
 expression more or less at fault. " Oh, these 
 creeds ! Yes, a materialism, an exaggeration, 
 a superstitious overgrowth sure to be something 
 in these human efforts to express the inexpres- 
 sible ! " But this man, starting as he does on 
 his own principles, at least, quite reasonably and 
 rightly with an immense presumption in favour 
 rather of the devotional profession in all ages 
 of the Church's creed, than of any critical capa-
 
 360 GIVES A PRESUMPTION [No. 
 
 cities of his own or of others, finds that his first 
 instinct is to assume that, though he may well 
 have understood the creed imperfectly, at least 
 what the creed really means must be right. 
 
 He is, indeed, perfectly conscious that human 
 language is far less than a perfect instrument. 
 He knows that spiritual realities are larger and 
 subtler than our words. He knows that to 
 different minds, to the same minds in different 
 moods, the same words convey varying capacities 
 of meaning. He is therefore prepared, as on the 
 one hand for all sorts of possibilities of misinter- 
 pretation or difficulty, so on the other for such 
 progressive, or at least varying, capacities of 
 spiritual apprehension in individuals or in the 
 Body, that the same simple utterance of funda- 
 mental faith, being throughout in essential 
 character the same, may yet have different 
 aspects, and a deepening significance ; may not 
 suggest to the imagination of one generation 
 precisely what it suggested to that of another, 
 just because it itself is greater and deeper in 
 itself than any of that interpretative scenery by 
 which, at different times, men have made their 
 approach towards such apprehension of it as 
 matched their capacity. If he is conscious, for 
 instance, that such clauses as the descent into 
 hell, or the resurrection of the body, or even the 
 forgiveness of sins, have been variously inter- 
 preted, or that he himself cannot compass and 
 does not fully understand the nature of the truth
 
 i2] IN FAVOUR OF THE CREED 361 
 
 which finds an expression in them, this is to 
 him only a natural outcome of the conditions. 
 But whatever room there may be for discovery 
 of his own ignorance, or of the depths which lie 
 behind the simple statement of the Church's 
 faith ; whatever protests may have to be made 
 against materialising misinterpretation ; what- 
 ever, as it were infinite, advance in the under- 
 standing of the simplest words, " I believe in 
 God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost"; 
 what does seem to his mind antecedently impos- 
 sible far more impossible than any extent of in- 
 tellectual or spiritual incapacity on his own part 
 is that either the Church's fundamental belief, 
 or the forms of her devotional confession of it in 
 all ages, should be absolutely or inherently wrong. 
 You will observe that this antecedent instinct 
 of reverence towards creeds as creeds is a part, 
 and a legitimate part, of that form of thought 
 which conceives of all the things that belong 
 to the Church's external utterance, creeds, cere- 
 monies, ministries, sacraments, organisation, as 
 not a condescension, but the divinely appointed 
 and spiritual (nay, the only possible) method of the 
 Church's spirituality, and which, moreover, while 
 it thus conceives of the place of what may be 
 summed up on the whole as "Body," conceives 
 also that this spiritual consecration, as opposed 
 to setting aside, or contempt, of Body, is itself 
 one of the most vital characteristics of the reli- 
 gion and theology of the Incarnation.
 
 362 ITS ACTUAL WORDS, [No. 
 
 You will observe that, while there is this strong 
 a priori presumption in favour of creeds in the 
 abstract as creeds, the authority, to him, of any 
 particular creed will vary just in proportion as it 
 can be said, with more or with less approximation 
 to truth, to be the very form with which the heart 
 of the faith of the Church in all ages and places 
 has been identified, and in which the devotional 
 aspiration and worship of the whole historical 
 Church has expressed itself with most undeviat- 
 ing conviction and joy. 
 
 You will observe, also, that the sense of a 
 distinction between the reality of the truth which 
 the creeds represent, and the ideas about the 
 truth which those who repeat the creeds may 
 have learnt to attach to its words, becomes itself 
 a greater and a deeper reality of distinction 
 precisely in proportion as the instinct of reverence 
 towards the Church's creeds is real. 
 
 If a form of words, as such, has no great value 
 to me, directly I find them misunderstood, or 
 directly I recognise in the truth behind them 
 something which they had not at first suggested 
 to me, my impulse is to modify the words. If 
 there is any special association of reverence or 
 authority attaching to the words, I should natur- 
 ally go very much further in conserving the words 
 as long as I thought that I conveniently could. 
 But if there is anything like a divine authority 
 attaching to the words, as, for example (to a 
 Christian), in those of the more startling sayings
 
 12] HOWEVER INFINITE THEIR TRUTH, 363 
 
 of the Sermon on the Mount, or the third or 
 sixth of St. John, I unhesitatingly cling to the 
 words and repeat them, through all varieties and 
 developments of interpretation, confident that 
 whatever else may vary both the truth behind 
 the words is invariable, and the words have a 
 relation to the truth which at least is deeper than 
 any human power of discrimination or criticism. 
 Now, the man I have described has a somewhat 
 similar relation to the words of those creeds 
 which have been, and so far as they have been, 
 from time immemorial, the consecrated modes of 
 the Church's expression, in worship and council, 
 of her faith. He is prepared to comment on 
 them to any extent. He is prepared to recognise 
 and to protest against all prejudices, however 
 venerable, which may have attached to them, 
 and tried with more or less success, but as he 
 thinks in his conscience not rightly, to identify 
 themselves with them. He is prepared to find 
 unknown vistas of possibility of bona fide inter- 
 pretations within them. Do they not, after all, 
 in their brevity, represent a truth the explanation 
 of which is infinite ? But it is a conviction in 
 him which springs from something far deeper 
 than any form of prejudice, or cowardice, or 
 unconsciously interested worldliness, when he 
 feels that to part with the profession of what 
 is really the Church's creed ; to have to say of its 
 words, not only that generations of Christians 
 may have in some points attached to them false
 
 364 HAVE A DIVINE AUTHORITY: [No. 
 
 or inadequate meanings, but that that which they 
 truly and properly do both say and mean is itself 
 inadequate or false, so that they must either 
 be denied or by conscious acts and force inter- 
 preted to mean the very contradictory to what is 
 admitted all the time to be their natural and 
 proper meaning ; that this would be to him a 
 real personal separation from the consecrated 
 life because from the consecrated conviction 
 and faith of the Church, which is the Body 
 of the Spirit of Christ. 
 
 Now, I must frankly say that the attitude 
 towards the creeds which I have tried to describe 
 is the attitude which comes to myself most natur- 
 ally, and which I myself believe to be both 
 reasonable and right. My object at this moment 
 has been not so much to press it as to justify it. 
 It seems to me perfectly to cohere, and I have 
 been anxious if possible to explain its coherence, 
 with the simplest requirements of reason in 
 spiritual things. 
 
 Before leaving off, however, I should like, 
 avowedly indeed upon the basis of such a mental 
 position, to glance at one or two other positions 
 not identical with this. 
 
 Take the case, for instance, of the man who, as 
 I said just now, starts with no antecedent 
 reverence for the Church as Church in any par- 
 ticular its government, its ordinances, or its 
 creeds ; admitting that something of the kind 
 may be practically necessary, and submitting
 
 12] AN ATTITUDE OF DOUBT 365 
 
 with more or less docility to what he finds (him- 
 self not otherwise than a Churchman and com- 
 municant), but on the defensive always, as to- 
 wards a merely human system, whereby men 
 have cloaked, and which they are always mistak- 
 ing for, the working of God's Spirit in the world. 
 Yet in his allegiance to the Incarnate Christ he is 
 real. He believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of 
 God, and to have lived and died for the souls 
 of men ; and therefore, also, whatever may be 
 the form of his theory as to their relation to the 
 things which men call "natural," he believes 
 that the things which men call "supernatural" 
 are real and true. 
 
 Now, first, I must say of him that I cannot for 
 my own part admit that this is at all an ideally 
 true position. I do not think that that is the 
 truth or completeness of the Christian attitude 
 towards the Christian faith. 
 
 And, secondly, I must say that the things 
 which he accepts do seem to me implicitly to 
 carry the things as to which he doubts. The 
 principle of the Incarnation, with its consecration 
 of the material and the bodily ; and a belief in 
 the Spirit of the Incarnate as that, behind the 
 material and the bodily, which, while working 
 through the material and the bodily, gives to the 
 material and the bodily all its ideal that is, its 
 real meaning ; ought, as I conceive, to carry 
 him a great deal further into what I may perhaps 
 intelligibly call the loyalty of Churchmanship,
 
 366 IN A LAYMAN [No. 
 
 than he is the least prepared to realise. So far, 
 therefore, as I could be conceived to have any 
 power of influence with such a man, it would 
 certainly be exercised in the direction of trying 
 not to combat any position really held by him, or 
 to inculcate any principles which were really 
 strange to him, but rather of trying to convince 
 him, if possible, that he did already implicitly 
 hold the things from which he seemed to himself 
 to shrink. 
 
 And, thirdly, if (as is only too probable) such 
 discussions left him more than ever unconvinced 
 and suspicious shall I say, of the whole human 
 side of the Ecclesia Episcoporum, with its coun- 
 cils and its creeds what then ? Perhaps I can 
 answer better by drawing a distinction. Think 
 of him first then, if you please, in the character 
 of a Christian layman. And I think I may 
 venture to say that the characteristic of his 
 position which strikes me most is his reality. 
 Here is a man of whom I feel, more than of most, 
 that the haunting fear of conventionalism and 
 unreality is laid at rest. He is neither on the 
 one side a conventional Churchman, nor on the 
 other a conventional disbeliever or critic. He 
 does not indeed illustrate the fullest completeness 
 of the joy of communicant life in the Church of 
 Christ. Yet, putting aside just the few who 
 have entered most into the radiant possibilities of 
 Churchmanship, I could but be thankful if the 
 bulk of those who may appear to be most ortho-
 
 i 2 ] IN A CANDIDATE FOR ORDERS 367 
 
 dox conventionally were as vitally Christian as 
 he. In saying this, no doubt I am a little 
 unfairly slurring* over the case of the convention- 
 ally orthodox, but it is in order to bring out what 
 is positively true in the way of sympathy with the 
 case supposed. He at least should be, as I 
 conceive, one of those to whom the heart of the 
 Master, and of the Master's true servants, would 
 go out. 
 
