Now it has been generally supposed that the Anglican clergy are bound to declare their adhesion not only to the Creeds, but to the Thirty-nine Articles, and to the infallible truth of Holy Scripture. Bishop Gore, however, holds that when a new deacon, on the day of his ordination, solemnly declares that he "a.s.sents to the Thirty-nine Articles," and that he "believes the doctrine therein set forth to be agreeable to the word of G.o.d," he "can no longer fairly be regarded as bound to particular phrases or expressions in the Articles."[39] And further, when the same new deacon expresses his "unfeigned belief in all the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments," "that expression of belief can be fairly and justly made by anyone who believes heartily that the Bible, as a whole, records and contains the message of G.o.d to man in all its stages of delivery and that each one of the books contains some element or aspect of this revelation."[40]
The Bishop himself has affirmed his personal belief that some narratives in the Old Testament are probably not historical. It may fairly be asked on what principle he is prepared to evade the plain sense and intention of a doctrinal test in two cases while stigmatising as morally flagitious any attempts to do the same in a third. For it is unquestionable that a general a.s.sent to the Articles does not mean that the man who gives that a.s.sent is free to repudiate any "particular phrases or expressions" which do not please him. A witness who admitted having signed an affidavit with this intention would cut a poor figure in a law court. And it is difficult to see how adhesion to the antiquated theory of inspiration could be demanded more stringently than by the form of words which was drawn up, as none can doubt, to secure it. These things being so, either the accusation of bad faith applies to the treatment which the Bishop justifies in the case of the Articles and the Bible, or it should not be brought against those who apply to one clause in their vows the principle which is admitted and used in two others.
There are some honourable men who have abstained from entering the service of the Church on account of these requirements. But there are many others who recognise that knowledge grows and opinions change, while formularies for the most part remain unaltered; and who consider that, so long as their general position is understood by those among whom they work, it would be overscrupulous to refuse an inward call to the ministry because they know that they will be asked to give a formal a.s.sent to unsuitably worded tests drawn up three centuries ago. Dr. Gore himself would probably have been refused ordination fifty years ago on the ground of his lax views on inspiration; and the Bishops who approved of the condemnation of Colenso, who condemned "Essays and Reviews," and who would have condemned "Lux Mundi," were more "honest" to the tests than their successors. But an obstinate persistence in that kind of honesty would have excluded from the ministry all except fools, liars, and bigots. Again, it might have been supposed that the laity also, who at their baptism and confirmation made the same declaration of belief in "all the articles" of the Apostles" Creed, and who are bidden by the Church to repeat the same Creed every week, are in the same position as the clergy. But the Bishop again attempts to draw a distinction. "The responsibility of joining in the Creed is left to the conscience of the layman," but not to the conscience of the clergyman, nor, we suppose, of the choir.[41] This plea seems to us a very lame one. The Church of England has never thought of imposing severer doctrinal tests on the clergy than on the laity, and a.s.sent to the Creeds is as integral a part of the baptismal as of the ordination vows.
No loyal Christian wishes to impugn a doctrine which touches so closely the life of the Redeemer as the account of His miraculous conception, which appears, in our texts, in two books of the New Testament. If the tradition is as old as the Church, which is very doubtful, it must, from the nature of the case, rest on the unsupported a.s.sertion of Mary, the mother of Jesus; for Joseph could only testify that the child was not his. It is therefore useless to reinforce the Gospel narrative by appealing to "Catholic tradition,"[42] as if it could add anything to the evidence. It is significant, however, of the Bishop"s own feelings about tradition, that he quietly sets aside the plain statement of the Synoptic Gospels that Joseph and Mary had a large family of four sons and more than one daughter by their marriage. This statement, which is doubtless historical, became intolerable to the conscience of the Church during the long frenzy of asceticism, when marital relations were regarded as impure and degrading; and in consequence the perpetual virginity of Mary, though contradicted in the New Testament, became as much an article of faith as her conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost.
We have no wish to criticise the arguments for the Virgin Birth which Dr. Gore has collected in his "Dissertations." But when a strenuous effort is made to exclude from the ministry of the Church all who cannot declare _ex animo_ that they believe it to be a certain historical fact, it becomes a duty to point out that, on ordinary principles of evidence, the story must share the uncertainty which hangs over other strange and unsupported narratives. The Bishop expresses his doubt whether those who regard this miracle as unproven can be convinced of the Divinity of Christ. This only shows how difficult it is for an ecclesiastic in his high position to induce either clergy or laity to talk frankly to him.
To most educated men there would be no difficulty in believing that the Son of G.o.d became incarnate through the agency of two earthly parents.