 But think of him again in the character of 
 a candidate for Holy Orders. Now here, as a 
 conscientious man, he is apt to put the points 
 of his doubt somewhat prominently into the fore- 
 ground. What shall we say ? This first : that 
 from what we said of him as layman, it follows 
 that, if he has the heart and the will to desire it, 
 we should heartily desire to see him ordained. 
 It is to be remembered in many contexts, and 
 it is certainly to be remembered in this, that it 
 is a fundamental fact, and a principle because 
 a fact, in the Church of Christ, that there is 
 no ministry on earth to mankind but the ministry 
 of man. That which teaches man, ministers to 
 man, represents God to man, is necessarily part 
 of the lump of man. Priesthood is a movement 
 a Divine movement of course but a movement 
 of, and within, humanity ; not an intermediary 
 between humanity and God. It is part of the 
 distortion of the priestly idea so to separate 
 priesthood and laity, as to forget that they rise 
 and fall and struggle and grow and learn together.
 
 368 A DISTINCTION [No. 
 
 Antecedently, therefore, we should welcome into 
 ministry whatever is genuine and real in Christ- 
 ward effort and growth within, and for the sake 
 of, the Body. Yes, but there are necessarily 
 conditions. There are external disciplines, and 
 ordinances, and obediences, and formularies, and 
 creeds. Of course he cannot defy these. But it 
 is exactly this question, in respect of creeds, 
 which is the question before us just now. Is his 
 position, as it stands, one of sufficiently real 
 acceptance of the creeds ? There is no question, 
 you will remember, about his thinking the creeds 
 fundamentally false. That which is their central 
 core of meaning (and which, as I should myself 
 endeavour to explain, carries and covers every 
 word contained in them) he believes to be funda- 
 mentally true. But he does not think that its 
 truth covers quite the whole of the creeds, and 
 cannot forget that he doubts whether some of 
 their phrases are true. I have already said that 
 there is strong presumption for wishing to admit 
 him to Ordination, if he is admissible. Is he, 
 then, admissible or no? 
 
 Now I can only speak for myself. But so 
 speaking, I would venture to offer a certain dis- 
 tinction. If his position is either^ in case of 
 phrases which can be understood with different 
 degrees or depths of meaning, that he doubts 
 whether the current historical meaning is ade- 
 quate, and thinks that their true exposition is 
 one which goes beyond the popular one ; or, in
 
 i2] MUST BE DRAWN 369 
 
 case of statements, the meaning" of which is not 
 capable of any ambiguity, that he is unable 
 to convince himself independently that they are 
 a part of certain or necessary truth, and is not 
 yet ready to accept them as fully guaranteed by 
 the fact of their historic place in the creed ; if, in 
 other words, he either honestly accepts the words, 
 though perhaps not quite the current view of 
 them, or even doubts in the sense of not being 
 able to feel personally certain that the truth 
 of the words is quite a certain and necessary 
 truth ; he need not be necessarily out of place 
 even as an office-bearer and teacher in the Church. 
 To exclude him in the first case would probably 
 be to exclude not a little of the highest theo- 
 logical capacity. And in some instances, at 
 least, it is possible that to exclude him in the 
 second case might be to undervalue the educa- 
 tional effect, on a spirit which you have reason to 
 believe to be at once distinctively Christian and 
 scrupulously truthful, of a growing experience, 
 both intellectual and practical, of what life and 
 loyalty in the Church's ministry mean. 
 
 On the other hand, if his doubt goes further 
 than this, and means that there are clauses in the 
 creeds which he honestly believes to be untrue 
 in the only interpretation which he feels that he 
 can honestly call their proper one ; so that he 
 either openly leaves them out from that faith 
 of the Church which he is prepared to accept, or 
 includes them only by forcing on them an inter- 
 
 2 B
 
 370 A DELIBERATE ACQUIESCENCE [No. 
 
 pretation, which is not only not the current one, 
 but is, to his own mind and conscience, not the 
 proper or natural one, but as far as that form 
 of words is concerned, a consciously non-natural 
 gloss ; I must certainly maintain that he would 
 be quite out of place as an authorised exponent 
 of that faith, whose age-long expression he can 
 only accept by putting a conscious force upon his 
 own instincts of truth. 
 
 I should be prepared to tolerate elements of 
 anxiety and of doubt ; I should be prepared to 
 tolerate an honest conviction that the truth 
 underlying the words which the Church has 
 learnt from Scripture really means in Scripture 
 and in truth something other, or more, than 
 Churchmen have generally realised ; I should 
 be prepared nay, I should be forward to dis- 
 claim the idea that any popular interpretation, 
 as such, even with a prescription of centuries 
 behind it, is the final measure or test of the 
 meaning of those utterances of truth which the 
 Church (receiving them from her written gospel 
 as words of authority) has cherished again and 
 again with most imperfect apprehension ; but I 
 should not be prepared to tolerate an acceptance 
 of creeds which, while really thinking that they 
 really mean and say what is false, is yet ready so 
 far to blunt the edge of truthfulness as to use 
 false words as a vehicle of truth, putting upon 
 them by deliberate forcefulness a meaning which 
 it does not believe to be theirs.
 
 12] IN A NON-NATURAL SENSE 371 
 
 It will be felt, perhaps, on some sides that 
 I have after all evaded the point of difficulty ; for 
 that I have given no way of testing the difference 
 between a perfectly honest acceptance of a doc- 
 trine in an unusual sense for example, a belief 
 in the resurrection of the body or in the Catholic 
 Church, which, while it was the real very truth 
 of the doctrine to the man himself, might possibly 
 seem to others like a gloss ; or an acceptance 
 which depended, to the mind of the acceptor, 
 upon a conscious and deliberate acquiescence in 
 glossing. I do not care, for the present purpose, 
 to offer any such test. I am discussing abstract 
 principles, not trying concrete cases. But the 
 difference in the abstract is to me the difference 
 on which everything turns. I could go very far 
 in admitting what, however unusual, was yet 
 perfectly honest exegesis of a formula honestly 
 accepted as formula. But I could go no way at 
 all in the direction of admitting glossing as a 
 principle. 
 
 You will observe that we have now in reality 
 got a rather long way from the case of the man 
 I was considering a few minutes ago. He indeed 
 had little reverence for Churches and creeds as 
 such. He had misgivings as to his agreement 
 with some points of formulated doctrine. But his 
 essential character was exceptional candour and 
 most scrupulous veracity. It would have been to 
 him a pain to be told that he was contriving to 
 keep terms with the faith only by refinements
 
 372 IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH [No. 
 
 of verbal ingenuity reading indirect and novel 
 meaning's into words which both historically and 
 properly meant something different. To defend 
 glossing as glossing, and make a positive principle 
 of accepting words the fundamental words of the 
 Church's faith in a sense which is admitted to 
 be non-naturally imported into them, is to have 
 passed into a very different attitude indeed. 
 
 For a catechumen so to treat his baptismal 
 creed, and to make solemn answer to the chal- 
 lenge which it makes to him at his baptism, by 
 saying in effect, " I am willing to say these 
 words, because I think I believe in that which 
 lies at the heart of the Church's faith ; but this 
 form of words does, at least in part, misrepresent 
 the Church's faith as it ought to be ; and in some 
 phrases, even while I repeat them, I shall mean 
 the very opposite to that which the Church has 
 universally and invariably cherished as her faith, 
 and which these words were always meant to, 
 and do quite unquestionably, say " ; I cannot 
 admit that his position could be reconciled with 
 the commonest principles of truth. 
 
 Nor do I see that his position is in any way 
 improved if, in the same attitude to the Church's 
 fundamental creed, what he now is seeking at her 
 hands is not merely admission to membership, 
 but the office of her accredited interpreter and 
 minister. To put this, indeed, into a positive 
 form, as a theory formulated and avowed ; to say 
 that in subscribing to creeds we none of us mean
 
 i 2 ] MINISTRY IN THE CHURCH 373 
 
 what we say, and that if we mean rather less 
 of what we say than others, we all are still alike 
 in respect of compromising merely literal truth ; 
 or even that those who in former times, or now, 
 have dared to go the furthest, in saying, from 
 what they meant, have really served truth most, 
 by most emancipating mind from fetters with 
 which it ought never to have been bound ; this, 
 in relation to the creed of the Church, would 
 appear, I own, to me a position so wholly inde- 
 fensible as to be ultimately subversive both of 
 truth and character. 
 
 I have endeavoured this afternoon to keep my 
 thoughts fixed upon the Church's creeds, as being 
 that which I believe, and have tried to represent, 
 them to be to the Church's life. But it would 
 probably be desirable, even for a completeness 
 of thought on this subject, to go further, and 
 make some comparison between the Churchman's 
 obligation to the Church's creed, and his attitude 
 to those other utterances, of more kinds, it may 
 be, than one, which he also is called upon to 
 accept. 
 
 II. THE ARTICLES 
 
 I made some attempt last week to suggest 
 a working view as to the obligation of a Church 
 teacher or minister to the creeds of the Church. 
 Speaking broadly, I must reckon this obligation 
 as very high and complete. It seems to me to 
 run back into the question of the very nature and
 
 374 CHURCH UNITY INVOLVES [No. 
 
 being of the Church. If the Church's character 
 as an organised body is an unfortunate necessity 
 to which the Church is compelled, by reason of 
 her failures, to submit, then I can understand 
 that everything which belongs to the Church's 
 outwardness, and therefore the outward and 
 formal expression of her faith, will be more or 
 less an object of suspicion. I think this is a 
 mistaken temper of thought, philosophically (if I 
 may say so) and theologically at least as much as 
 ecclesiastically ; and specifically I think it a mis- 
 apprehension of the consequences which outflow 
 from the characteristic doctrine of the Incarna- 
 tion, which sees in what is outward and bodily 
 the consecrated method, not the imprisonment or 
 mere degradation, of Spirit. Of the doctrine of 
 Incarnation in that aspect, Church unity and 
 Creed unity are, as it seems to me, a necessary 
 corollary. 
 
 But the moment I think of creed unity as on 
 this level, the moment I regard it as part of the 
 necessary corollary of the Incarnation and the 
 Church, I am conscious, of course, that what I 
 mean by creed unity can only be that which is a 
 necessary corollary from the Incarnation. I do 
 not mean that all intellectual ideas or definitions 
 throughout the Church should be of one mould ; 
 I do mean that that fundamental conviction which 
 constitutes, in one aspect, the Church's very life 
 should have a single expression in which all 
 should unite. I am speaking, it is plain, of the
 
 i 2 ] CREED UNITY 375 
 
 simplest necessary utterance of the essential faith. 
 Unity of fundamental profession that is, unity 
 of creed seems to me in this sense as inseparable 
 from the conception of Church unity as Church 
 unity is from the conception of the unity of man 
 or of God. 
 
 Such a creed must necessarily be simple not 
 theologically argumentative : a statement of the 
 central truths of the revelation of the Incarnation, 
 and of such essential facts and principles as are 
 necessary to make belief in the central revelation 
 articulate. If it may be said that the simplest 
 form of such a creed would be the one word 
 thrice repeated, "Holy, Holy, Holy," it must be 
 admitted that a form so short as this would be 
 too short to convey itself at all, without some 
 expansion, to the apprehension of those who 
 used it. " I believe in God, Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghost," is the simplest of expansions. 
 But, for practical purposes, even this leaves the 
 conception of Incarnation and Atonement too 
 wholly undetermined. God, the Father, Al- 
 mighty ; Jesus Christ, born, crucified, buried, 
 descended, risen, ascended, in glory ; the Holy 
 Ghost, the life of the Church of Christ, and its 
 possibility of forgiveness, to eternity : I have 
 ventured to paraphrase thus, in order to exhibit 
 the sort of character of that outward profession, 
 or creed, which can be conceived to occupy the 
 high place I am claiming ideally for a creed, as a 
 necessary method of the Church's life.
 
 376 TWO ATTITUDES [No. 
 
 If it be urged that even the Apostles' Creed 
 contains phrases besides these, I hold that it 
 should be our effort to show that it contains 
 nothing which is really separable from these ; 
 nothing certainly which the Church in any part, 
 or in any age, has ever admitted to be separable 
 from these. 
 
 But, in speaking thus, I have not intended to 
 urge that one who really doubts about other 
 propositions of the creed should attempt to stifle 
 his doubts, in simple submission to the mind of 
 the Church. On the contrary, I should almost 
 certainly urge him to go right into them, right 
 through with them, that he might come right out 
 of them. Only, in this inquiry, I conceive that, 
 if he understands the rest of his creed, he will 
 not be without a very strong presupposition of 
 reverence towards what the Church has, in all 
 ages, really held ; a presupposition which will 
 not, presumably, carry him all the way, but which 
 ought to be very real among the data. Even, 
 indeed, a simple submission to the Church's 
 judgment, as such, is a possibility which, in a 
 matter such as this, I cannot admit to be 
 irrational, or always unwise. Still, it is not what 
 I myself should be likely to urge, or even to 
 imagine to be generally possible, amongst minds 
 trained to anything like independence of judg- 
 ment. But, on the other hand, to attempt to 
 marshal the evidence for or against (say) the 
 truth of the virgin-birth, as if it could be a new
 
 12] TOWARDS THE CREED 377 
 
 question to be determined by itself in this age, 
 apart from either its historical connexion with 
 the immemorial faith, or its theological connex- 
 ion with the primary and basal conceptions of 
 Christianity, does seem to me beyond all words 
 superficial and unreal. 
 
 If, however, there is anyone after all who, 
 with an inadequate idea, as I should conceive, of 
 the nature of the Church, cannot bring himself 
 beyond all doubt as to what seem to him still to 
 be added phrases, I should certainly desire to act 
 towards him with every conceivable tenderness in 
 his honest uncertainty ; but, should his doubts 
 lead him on to a positive decision that these 
 things ought to be removed from the creed as 
 wrong, or (worse still) accepted in the creed in a 
 sense which is recognised as not being their own ; 
 I must think that he is really, so far, separating 
 himself from the faith of the Church. 
 
 But does this sort of thought really apply to 
 anything of wider range than creeds ? Or rather, 
 since "creeds" can only be in the plural, on the 
 ground that they are not many, but one, will it 
 really apply to anything outside that one un- 
 changing creed which is the fundamental inter- 
 pretation and utterance of the meaning of the 
 Church's life ? How far will it apply, for in- 
 stance, in our own case, to the Thirty-nine 
 Articles ? 
 
 Now, if anyone has really followed the line of 
 thought which I have tried to put before you, he,
 
 378 THE CASE OF ARTICLES [No. 
 
 at least, will not be surprised, but prepared, for 
 what would seem to others a sudden and enor- 
 mous change of attitude. I have been trying to 
 argue that a fundamental creed-utterance, so far 
 from being an unfortunate result of spiritual 
 failure, is itself part of the internal necessity, a 
 true element in the primary ideal, of a spiritual 
 Church ; at least in a world where all expression 
 of spirit is through body, and in a religion which 
 emphatically recognises body as the only, and the 
 true, method of spirit. 
 
 But it must surely be obvious, at a glance, to 
 anyone, however highly he may think of the 
 theological exposition given in the Thirty-nine 
 Articles, that language like this would be, in 
 relation to them, even grotesquely inapplicable. 
 Whether they are in every syllable very excel- 
 lently good, or no, it is plain on the face of it, 
 that the fact of their existence at all in that form, 
 as Thirty-nine Articles, is exactly what I have 
 been protesting that the baptismal creed is not ; 
 that is to say, that it is a consequence and an 
 aspect not of the Church's existence, but of the 
 Church's failure. 
 
 I think that we are right in putting this, as 
 principle, quite unreservedly. The Church, with- 
 out a creed, would not, in human life on earth, 
 however ideally perfect, have been a Church at 
 all. But if the Church on earth had been ideally 
 perfect, or anything even remotely like it, there 
 would never have been any Thirty-nine Articles.
 
 i2] IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT 379 
 
 The one is a necessary feature of spiritual reality. 
 The other is an unfortunate consequence of 
 spiritual failure. 
 
 Nothing, as it seems to me, can result but 
 confusion from any attempt to understand our 
 relation to these two, which fails to take account 
 of the enormous contrast between the one and the 
 other, when you come to their ultimate rationale, 
 on abstract principle. Try to exhibit our real 
 relation to the articles in terms of our relation to 
 the creeds, and your statement will obviously be, 
 in relation to any reasonable view of theological 
 history, overstrained and untenable. Try to ex- 
 hibit our real relation to creeds, in terms of our 
 relation to the articles, and you will have been 
 compelled to give sanction to principles of in- 
 dependence and critical detachedness which will 
 probably in the end be incompatible with the 
 existence of a Church at all. This seems to me 
 clear enough as principle. And, moreover, I 
 believe that much of the confusedness and mis- 
 take which in fact often confronts us in relation to 
 these subjects, is the result of a failure to dis- 
 criminate between two things which are in them- 
 selves not merely distinguishable, but radically 
 different. 
 
 It is not improbable that the distinction which 
 I am now insisting upon may be disputed, upon 
 the ground that in either case our obligation, to 
 creeds or to articles, is, if stripped to its nakedest 
 form, a legal obligation, and that the legal obliga-
 
 380 OBLIGATION TO THE CREED [No. 
 
 tion is, in either case, one and the same. I 
 cannot possibly admit a contention such as this. 
 The real obligation of a Christian to the creeds 
 of the Church was not created, and cannot be 
 measured, by any Acts of Uniformity. The real 
 obligation rests upon the very nature of the 
 Church. The acceptance of her baptismal pro- 
 fession creates the obligation, which is again 
 acknowledged and reinforced by every act of par- 
 ticipation in her services a participation in itself 
 indispensable to reality of membership. It is to 
 be added that the baptismal creed is itself that by 
 which our faith is to be examined, according to 
 the Church's Visitation Service, when we lie in 
 our last sickness, face to face with death. Such 
 an obligation as this is assumed before it is en- 
 forced by any law ; and assumed by any law 
 which purports to enforce it. It is true, no doubt, 
 that when a law subsequently essays to enforce 
 the natural obligation of a Churchman to the 
 Church's creeds, it creates a new legal obligation ; 
 and that the newly created legal obligation is 
 measured only by the terms of the law. It is 
 true, no doubt, that in a national Church which 
 has long been established, popular feeling is apt, 
 by long custom, to measure all Church obligation 
 by its legal obligations ; and that if a law were 
 passed relaxing obligations to creeds, there would 
 be many who would assume at once that Church- 
 men were so much ecclesiastically the freer 
 whilst even the wisest would be sorely perplexed
 
 12] IS ESSENTIAL TO CHURCH LIFE 381 
 
 to draw clear definitions or determine exactly 
 the line between what had been effected by the 
 change of law and what not. But in point of 
 fact, the power which the law has, as mere law, 
 to relax obligation to creeds in some details, is, 
 ultimately, only the same power which it un- 
 doubtedly has to proscribe creeds altogether, or 
 to enact the use of blasphemy in their place. 
 That is, it is ultimately its power to oppress and 
 to persecute. The obligation of a Churchman to 
 the Church's creeds may be either enforced by 
 law or denounced by law ; but it really is ante- 
 cedent to and independent of law. If the law 
 should denounce it, it would be nevertheless real 
 in a sphere that is higher (or at least, other) than 
 law. And while the law enforces it, we certainly 
 cannot admit that the law so enfeebles it in the 
 act of enforcing it as to take all its own meaning 
 utterly out of it. The law adds a new kind of 
 sanction, but does not take anything away from 
 the natural Christian sanction, which it had 
 before. If it is true that the Church of England 
 could only touch an unbelieving clergyman by 
 process of law, and could therefore only try him 
 by his legal obligation the other being legally 
 treated as if it were not that is only one of the 
 accidental consequences, more or less unfortun- 
 ate, which are apt to follow in the train of a legal 
 establishment. We see their failure ; but they 
 are admittedly difficult to remedy, and we tolerate 
 them, at least till they are intolerable. Still, how-
 
 382 ARTICLES ARE LOCAL [No. 
 
 ever much it may remain a truism that only the 
 legal obligation can be legally enforced, and 
 however much it may be an accident of our his- 
 torical position, fortunate or unfortunate, that 
 nothing can be corporately enforced save by legal 
 process, we must still regard it as a manifest 
 absurdity to contend that a Churchman's obliga- 
 tion to his creeds begins and ends with that legal 
 obligation to which the law courts will statutably 
 and penally bind him. This would, in fact, only 
 be true if the Church had really no other existence 
 as Church, except just so much as had been con- 
 ferred upon it by statute law. In that case it is 
 clear that for at least two centuries after the death 
 of St. John there existed no Church at all, or at 
 least no Church with boundaries that could be 
 defined, or discipline that could be enforced by 
 any real sanction. 
 