The a.n.a.logy of hybrids in the animal world is not felt to apply to the union of the human and divine natures, except by persons of very low intelligence. We should have preferred to be silent on this delicate subject, but for the fact that some men whom the Church can ill spare have been advised officially not to apply for ordination, on account of their views about this miracle. Fortunately, the practice of demanding more specific declarations than the law requires has not been adopted in most dioceses.
The question of the miraculous element in religious truth has indeed reached an acute stage. The Catholic doctrine is and always has been that there are two "orders"--the natural and the supernatural--on the same plane, and distinguishable from each other. The Catholic theologian is prepared to define what occurrences in the lives of the Saints are natural, and what supernatural. Miracles are of frequent occurrence, and are established by ordinary evidence. Three miracles have to be placed to the credit of each candidate for canonisation before he or she is ent.i.tled to bear the t.i.tle of saint, and the evidence for these miracles is sifted by a commission. This theory has been practically abandoned in the English Church. There are few among our ecclesiastics and theologians who would spend five minutes in investigating any alleged supernatural occurrence in our own time. It would be a.s.sumed that, if true, it must be ascribed to some obscure natural cause. The result is that the miracles in the Creeds, or in the New Testament, are isolated as they have never been before. They seem to form an order by themselves, a cla.s.s of fact belonging neither to the world of phenomena as we know it, nor to the world of spirit as we know it. From this situation has arisen the tendency, increasingly prevalent both in the Roman Church and in Protestant Germany, to distinguish "truths of faith"
from "truths of fact," The former, it is said, have a representative, symbolic character, and are only degraded by being placed in the same category as physical phenomena. This contention is open to very serious objections, but it at least indicates the actual state of the problem, viz. that to most educated men the miraculous element in Christianity seems to float between earth and heaven, no longer essentially connected with either, while on the other hand the majority of religious people, including a few men of high intelligence, find it difficult to realise their faith without the help of the miraculous. Supernaturalism, which from the scientific point of view is the most unsatisfactory of all theories, traversing as it does the first article in the creed of science--the uniformity of nature--gives, after all, a kind of crude synthesis of the natural and the spiritual, by which it is possible to live; it is, for many persons, an indispensable bridge between the world of phenomena and the world of spirit. But when the heavy-handed dogmatist requires a categorical a.s.sent to the literal truth of the miraculous, in exactly the same sense in which physical facts are true, a tension between faith and reason cannot be avoided. And it is in this literal sense that Bishop Gore requires all his clergy to a.s.sent to the miracles in the Creeds.
The fact is that the Catholic party in the Church are in a hopeless _impa.s.se_ with regard to dogma. They cannot take any step which would divide them from "the whole Church," and the whole Church no longer exists except as an ideal--it has long ago been shivered into fragments.
The Roman Church is in a much better position. The Pope may at any time "interpret" tradition in such a manner as to change it completely--there is no appeal from his authoritative p.r.o.nouncements; but for the High Anglican there is no living authority, only the dead hand, and a Council which can never meet. It is much as if no important legislation could be pa.s.sed in this country without a joint session of our Parliament and the American Congress. It is difficult to see any way of escape, except by accepting the principle of development in a sense which would repudiate the time-honoured "appeal to antiquity."
We have next to consider Bishop Gore as a Church Reformer. We have seen that he desires an autonomous Church, which can legislate for itself.
The dead hand, which weighs so lightly upon him when it forbids any attempt to revise the formularies of the faith, seems to him intolerably heavy when it obliges the Church to conform to "the laws, canons, and rubrics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which it cannot alter or add to."[43] The only remedy, he thinks, is a really representative a.s.sembly, of bishops, presbyters, and laymen. In the early Church, as he points out, the laity were always recognised as const.i.tuent members of the government of the Church. In a democratic age, the laity as a body should exercise the powers which in the Middle Ages were delegated to, or usurped by, "emperors, kings, chiefs and lords." The parish ought to have the real control of the Church buildings, except the chancel; the Church servants ought to be appointed and removed by the parish meeting. It would be a step forward if these parish councils could be organised under diocesan regulation, and invested with the control of the parish finances, except the vicar"s stipend; the right to object to the appointment of an unfit pastor; and some power of determining the ceremonial at the Church services. The diocesan synod should become a reality; there should also be provincial synods, which could become national by fusion. But in the last resort the declaration of the mind of the Church on matters of doctrine and morals ought to belong to the bishops.[44]
But who are the laity? "By a layman," he says, "I mean one who fulfils the duties of Church membership--one who is baptised into the Church, who has been confirmed if he has reached years of discretion, and who is a communicant." A roll of Church members, he suggests, should be kept in each parish, on which should be entered the name of each confirmed person, male or female. The names of those who had pa.s.sed (say) two years without communicating should be struck off the roll. Further, names should be removable for any scandalous offences.[45]