 Now, with articles the case is exactly altered. 
 These are no part of the inherent life of the 
 Church. It is obvious, upon the face of it, that 
 they are local. Whatever complaint we may be 
 inclined to make against the Churches of Rome 
 or of the East, no one would dream of an 
 absurdity so manifest as denouncing them because 
 they do not accept the Thirty-nine Articles. And 
 it is hard for us to regard as anything but 
 amusing, if not grotesque, the proposal made 
 the other day in a Church Council in Japan to 
 embody the Thirty-nine Articles as an integral 
 part of the Prayer Book of the Japanese Church.
 
 12] AND TEMPORARY EXPEDIENTS 383 
 
 Again, it is obvious upon the face of it that 
 they are temporary. As they stand they are 
 inconceivable as a part of the vital constitution 
 of the Church of the first ten centuries. More- 
 over, it is obvious that, however necessary they 
 may be thought to have been in the sixteenth 
 century however necessary they may be thought 
 to be now, or to be likely to be for generations 
 or centuries yet to come at all events no Church- 
 man could conceivably be held to be in any way 
 disloyal to his position in the Church of Christ, 
 if he looked forward to a time when the Thirty- 
 nine Articles as they stand, being less and less 
 applicable to the circumstances and the thought 
 of the Church, would at last be outgrown alto- 
 gether. If the final supersession of the articles 
 might, on one side, be a quite possible result 
 of increasing laxity and worldliness ; it is on the 
 other side a possibility, no less conceivable, that 
 it might be the final result of a mighty deepening 
 of spiritual insight and unworldly life. In any 
 case it seems to me necessary to truth that we 
 should conceive of them as being essentially local 
 and temporary expedients. They are somewhat 
 elaborate definitions, full of controversial colour- 
 ing in reference to the particular circumstances 
 of an age of sharply accentuated division and 
 controversy. And so, without suggesting for a 
 moment that the time has come when the articles 
 could be dispensed with it has neither come, 
 nor is yet, I fear, at all in sight I must never-
 
 384 OBLIGATION TO THE ARTICLES [No. 
 
 theless, for one, rejoice sincerely at everything 
 which calls attention to the thought how separable 
 they are from the essence of the Church's life ; 
 everything which recognises that the stringency 
 of identification with the letter of their theological 
 expression must needs become, as generations 
 roll on, less and less absolute ; everything, in 
 short, which puts them into their place, as 
 the expression of a theological standpoint in 
 reference to the extravagances of contemporary 
 controversy, of very high local and temporary 
 value a value which is far from being yet ex- 
 hausted for us but which it would nevertheless 
 be the merest confusion to rank along with the 
 essential creed, which is an inseparable aspect of 
 the life, of the Church. 
 
 I am not suggesting, you will observe, that 
 we are not meanwhile bound to the articles. But 
 if I am bound to them, my obligation is really, 
 in this case, of the legal kind. It is simply and 
 only what the law has made it, and maintains it, 
 so long as the law is unrepealed. I have nothing 
 but this legal obligation to take account of. In 
 saying this, I do not mean to suggest that it is 
 matter of secular law distinctively, as opposed to 
 ecclesiastical ; the obligation has an ecclesiastical 
 character as well as a secular; but in either aspect 
 it is what a positive enactment has made it a 
 local enactment, which might at any time locally 
 be repealed. Whilst, then, I acknowledge my 
 obligation both to creeds and to articles, I must
 
 i2] IS PURELY LEGAL 385 
 
 say that my attitude towards creeds and articles 
 respectively is an immeasurably different one. 
 
 I cannot but accept, as towards articles (still 
 speaking in the abstract), what I described last 
 time as the false attitude towards creeds. The 
 articles are a more or less regrettable adjunct to 
 the Church's real being as Church ; they are 
 incidental to that imperfection and dividedness 
 which we cannot but deprecate. Antecedently, 
 therefore, it is neither unnatural nor unreasonable 
 if we start with a certain sense of nervousness 
 towards them, as towards statements elaborated 
 under very human circumstances of controversy 
 at a particular epoch, which we feel that we may 
 have to scrutinise very carefully, and are some- 
 what relieved if after all we have no need to 
 quarrel with them, in our loyalty to the scrupulous 
 exactness of spiritual truth. Such an antecedent 
 attitude towards any elaborated exposition, in its 
 origin local and temporary, and by lapse of time 
 necessarily somewhat old-fashioned in expression, 
 does not seem to me at all disloyal in an in- 
 telligent Churchman. Towards the fundamental 
 propositions of the baptismal creed I think it 
 would be so ; but it is very different with the 
 legal confession of a national or local branch of 
 the Church. 
 
 But though, speaking thus in the abstract, I 
 
 may have seemed to speak hitherto of the articles 
 
 in too slighting a tone, I of course admit that 
 
 the Church of England whatever she may claim 
 
 2 c
 
 386 BUT IT IS NOT DIFFICULT [No. 
 
 to be besides is in fact a legal body, and legally 
 established ; and that so long as she continues 
 without protest so to be, I cannot in honesty 
 claim her membership or seek office at her hands 
 unless I am able to accept what she deliberately 
 maintains as a formal statement of her position 
 and belief. If theoretically she might vary the 
 articles at any time, practically there would be 
 very great difficulties in the way of her doing so. 
 In any case, till she does so, their obligation 
 upon those who represent her is real. 
 
 And when we come to examine the articles in 
 detail, with whatever antecedent nervousness or 
 even suspicion, I cannot but say for myself, and 
 for any others, whose minds I could succeed in 
 influencing, that what we find, even if some of us 
 may be happily surprised in finding it, is that the 
 statements are such as we need feel no scruple in 
 accepting. It might so easily have happened 
 that statements drawn up amid the stress and 
 the strain of the vehement passions which were 
 raging in the struggle of the Reformation, would 
 have been just in the form which we, in the sober 
 thought of the nineteenth century, could not 
 have endorsed. But this is just what has not 
 happened. Condemnation of Roman theory or 
 practice, failing to make any necessary distinc- 
 tion or allowances, might so easily have had just 
 the irremediable trace of exaggeration upon them. 
 Approximations to Calvinism or to Lutheranism 
 might so easily have gone just beyond the line of
 
 i 2 ] TO ACCEPT THEM HONESTLY 387 
 
 what was, in the long run, rationally defensible ! 
 It may even be admitted that, prima facie, there 
 is a certain aspect of ambiguity in some of these 
 directions. And yet, on examination, after all, 
 in one article after another, the almost expected 
 overstatement has not been made. You may say 
 that the seventeenth article comes very near to 
 Calvinism, or the eleventh to the characteristic 
 formula of Lutheran solifidianism. But, on the 
 other hand, as the mind begins to recognise that 
 the lengthy and apparently Calvinistic phrase- 
 ology of the article about Predestination just 
 stops short of all that is really offensive in con- 
 nexion with that theory, remaining after all with- 
 in those aspects of it which are edifying and true ; 
 and again, that the apparent embrace of the 
 cardinal Lutheran principle of justification by 
 faith only is exactly not in the paradoxical terms 
 in which Luther loved to overstate it ; there 
 begins to be a certain definite and growing sense 
 that, though the articles may carry us into for- 
 gotten controversies, and make some statements 
 which have but little relevance to our modern 
 difficulties, at all events there was, amongst those 
 who drew them, too much of genuine conservatism, 
 of reverence for what was good in the old ways, 
 of self-restraint and moderating wisdom, to allow 
 of their committing themselves or us to the ex- 
 tremer and more unguarded statements even of 
 those with whom they greatly sympathised. 
 
 The twenty-eighth and some phrases of the
 
 388 TAKE THE INSTANCE OF [No. 
 
 twenty-ninth articles may have seemed, to those 
 who read them for controversial purposes, off- 
 hand, to intend a low view of the mystery of the 
 Christian Eucharist ; but I can hardly imagine 
 that anyone could weigh them judicially and 
 devoutly, with a view to his own possibility of 
 conscientious acceptance of them, without realis- 
 ing that their condemnation is reserved for what 
 are really unspiritual exaggerations of the truth. 
 On the other hand, I must maintain that the 
 teaching of the ninth and tenth articles about 
 original sin and freewill is such, that if, on first 
 thoughts, we felt afraid of the music or associa- 
 tion of the phrases, we must, on second thoughts, 
 recognise that it would only be a superficial 
 theology which could take serious exception 
 against what they really have said. Even in the 
 case of the thirteenth article, which perhaps has 
 been thought the most disquieting of all ; which 
 undoubtedly is not expressed in the form in which 
 a nineteenth-century theologian would have pre- 
 ferred to express it, and which, as it stands, is 
 capable of interpretations which we certainly do 
 not mean ; I must still maintain that it is a per- 
 fectly genuine attempt to express what is itself, 
 after all, not false, but true. The truth which I 
 believe that they really meant, I mean. And if 
 there be verbal ambiguity, and the possibility 
 of a verbal interpretation which we instinctively 
 protest against, this is only exactly what is true 
 about the Scripture itself, with which herein it
 
 12] ARTICLE XIII 389 
 
 rather corresponds than conflicts. The only sin- 
 less manhood is the manhood of Christ. Only 
 so far as it represents and shares in the Spirit 
 of the Christ can human working be really accept- 
 able to God. The sinlessness of Christ is unique. 
 Sinlessness in man is through and in the Christ- 
 Spirit alone. 
 
 But when I use language like this about the 
 thirteenth article, I shall rather expect to be told, 
 first, that I am attempting to make it mean what 
 is not what it does mean ; and secondly, that 
 in so doing, and in justifying my acceptance of 
 it on such a plea, I am introducing in fact the 
 very principle of unnatural interpretations which 
 I had professed to exclude. 
 
 I should like to meet such a suggestion quite 
 directly. It is suggested that I am making the 
 article mean what is not its meaning. What, then, 
 is its meaning? and what is the standard or test 
 by which its actual meaning is to be measured ? 
 For myself I must answer that the only really 
 binding standard is its words. It will doubtless 
 be held, on some sides, that the true test of its 
 meaning is either the meaning of those who first 
 shaped the words, or of those who now tender 
 them to us for our acceptance. The latter alter- 
 native would mean the present Church of Eng- 
 land as a whole in her total complex character, 
 as Catholic at once, and "protesting," and es- 
 tablished. The former alternative would similarly 
 mean the Church of England as a whole, as she
 
 390 THEIR ACTUAL WORDS ARE [No. 
 
 first gave her assent and acceptance to the article. 
 I will speak of each of these in a moment. 
 
 But first I must say, speaking in the way of 
 abstract principle, that it is not without some 
 reserve that I should admit that either of these 
 is itself, quite strictly or properly, the standard 
 for me of honest and truthful interpretation and 
 acceptance of articles. Even in the case of 
 creeds, whose inherent authority is far more 
 august, I was anxious to disclaim the view that 
 any general popular interpretation as such, even 
 with a prescription of centuries behind it, was 
 the final measure or test of words which it was 
 at least conceivable that the Church might have 
 repeated for centuries with inadequate intelligence 
 of their meaning. In the case of articles, if on 
 the one side their phrases are less near to in- 
 spired Scripture (and therefore less likely to be 
 full of unexplored meanings), on the other side 
 (as I urged just now) they have very much more 
 of the character of a merely legal document, to 
 be interpreted, like a legal document, not so 
 much by what any one means or did mean in 
 them as by what they actually say. If, indeed, 
 my honest understanding and acceptance of any 
 article is one which the whole organised Church 
 agrees to pronounce inadmissible, I do not dis- 
 pute their power to extrude me as heterodox : 
 and there is, I believe, such a thing as real 
 spiritual martyrdom of this kind. But not even 
 in the case of so extreme a suggestion as this
 
 12] THE SOLE TEST OF THEIR MEANING 391 
 
 should I admit that my acceptance of them, in the 
 sense which I believed to be their legitimate and 
 real one, had been in any sense, in me, dishonest 
 or untrue. But this, after all, is only abstract 
 and hypothetical. 
 
 Descending from hypothesis, I should totally 
 deny the suggestion that, in fact, I am taking any 
 liberty with the meaning at all. I say that the 
 words are a genuine attempt to express a truth 
 which I recognise as true. If anyone tells me 
 that the meaning which I should repudiate was 
 the meaning of the Church which drew the words, 
 I certainly dispute the fact. I do not deny that it 
 may have been the meaning of some of the writers 
 of them. I do not deny that it may even have 
 been the current sense of the majority. But I do 
 maintain, first, that the words do not necessarily 
 carry, though they may suggest, such a meaning ; 
 and secondly, that in this article, as in others, the 
 fact that the words have this element of ambigu- 
 ity about them after all, was itself (far more than 
 is generally supposed) a deliberate result of the 
 instinct and purpose of the Body as a whole which 
 drew the articles ; none the less so, even if it were 
 admitted that they, most of them, individually, 
 would have accepted a rigidity of interpretation 
 which I trust that no one would dream of accept- 
 ing now. Even at the moment that I refuse to 
 admit that I should be tied by their purpose in 
 the words, I must also doubt whether it was even 
 their purpose to tie me.
 
 392 THE ARTICLES ARE [No. 
 
 That, in spite of any appearance to the con- 
 trary, the articles were not accidentally, but de- 
 liberately, inclusive, is affirmed in a striking pas- 
 sage which has been suggested to me a passage 
 by one who was no friend to Churchmanship, or 
 to standards of doctrine, and who cannot, even in 
 the passage itself, refrain from flinging his taunt 
 at all pronouncements of Church councils Mr. 
 Anthony Froude. He is writing about Dr. New- 
 man and his famous attempt to show that the 
 articles bore a really Catholic sense. He says : 
 "As far as Tract xc is concerned, public opinion, 
 after taking time to reflect, has pronounced New- 
 man acquitted. It is historically certain that 
 Elizabeth and her ministers intentionally framed 
 the Church formulas so as to enable everyone to 
 use them who would disclaim allegiance to the 
 Pope. The English Catholics [he means, of 
 course, Roman Catholics], who were then more 
 than half the nation, applied to the Council of 
 Trent for leave to attend the English Church ser- 
 vices, on the express ground that no Catholic 
 doctrine was denied in them. The Council of 
 Trent refused permission, and the petitioners, 
 after hesitating till in the defeat of the Armada 
 providence had declared for the Queen, conformed 
 (the greater number of them) on their own terms 
 . . . Newman was only claiming a position for 
 himself and his friends which had been purposely 
 left open when the constitution of the Anglican 
 Church was formed.'
 
 12] DELIBERATELY INCLUSIVE 393 
 
 I may add that if it was the deliberate purpose 
 of the articles to be inclusive towards the elder 
 Catholics, while their very raison d'etre was pro- 
 test against Rome, it can hardly, on any hypo- 
 thesis, be thought disloyal to the Church which 
 framed them to accept whatever interpretation, in 
 other directions, is found compatible with their 
 words. 
 
 But if there be any, even the smallest, colour 
 for suggesting that it was not the purpose, even 
 of the Elizabethan Church, to tie all minds to the 
 rigider conceptions of which such words were 
 patient though such conceptions were, it may 
 be, overcurrent in those days how immeasur- 
 ably less could it be contended, even for an in- 
 stant, that such rigidities are part of the pur- 
 pose of the Church as she tenders the articles 
 for our acceptance now ! A sufficient practical 
 testimony to this, if testimony were needed, 
 would be furnished by the anxiety which cul- 
 minated thirty years ago in the alteration both 
 of statute and canon, in order that the terms 
 of legal adhesion to the articles might be felt 
 to be quite general in character. I do not 
 think, indeed, that even the previous terms were 
 so searching as they are sometimes supposed to 
 be. The language of the Act of Uniformity of 
 1662 seems to be the most stringent: "I do hereby 
 declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all 
 and everything contained and prescribed in and 
 by the book intituled the Book of Common
 
 394 THEOLOGY DOES NOT FETTER [No. 
 
 Prayer," etc., which, of course, included the 
 articles, though without any special reference 
 made to them. The language embodied in the 
 thirty-sixth canon had obliged a man to say that 
 he "acknowledged all and every the Articles, 
 being in number nine and thirty, to be agreeable 
 to the Word of God." The present requirement 
 at the time of ordination is the solemn making of 
 the following declaration : "I assent to the Thirty- 
 nine Articles. ... I believe the doctrine of the 
 Church of England as therein set forth to be 
 agreeable to the Word of God." 
 
 I do not think that it was a very heavy burden 
 to say that "the Articles were all agreeable to 
 the Word of God." But the change from this 
 into saying that "the doctrine of the Church of 
 England as set forth in the Articles is agreeable 
 to the Word of God," be it greater or smaller in 
 itself, undoubtedly was, and was meant to be, a 
 change for the express purpose of avoiding even 
 the semblance of an over-rigid identification with 
 every detail of perhaps imperfectly applicable 
 phraseology. 
 
 I have now, perhaps, come to the end of what 
 I immediately set out to do. I have had before 
 me the thought of the practical relation of young 
 men, as Christians, and particularly as possible 
 clergymen, to the acceptance of the doctrinal 
 standards which challenge them. I have spoken 
 of the essential creeds of the Catholic Church, 
 and of the articles of the Church of England as
 
 i2] INTELLECT TO BELIEVERS 395 
 
 by law established, and of the greatness of the 
 contrast between them. Of the Old Testament 
 I have not spoken at all, though doubtful at one 
 time whether it should be introduced in this con- 
 text or no. I can only say, summarily, that any 
 question as to the legitimateness of our entire 
 adhesion, in the Ordinal, to its truth, seems to 
 me altogether unreal. The full reality of my 
 belief in the truth of the Old Testament will not 
 in any case be affected by my new conceptions 
 (if my conceptions are new) as to the right 
 historical interpretation of its meaning. But that 
 is, perhaps, a rather different subject. 
 
 I have tried, then, to represent that jealousy 
 against doctrinal standards, as creeds, is wholly 
 misplaced ; and that anxiety about our particular 
 articles dissolves when they are examined. 
 
 And I must say finally that I cannot think 
 that, whether in the direction of creeds, or of 
 articles, or of Ordinal promises, the intellect of 
 the Anglican clergyman need be under any ap- 
 prehension at all. Rational intellect is not 
 narrowed, nor fettered, by any true conditions of 
 Christian theology. Christian theology is if 
 anything is in this world a deep, and large, 
 and progressive, because living, reality. 
 