It is easy to see that the "communicant franchise" would work entirely in favour of that party in the Church which attaches the greatest importance to that Sacrament. It would exclude a large number of Protestant laymen who subscribe to Church funds, and who on any other franchise would have a share in its government. But we need not suspect Dr. Gore of any _arriere pensee_ of this kind. His ideal of parochial life is one which must appeal to all who wish well to the Church. We will quote a few characteristic sentences:
"Are we to set to work to revive St. Paul"s ideal of the life of a Church? If so, what we need is not more Christians, but better Christians. We want to make the moral meaning of Church membership understood and its conditions appreciated. We want to make men understand that it costs something to be a Christian; that to be a Christian, that is, a Churchman, is to be an intelligent partic.i.p.ator in a corporate life consecrated to G.o.d, and to concern oneself, therefore, as a matter of course, in all that touches the corporate life, its external as well as its spiritual conditions.... We Christians are fellow-citizens together in the commonwealth that is consecrated to G.o.d, a commonwealth of mortal men with bodies as well as souls."[46]
With regard to ritual, he will not allow that the disputes are unimportant. The vital question of self-government is at stake. From this point of view, a "mere ceremony" may mean a great deal. St. Paul, who said "Circ.u.mcision is nothing," also said, "If ye be circ.u.mcised Christ shall profit you nothing,"[47] This is quite consistent with his hearty disapproval of the introduction of purely Roman ceremonial.
Does this ideal of a free Church in a free State involve disestablishment? Not necessarily, Dr. Gore thinks. Why should not legal authority be entrusted to diocesan courts, with a right of appeal to a court of bishops, abolishing the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee in spiritual cases? It is the paralysis of spiritual authority, in his opinion, which pushes into prominence all extravagances, and conceals the vast amount of agreement which exists in essentials. "We are weary of debating societies; we want the healthy discipline of co-operative government."[48] The policy of this self-governing Church is to be "Liberal-Catholic," a type which "responds to the moral needs of our great race."
Such is the scheme of Church reform towards which the Bishop is working; and he has told us, in the sentence last quoted, what kind of Church he looks forward to see. But what kind of Church would it actually be, if his designs were carried out? It would not be a national Church; for his belief that Catholicism "responds to the moral needs of our race" is contradicted by the whole history of modern England. The laity of England may not be quite "as Protestant as ever they were, though we often hear that they are so; but they show no disposition to become Catholics. Catholicism as we know it is Latin Christianity, and even in the Latin countries it is now a hothouse plant, dependent on a special education in Catholic schools and seminaries, with an _index librorum prohibitorum_. Such a system is impossible in England. Seminaries for the early training of future clergymen may indeed be established; but beds of exotics cannot be raised by keeping the gardeners in greenhouses while the young plants are in the open air. The "Liberal Catholic"
Church, accordingly, would shed, by degrees, the very large number of Churchmen who still call themselves Protestant. Nor would the adjective "Liberal" secure the adhesion of the "intellectuals." Bishop Gore"s Liberalism would exclude most of them as effectually as the most rigid Conservatism. It would also be a disestablished and disendowed Church; for surely it is building castles in the air to think of episcopal courts recognised by law. The prospect of disestablishment does not alarm the Bishop. Some of his utterances suggest that he would almost welcome it. Indeed, disestablishment is viewed with complacency by an increasing number of High Church clergy. They feel that they can never carry out their plans for de-Protestantising the Church while the Crown has the appointment of the bishops. For even if, as has lately been the case, their party gets more than its due share of preferment, there will always, under the existing system, be a sufficient number of Liberal and Evangelical bishops on the bench to make a consistent policy of Catholicising impossible. And the Catholic party are so admirably organised that they are confident in their power to carry their schemes under any form of self-government, even though the ma.s.s of the laity are untouched by their views. Moreover, the town clergy, among whom are to be found advocates of disestablishment, find in many places that the parochial idea has completely broken down. The unit is the congregation, no longer the parish, and the clergy are supported by pew-rents and voluntary offerings, not by endowments. In such parishes, disestablishment might, they think, give them greater liberty, and would make little difference to them in other ways. But in the country districts the case is very different. Thirty years after disestablishment, the quiet country rectory, nestling in its bower of trees and shrubs, with all that it has meant for centuries in English rural life, would in most villages be a thing of the past.
For these reasons, the Bishop"s policy of reconstructing the Church of England as a self-governing body, professing definitely Catholic principles and enjoining Catholic practices, seems to us an impossible one. The chief gainer by it would be the Church of Rome, which would gather in the most consistent and energetic of the Anglo-Catholics, who would be dissatisfied at the contrast between the pretensions of their own Church and its isolated position. The non-episcopal bodies would also gain numerous recruits from among the ruins of the Evangelical and Liberal parties in the Church.