 It is true, no doubt, that the insight of Chris- 
 tian theology is only for those to whom the In- 
 carnation, with its corollaries in thought and in 
 life, is true. To outsiders, who are really out- 
 siders, and do not know what this means, it may
 
 396 IN THE INCARNATION [No. 12 
 
 be perhaps a natural instinct to look upon any 
 acceptance of any transcendent truth anything 
 which makes their own unaided intellect not ulti- 
 mate as disabling. But to those who have had 
 any real grasp of personal experience upon the 
 meaning of the religion of the Incarnation in 
 the life of the Church, which is the Personal 
 Spirit of the Incarnate such an instinct will be 
 only more and more astonishing. It is in unre- 
 served allegiance to the Christ, and in the 
 progressive transformation of the imperfect, 
 sundered, lonely " individual " with whom the 
 experience of each one of us seems to start into 
 the freedom and power of the life of the Spirit of 
 the Incarnate, that man, in that consciousness of 
 the Pauline paradox " I ; yet not I " begins 
 really to find "himself." It is in the Pentecostal 
 Spirit that man's own personality, in every aspect 
 of which it is capable as Love, as Will, as 
 Might, even as Reason begins to be raised 
 towards the realisation of those possibilities of 
 which the self of man is inherently capable, and 
 in which alone his personality is perfected. But 
 that perfecting of personality involves a change 
 nay, a transfiguration of the self, such as in its 
 earliest challenge had looked, perhaps, like a 
 betrayal, or at least an abandonment, of what the 
 naked self once seemed to demand, that it might 
 even be a <( self" at all.
 
 THE PASTORAL OFFICE OF 
 THE BISHOP 
 
 (A sermon preached at the consecration of Charles Gore, Bishop of 
 Worcester, in Lambeth Chapel, on St. Matthias' Day, 1902.) 
 
 " The care of all the Churches " (2 Cor. xi. 28). 
 
 With this I would venture to connect, in all reverence, the 
 memory of our Lord's own words 
 
 "For their sakes I sanctify myself" (St. John xvii. 19). 
 
 THE wonderful list of St. Paul's apostolic 
 sufferings has a climax, and the climax is 
 this : this daily, incessant demand, this care, this 
 anxiety, this relation to souls, and to grouped 
 communities of souls, which is inherent in Chris- 
 tian pastorship. The very word " pastor " has a 
 sense essentially Christian. Its meaning has been 
 transformed by Him who was "the Good Shep- 
 herd," and who has taught for ever, by word as 
 by act, what the meaning is of that name "the 
 Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep." 
 
 Mediaeval thought would define priesthood by 
 the ceremonial acts which it was distinctively 
 empowered to perform. But these, after all, 
 were but symptoms, were but methods, of a more 
 far-reaching and essential relation to souls, which 
 included, indeed, which was characterised by, 
 but which transcended, the ministerial privilege, 
 
 397
 
 398 THE BISHOP IS [No. 
 
 whether of enacting the Eucharistic rite or of 
 absolving penitents. 
 
 So it is with the Bishop. It is not the dis- 
 tinctive power of confirming, or ordaining, or 
 consecrating, or blessing, still less is it any 
 dignity of prelacy or lordship which constitutes 
 the reality of bishopric. These, at most, are 
 rather the natural symptoms, the inevitable 
 methods or utterances, of an essential spiritual 
 relation (the true fatherly relation) to the flock. 
 Not a flock without a shepherd, nor a shepherd 
 without a flock ; not a family without a father, 
 nor a father without a family : this is the constitu- 
 tion which formed itself under the hands of 
 Apostles, and which the apostolic generation has 
 bequeathed to the Church. The pastor, the 
 father, without whom the spiritual community 
 cannot be complete : this is the Bishop. He is 
 the father, not in things secular primarily, but in 
 spiritual things : the father who preaches and 
 teaches, the father who counsels and guides, the 
 father who meditates and prays, and therefore the 
 father who holds responsibility, who rules and 
 decides, who reproves and corrects. His juris- 
 diction is a necessary aspect (or correlative) of his 
 fatherliness ; but pastorship more than jurisdic- 
 tion, fatherliness rather than rule, is the basis and 
 heart of the matter. He is an official exercising 
 jurisdiction only because he is first the father who 
 intercedes and teaches and loves. Of this 
 essential relation of fatherliness to that flock
 
 i 3 ] THE PASTOR OF THE FLOCK 399 
 
 which finds its own completeness only in him, 
 the power to confirm or ordain are the natural, 
 the inevitable, methods and channels. They are 
 no added ornaments, nor are they irrationally 
 restrained to the Bishop's office, to give him a 
 factitious dignity. They are effects which out- 
 flow, corollaries which are inseparable, from his 
 inherent relation to the spiritual life of his flock. 
 For the Bishop is indeed the chief pastor, the 
 spiritual father, of the souls of his people. 
 
 "I entreat thee, " writes Ignatius to Polycarp 
 the Bishop " I entreat thee, in the grace where- 
 with thou hast been clothed, to run with thy 
 might, and to exhort all men, that they may be 
 saved. Vindicate thine office in all diligent care, 
 of body and spirit. Be thoughtful for unity, 
 than which nothing is better. Be the bearer of 
 all men, as the Lord beareth thee. Be forbearing 
 with all men, in love, as indeed thou doest. Be 
 incessant, be unhurried, in prayers. Ask for 
 wisdom more than thou hast. Be wakeful ; 
 keep thy spirit from slumbering. To all, man by 
 man, speak after the character of God. Bear the 
 sicknesses of all, as a perfect athlete. Where 
 more labour is, is much gain." 
 
 I have wished to strike first this note the note 
 (as I cannot but believe) of the primitive, the 
 true, the spiritual, may I say the believing? 
 view of episcopate. Leisure for prayerfulness ; 
 directness of spiritual influence, in patience, in in- 
 timacy, in love ; in a word, pastoral fatherhood.
 
 400 OUR DANGER OF LOSING [No. 
 
 From such a point of view, may I venture to 
 look in the face the risk which we too often run, 
 even while we anxiously conserve the framework, 
 of yet losing too much, of the heart of what 
 bishopric means ? For human capacity is very 
 limited ; and true bishopric over millions is im- 
 possible to man. A Bishop who is drowned in 
 necessary secular business cannot be felt mean- 
 while as a father of souls. To be the official 
 head of department over the formal organisation 
 of huge numbers of clergy : to be not the head 
 only, but in large part also the hands, of a great 
 and undermanned office or bureau : to be im- 
 mersed in correspondence largely secular, tech- 
 nical, or even merely legal : to travel about here, 
 there, everywhere, over an area in which he 
 cannot, save mediately and indirectly, either 
 know or be known : or to be a dignified ecclesias- 
 tical official, intervening, largely as a stranger, 
 and, therefore, without obvious rationale, to 
 consecrate or to confirm : things like these we 
 know do not come near to an adequate rendering 
 of the richness of the Bishop's pastorship. Do 
 they not come, sometimes, dangerously near to 
 the limit of a Bishop's possibilities ? Eagerly we 
 still call our Bishop the chief pastor of all his 
 diocese. Is there any episcopal title which is in 
 so much peril of losing its essential meaning? 
 For human capacity is very limited : and it may 
 be that duties technical and secular are more 
 insistent than those which belong to that "silence
 
 i 3 ] THE IDEAL OF EPISCOPATE 401 
 
 of the Bishop" which Ignatius praised. 1 It is 
 a serious thing, indeed, if, by impossible demands, 
 we kill our Bishops. But it is more serious by 
 far if, in any measure, we run the risk of killing 
 the very conception of the ideal of bishopric. 
 
 Are words like these a transgression of the 
 preacher's duty, or right ? At least, let us ask 
 ourselves two practical questions meant, both of 
 them, to suggest how largely our own popular 
 conception of episcopate has, in fact, been 
 affected by the existing conditions. First, has it 
 not become a familiar fashion of mind, among 
 dutiful Churchmen, to see no need of any con- 
 siderable increase of episcopate ? I am not now 
 at all concerned with any question of practical 
 difficulties, financial or political, but simply with 
 what is ideally desirable. Are there not vast 
 numbers who have ceased to see anything ideally 
 desirable in the thought of more, or at least of 
 many more, Bishops? who have so framed their 
 ideal of bishopric upon what Bishops can do, 
 under modern conditions in England, as rather 
 to find reasons for themselves against subdividing 
 dioceses, even in the cases where subdivision is 
 most urgent most urgent, possibly, for this very 
 reason, because in the absence of any real con- 
 ception of what effective chief pastorship would 
 mean, the very desire for the oversight of chief 
 pastorship is gone ? Consider what it means, as 
 a phenomenon, this widespread acquiescence, 
 
 1 Eph. vi. 
 2 D
 
 402 THE CHURCH NEEDS THE BEST [No. 
 
 and more than acquiescence, in the present 
 conditions of great episcopal dignity indeed, 
 but of fatherhood too largely paralysed. 
 
 Again, another phenomenon. Are there not 
 very many who are inclined to grudge our best 
 and holiest, our most learned and most weighty 
 preachers, or theologians, or men of wise and 
 spiritual influence, to that wearily overladen 
 official life which they have felt themselves com- 
 pelled to recognise as the practical meaning of 
 bishopric ? Are there not, or have there not been, 
 men whom not because of any weakness of 
 health, but because of their very excellence of 
 spiritual leadership it has been supposed to be 
 something like a waste to burden with the harness 
 of a Bishop ? Is this feeling not familiar ? And 
 is it not a disaster, just so far as it is a fact? 
 Could anything make any real compensation to 
 the Church if our Bishops are not to be, in the 
 fullest sense, our real chiefs and leaders in things 
 spiritual ? 
 
 We must have, in the council of the Bishops, 
 our best, our wisest, our most spiritual, our true 
 leaders and teachers. Could anything com- 
 pensate to the Church, if men such as these, the 
 men of real insight and influence, should hold 
 tightly to their pulpits or to their studies, and 
 should leave the office of a Bishop to be discharged, 
 not by men of special spiritual wisdom, but by 
 officials of specialised capacity for organising 
 business, or with a turn for the shrewd dexterities
 
 i 3 ] FOR THE EPISCOPATE 403 
 
 of secular diplomacy? It is the true fatherly 
 chief pastorate of souls, it is episcopal wisdom 
 in council, the best because the most spiritual 
 guidance of the body of the Church, which the 
 Church always needs, and cannot dispense with, 
 in her Bishops. She needs that which she cannot 
 have, unless the wisest, the greatest, the most 
 influential, the holiest of her sons are within, not 
 without, the council and the responsibility of the 
 Bishops. She needs them, and she needs them 
 there. And therefore it is that in spite of 
 obvious or (it may be) of personal losses so 
 many of us can rejoice, with a rare fulness of 
 heart, in the thought of this morning's service. 
 She needs them, and she needs them there. But 
 she needs them there, not that they may then be 
 wholly immersed in organisation of details ; not 
 that they may never again have leisure even to 
 think ; not that the spiritual capacities may be 
 starved, or almost starved, even in their own 
 lives ; but that they may be able effectively to 
 meditate, and teach, and direct, and inspire, and 
 be the true fountain and guide of the spiritual 
 experience and subordinate pastorship of many ; 
 many who lean on and are wise through them. 
 
 Do these last phrases sound Utopian, so 
 Utopian as to be almost sarcasm ? The idea of 
 the presbyters of any diocese leaning on the 
 Bishop, or being wise through the wisdom that is 
 in him ? But, indeed, the paradox, if paradox it 
 be, serves to illustrate, from another side, the
 
 404 THE BISHOP [No. 
 
 harm that may ensue from any paralysis of the 
 spiritual effectiveness of episcopate. As it is 
 harm to Bishops and harm to the general com- 
 munity of the Church, which loses the true 
 appreciation of bishopric, and the whole moral 
 attitude of those who submit to rule and over- 
 sight in spiritual things, so is it emphatically a 
 harm to presbyters, and to the conception and 
 ideal of presbyterate. 
 
 Is it not true, or what does it mean if true, 
 that the presbyter in modern England not in 
 proportion to his failure, but in proportion rather 
 to his success, in proportion as by diligent self- 
 sacrifice in work he approaches towards realising 
 his own ideal is only too often found to be one 
 who has absorbed, or is absorbing, into himself, 
 not only almost all the distinctive duties and rights 
 of the Church laity, but no small part also of the 
 ultimate responsibility and judgment which are 
 inherent in the chief pastorship of the Bishop? 
 
 This is through no fault of his own. It results 
 from the pressure of age-long conditions. But 
 so it is, that the very name of " pastorship," and 
 almost all the direct associations which belong to 
 it, tend to be almost monopolised by presby- 
 terate. And so too presbyterate has, by custom, 
 only too completely monopolised that title and 
 prerogative of "priesthood " which used to 
 belong, even more distinctively, to the Bishops. 
 Things like these have peril enough. But the 
 claim to a final voice of responsible judgment in
 
 i 3 ] AND HIS PRESBYTERS 405 
 
 respect of the administration of spiritual things ; 
 the claim to relegate the Bishop to a special 
 department of his own dignified, but strictly 
 circumscribed and practically very remote ; to 
 allow him only, perhaps, a sort of visitatorial 
 power for interpreting obligations of statute law 
 while the presbyter assumes as his own all the 
 ultimate decision, all that responsibility of judg- 
 ment as to details of pastoral service (whether in 
 church or out of it) which is felt to be inherent 
 in cure of souls ; this is, so far as it anywhere 
 appears, an even more direct invasion of that 
 jurisdiction, which is correlative to the father- 
 hood, of bishopric. 
 
 Is it not true, therefore, that if there is one 
 thing more than another which would bring back 
 again to its orderly place whatever there is now of 
 irresponsible presbyteral action, or claim, it would 
 be the effective restoration of the Bishop to his 
 proper possibility of direct pastoral leadership in 
 spiritual things ? A restoration this would be, to 
 the presbyterate and to the community, of their 
 dutiful relation (not as to an officer of police, or 
 even an official head of department), but of their 
 dutiful relation in things spiritual, not temporal 
 or legal, to the fatherhood not the lordship of 
 the Bishop. And such a restoration, whatever 
 else may be made to subserve it more or less 
 importantly, will surely never be a thoroughly 
 accomplished reality until the impossible width 
 of the Bishop's sphere in modern England is
 
 406 THE CONSECRATION [No. 
 
 very largely diminished by a very large multipli- 
 cation of sees. No doubt the question will ask 
 itself, "Where are the men?" But belief in 
 episcopacy as a system, as an apostolic inherit- 
 ance, is a very different thing from belief in the 
 personal greatness of individual Bishops, or in 
 the indispensableness of the qualities, intellectual 
 or otherwise, which go to make secular greatness. 
 To ask for too much in the way of human dis- 
 tinction is not to believe in the Divine sanction 
 of the institution of episcopate. It is rather to 
 reduce it, after all, to the level of a merely human 
 expedient. 
 
 But I do not stand here to discuss political 
 possibilities, nor to advocate schemes, whether of 
 greater or of less far-reaching innovation. I 
 point rather to ideals, and have ventured to say 
 thus much not to misuse such an occasion as this 
 for purposes alien to our prayers this morning, 
 but rather to give direction and emphasis to our 
 prayers. 
 
 Let us pass from all the region of things 
 disputable ; still more from every memory of 
 recrimination, or suspicion, or carnal heat of 
 feeling. Not controversy, not apology, not 
 enthusiasm for experiment, but Divine quiet is to 
 be the real note of our service this morning. 
 
 We are withdrawn from the rush of the world ; 
 withdrawn for a special realising of the presence 
 of God. The presence of God is not primarily 
 local, however much it may be subserved by
 
 i 3 ] OF THE BISHOP, 407 
 
 locality. It is primarily spiritual ; a presence to 
 spirit, of Spirit. According to the spiritual 
 sincerity, according 1 to the capacity of corre- 
 sponding with spiritual reality, the reality of the 
 presence itself is, in very truth, less or more. 
 We are withdrawn for a special entering into the 
 presence of God ; withdrawn for a special con- 
 secration from God, and to God. A scene of 
 consecration ? Yes ; and we too, all of us, are 
 to take our part in it. The effort of our spirits, 
 responding in earnest, fervent desire to the Spirit 
 of God within us, is to form part of the spiritual 
 atmosphere part of the Divine quiet and the 
 Divine strength which are to be, from this day 
 forth and for ever, elements in the consecration 
 of him whose consecration specially it is. Think, 
 if you will, what the preparation must be, what 
 the reflecting and ordering of heart, of one who 
 comes to receive consecration as Bishop. Think 
 not that we may intrude but that we may 
 realise what it is with which we have to corre- 
 spond, what it is to which we have to contribute 
 our spiritual part. Think also of what we can 
 conceive a Bishop, with his consecration upon 
 him, as representing, wherever he goes, in his 
 diocese. Think of the atmosphere of prayer, the 
 realisation of peace, the gentleness of sympathy, 
 the patience of love ; think of him as a fountain 
 to all the diocese, and to its thirsty places, of 
 spiritual hope, and spiritual life ; so that, 
 wherever he goes, something is felt, in him, of
 
 408 ABIDING UPON HIM [NO. 13 
 
 the manifestation of the character of God. By 
 his thoughts and his ways ; by his aims and his 
 method of working towards his aims ; by his 
 patience and fortitude ; by his radiant cheeriness 
 and kindliness, his inherent gladness of heart ; 
 by his wisdom and tact, his self-denial and self- 
 devotion, men and women are to see glimpses 
 such glimpses as the heart can discern and thrill 
 to of the Spirit which is his life ; and are to 
 recognise and own that he has been with, that he 
 has come from nay, that he carries with him, in 
 what they feel that he is the very Spirit of Jesus. 
 For a consecration is upon him, a consecration 
 abiding and effectual. And the consecration is 
 this. To the atmosphere of such a consecration 
 we are to contribute. We are called, by what we 
 are, to help it as we can, by what we are, 
 hinder it. 
 
 The Body of Christ is one Body. And he, 
 the Bishop elect, for what he is to become to the 
 diocese of Worcester must we not go on, dare 
 we venture not to go on to say with uttermost 
 reverence ? He, the Lord Jesus Christ, for what 
 He is to become in the souls of all His children, 
 demands, and in a true sense needs, this day, the 
 effort of the uplifting of our spirit, consecrating 
 itself in sincere and dutiful prayer as in His 
 Presence, as through His power.
 
 INDEX 
 
 Affinity, Relationships of 338 
 Andrewes, Bishop 69, 91-3, 104 
 Anglican authorities on the Eu- 
 charist 93-5, 100-2 
 Appeal from the ecclesiastical 
 
 courts to the secular 252, 326 
 Appel comme d'abus, The 256-9 
 Articles, The 373-96 : their case 
 differs from that of the Creeds 
 378-9, a sign of the Church's 
 failure 378, 385 ; local 382, tem- 
 porary, 383, obligation to them 
 legal only 384, only test their 
 words 389-91, meant to be in- 
 clusive 391-3, form of subscrip- 
 tion 394 ; difficult articles 386-9 
 Ascension, The 79, 81, 83 
 Atonement, Communion with the 
 66-112: 85-6, in; principle of 
 the 101-4, 105 
 
 Bishop, Pastoral office of the 397- 
 408 ; pastor and spiritual leader 
 398-9 ; and presbyters 403-5 : 
 see Episcopate 
 
 Blood : meaning of " the of 
 Christ" 105-8 
 
 Body : the sacrificed and glorified 
 - of Christ 75-8, 85-8. See 
 Spirit 
 
 CHRIST, the Light of life, 24-5; "in 
 
 Christ " 58 
 Christianity, The differentia of 
 
 123-5, 2 30-5 
 CHURCH, The : called into life at 
 
 Pentecost 80 : 
 
 the Body of the Spirit 115-8, 
 
 233-4. 356, 361, 364: s in the 
 
 Spirit, spiritual 79-80, 83, 120-2; 
 is the Spirit 79 
 
 through its ministry we partake 
 of Christ 1 18-20 ; a society for 
 personal holiness 327 : 
 has its own discipline 328-9 : 
 its theology 42-5, 47 ; its faith 
 348-9 375 J how expressed 353 : 
 is independent of the State 155, 
 1 5%> I 95> 2 99 ? its relation to 
 Parliament 167, 318, 335, and 
 the Royal Supremacy 310-3 ; no 
 longer coextensive with the State 
 168 ; as a political body 191 (see 
 Property) ; not to be identified 
 with a political party 147-9, *7& 
 
 Church Quarterly Review, article 
 in 264-5 
 
 Consecration of a bishop, The 
 407-8 
 
 Courts : the practice of the English 
 in relation to religious bodies 
 266, 303-4 ; due to what 304-9. 
 See Independence 
 
 Created beings reflect the Being of 
 God 55 ; are they within or with- 
 out God ? 59-62 
 
 Cyprian, St. 125 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria 99, 125; of 
 Jerusalem 124 
 
 Creeds, The 348-75: the three 
 Creeds 353-5 ; obligation to them 
 of the essence of Church life 
 380-2 ; Creed unity a corollary 
 of the Incarnation 374 ; summary 
 of the Creed 135, 375 
 
 Dedication of property to God, 
 effect of 189-91 
 
 409
 
 410 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Denominationalism the remedy 
 237 ; the true liberalism 237, 241 ; 
 its principle 239-40 ; claim that 
 it shall be undenominational 247 
 
 Dimock, Rev. N. 67, 69-71, 87 
 
 Disendowment 178-211 : an active, 
 not a passive, proposal 195-6 ; 
 requires purity of motive 199, 
 207 ; morally perilous 208-10 
 
 Disestablishment 154-178 : a politi- 
 cal proposal 156-60, active, not 
 passive 157-9 reasons for it 
 163 ; a loss to the nation 175-7 5 
 in Wales 211-20 
 
 Dissenters and the English Law 
 Courts 264, 304-9 ; in Scotland 
 297 ; equity towards 244 
 
 Divorce Acts 232-4, 341 
 
 Ecclesiastical Courts Commission 
 25, 295, 318-9; Report of 279, 
 290, 294-5, 321-5 
 
 Education problem, The 221-3 5 
 Act criticised 244-7 
 
 Episcopate : ideal of 398, popular 
 idea of 400 : 
 
 need of increase of the 400-1, 
 of the best men for the 402-3 
 
 Essays in Church Reform 252 
 
 Establishment : meaning of 154-6; 
 depends on the national will, not 
 divine right, 160-1 ; effect on the 
 Church 191 ; compatible with in- 
 dependence of Church Courts 
 251-5, 289-98 ; a condition of 
 privilege, not servitude 254, 298- 
 301 
 
 Eucharist, The holy 69, 78, 81, 83, 
 86, 112; and the Atonement 
 85, 91, 101, in; Evangelical 
 view of 66-8, 87, 91 
 
 Evidences, Christian 14-7 
 
 Faith 72 ; the effort of 129 
 Fathers, The on the Eucharist 
 
 97-100 
 
 Freehold tenure of benefices 285 
 Froude, Mr. J. A., quoted 392 
 Fulham Conference, The 66-7 ; 
 
 issue of 112 
 
 Gladstone, Mr., quoted 325-6 
 GOD, Belief in a Personal 3-13 : 
 God must be personal 3-7 ; and 
 the type of personality 7-9 ; dis- 
 tinctions in the Divine Unity 
 11-13 : God the centre of prayer 
 
 133-7 
 Gore, Bp. 71, 76, 78 : consecration 
 
 of 407-8 
 
 Government,Thefunctionof 164, 174 
 Green's Prolegomena, Mr. T. H. 4 
 
 Holland, Mr. Spencer 297 
 Holland, Canon H. S. 111-2 
 Humanity 48-65 : is consummated 
 in Christ 48, 53 ; differentia of 
 human personality 50-4 ; the ideal 
 human life 55-8, 63-5 : human 
 faculties are inseparable 16, 22 
 
 Ideal, Christians to realise the 
 
 63-5, 128-9 
 Ideas, The power of 247-9 : see 
 
 Truth 
 
 Ignatius, St., quoted 399 
 Illinois case, The 279-288, 274-6 
 Incarnation, The : the basis of 
 theology 26-8, 32-3, 38-9, vindi- 
 cation of reason 23, 35 ; the in- 
 carnate life 48, 64 ; effects of 
 made ours 118-20; the doctrine 
 348-9, and principle of 361, 
 36S- 6 . 374. 396 5 allegiance to 
 24-5. 45-6. 396 
 Independence of intellect 42-4 : 
 
 of life 50 : 
 
 of Church Courts 250-326 : 
 the principle 274-6, and practice 
 278-95 : see Establishment 
 
 Individual, Christianity taught re- 
 verence for the 182-4 
 
 Inductive study of religion is not 
 Theology, An 30-2 
 
 Intelligence : abstract 5-6, 16-7, 
 could not apprehend the truth 
 36-7 ; moral and spiritual 18-21, 
 37, 41-2 : see Reason 
 
 John's teaching on the Spirit, St. 
 126-8
 
 INDEX 
 
 411 
 
 Laity, The 255-6, 302-3 ; 366 
 
 Lake, Bp. 95 n. 
 
 Last Supper, The 76-7 ; and the 
 
 Eucharist 80- 1 
 Logical difficulties and experience 
 
 50-1, 62 ; 37 
 Love, reciprocity of 10-11, in the 
 
 Godhead 13 
 
 Marriage, Laws of 327-47 : the 
 mystery of 1 1 ; principle of 342 ; 
 in the O.T. 344-5 : law of 
 the Church 328, becomes law 
 of the State 329, consequent con- 
 fusion of conscience 330-4, 341-2 : 
 with a deceased wife's sister 
 
 338-9 346-7 
 
 Martineau, Dr. n 
 
 Milligan, Rev. G. no 
 
 Ministry is through men 367 ; con- 
 ditions of 367-73 
 
 Moule, Bp. 66, 86, 88 
 
 Orthodoxy is implied by theology, 
 An 38-9, 41, 232 
 
 Past facts eternally present? Are 
 70-4 
 
 Paul's teaching on the Spirit, St. 
 126 
 
 Personality : meaning of 3-4, the 
 highest phenomenon known to 
 experience 6 ; supreme being 
 must be personal 4-7 : human 
 personality 48-65, is fully realised 
 in union with God 9-11, 53, 58 
 
 Political tendency is against in- 
 dividualism, The 174 
 
 Prayer, The enrichment of private 
 131-140 ; the true conception of 
 132 ; brings into relation with all 
 truth 134 
 
 Principles, The Education Con- 
 troversy is of 247-9 : see Truth 
 
 Privy Council Court, The 318-20 
 
 Property : the right of private is 
 not absolute 179-81 ; its sanction 
 181-5 : rights of corporate 
 185-91 ; dedicated to God 
 189-91 : church , does it be- 
 
 long to the State? 191-3, 202-6, 
 is inadequate 200 : ecclesiastical 
 status regarded as 271-3, 
 283-6 
 
 Reason and Christian Evidences 
 14-25 ; and Theology 26-47 : ulti- 
 mate unity of in " the Word" 
 23, 27-8, 45 : see Intelligence 
 
 Resurrection not a bare fact, The 
 20 
 
 Ridley, Bp. 69, 95 n. 
 
 Robertson, Bp. 86 
 
 Royal Supremacy, The 256-8, 305- 
 26: its original meaning 310-3, 
 modification 314-7 ; the theory 
 at the base of the practice of 
 the English Law Courts 306-9: 
 Henry VIII. 's view 321, Q. Eliza- 
 beth 322, Abp. Grindal 323, Lord 
 Coke 324, Mr. Gladstone 325 
 
 Saintliness 52-3, 54, 64, 235 
 Sacraments are spiritual, The 121, 
 
 233. 236 
 Sacrifice.The atoning what 101-3, 
 
 105, 109 
 Scientific method and Theology, 
 
 The 28-30 
 Scotland, The Established Church 
 
 of 252, 254, 290-5, 297-8, 301-2 ; 
 
 judgments of Scottish Judges 
 
 29-1-5 
 
 Sin is withoutness 61 
 Sincerity is required in ministers 
 
 35o-i 
 
 Smith, Chancellor P. V. 76 
 SPIRIT, The : the doctrine of the 
 Holy Ghost 113-130,79-85,233-7, 
 407-8 ; its place in Christianity 
 113-4, the differentia of Chris- 
 tianity, 20 : 
 
 spirit and body, inward and out- 
 ward 121-2, 358, 361, 365, 378: 
 is the mode of Christ's presence 
 80, 81, 234, 408, and the means 
 of union with Him 81, 83-4, 
 119-20 : 
 
 corporately, implies the Church, 
 His Body 115-118; is the life
 
 INDEX 
 
 and reality of the Church and 
 its ordinances 79-82, 83, 1 14, 1 18, 
 120-2, 233-4, 2 3 6 35 2 > 47 : 
 individually, His indwelling 
 makes the Christian 123-8 ; He 
 is the living 1 Power 233, 235-6, 
 of holiness, 9, 53, 129 
 His revelation culminates in the 
 worship of the Trinity 113, 129-30 
 
 State control of religion, how far 
 necessary26i~3 ; made religion 
 165-7 : see Establishment, Inde- 
 pendence, Property 
 
 Stubbs, Bp. 321 
 
 Symbolism of the eucharistic ele- 
 ments 88-90 
 
 Theology and Reason 26-47 : is 
 based on the Incarnation 26-8, 
 32-3, 38-9 ; Scientia scientiarum 
 28 ; deductive 32 ; does not fetter 
 reason 36-7, 395 ; belongs to the 
 Church 42-3 ; implies an ortho- 
 doxy 38-9, 41, 232 
 
 TRINITY, The Blessed 10, 11-13, 
 
 13. 136, 348, 375 
 
 Truth : devotion to 455 : and prayer 
 133-4 : ' n argument 145-7, the 
 question of not "academic" 
 147, peril of untruth 151-2 ; of 
 the words of the Creeds 363 
 
 Undenominationalism 221-49, cf. 
 165-7 : as a principle 224-6, is 
 positive not negative 226-8, un- 
 just 228-9, 2 35~6 5 the place for 
 242-4 ; dominant idea, 248-9 
 
 Union with God, without identity 
 
 97". 53. 57.62 
 
 United States of America, The 
 Church in the 279-89 
 
 Wace, Dr. 87 
 
 Wales, Disestablishment in 211-20 
 Westcott, Bp. 104-10 
 WORD, The 23, 26-8, 45 : see In- 
 carnation 
 Worship 129-30 
 
 PLYMOUTH 
 WILLIAM BRBNDON AND SON, PKINTERS
 
 A 000 678 369 c