But, it may be said, this dismal forecast may be falsified if the Anglican Church can win the ma.s.ses. The English populace are at present neither Protestant nor Catholic; they are, if we count heads, mainly heathen. May not the working man, who has no leaning to dissent, unless it be the "corybantic Christianity" of the Salvation Army, be brought into the Church?
Bishop Gore has always shown an earnest sympathy with the aspirations of the working cla.s.s to improve their material condition. He is also profoundly impressed by the apparent discrepancy between the teachings of Christ about wealth and the principles which His professed disciples wholly follow and in part avow. These anxious questionings form the subject of a fine sermon which he preached at the Church Congress of 1906, on the text about the camel and the needle"s eye. Jesus Christ chose to be born of poor and humble parents, in a land remote from the centre of political or intellectual influence, and in the circle of labouring men. He chose to belong to the cla.s.s of the respectable artisan, and most of the twelve Apostles came from the same social level. In His teaching He plainly a.s.sociated blessedness with the lot of poverty, and extreme danger with the lot of wealth. All through the New Testament the a.s.sumption is that G.o.d is on the side of the poor against the rich. As Jowett once said, there is more in the New Testament against being rich, and in favour of being poor, than we like to recognise. And is not this the cause of our failure to win the ma.s.ses?
Is it not because we are the Church of capital rather than of labour?
The Church ought to be a community in which religion works upward from below. The Church of England expresses that point of view which is precisely not that which Christ chose for His Church. The incomes of the bishops range them with the wealthier cla.s.ses; the clergy a.s.sociate with the gentry and not with the artisans. We must acknowledge with deep penitence that we are on wrong lines. For himself, the Bishop admits that he has "a permanently troubled conscience" in the matter. Then, with that admirable courage and practicality which is the secret of much of his influence, he proceeds to indicate four "lines of hopeful recovery." First, the Church must get rid of the administration of poor relief. Where the charity of the Church is understood to mean the patronage of the rich, it can do nothing without disaster. All will be in vain till it has ceased to be a plausible taunt that a man or woman goes to church for what can be got. Secondly, we must give the artisans their true place in Church management, and must consult their tastes in all non-essentials. Thirdly, the clergy should "concentrate themselves upon bringing out the social meaning of the sacraments," and giving voice to the spirit of Christian brotherhood. Lastly, we ought to free the clerical profession entirely from any a.s.sociation of cla.s.s.
The Bishop is not a Collectivist, but he has great sympathy with some of the aims of Socialism. In a "Pan-Anglican Paper" just issued, he discusses the att.i.tude of the Church towards Socialism. Christianity, he says, must remain independent of State-Socialism, as of other organisations of society. Socialism would make a far deeper demand on character than most of its adherents realise. "An experiment in State-Socialism, based on the average level of human character as it exists at present, would be doomed to disastrous failure." (Bishop Creighton said the same thing more epigrammatically. "Socialism will only be possible when we are all perfect, and then it will not be needed.") But what we have is no Socialistic State, but a great body of aspiration, based on a great demand for justice in human life. The indictment of our present social organisation is indeed overwhelming, and with this indictment Christianity ought to have the profoundest sympathy, for it is substantially the indictment of the Old Testament prophets. The prophets were on the side of the poor; and so was our Lord. Where is the prophetic spirit in the Church to-day? We need "a tremendous act of penitence." Our charities have been mere ambulance-work; but "the Christian Church was not created to be an ambulance-corps." We have followed the old school of political economy instead of the prophets and Christ. Broadly, we may contrast two ideals of society: individualism, which means in the long run the right of the strong; and socialism, which means that the society is supreme over the individual. "On the whole, Christianity is with Socialism."
This "Pan-Anglican Paper" is a fair representation of the views which are spreading rapidly among the High Church clergy. The party is in fact making a determined effort to enlist the sympathies of the working man with the Church, by offering him in return its sympathy and countenance in his struggle against capitalism. This is a phase of the movement which it is very difficult to judge fairly. Dr. Gore"s sermon was calculated to give any Christian who heard it, whether Conservative or Liberal, "a troubled conscience;" and his practical suggestions are as convincing as any suggestions that are not plat.i.tudes are likely to be.
But in weaker hands this sympathy with the cause of Labour is in great danger of becoming one of the most insidious temptations that can attack a religious body. The Church of England has been freely accused of too great complaisance to the powers that be, when those powers were oligarchic. Some of the clergy are now trying to repeat, rather than redress, this error, by an obsequious att.i.tude to King Working-man. But the Church ought to be equally proof against the _vultus instantis tyranni_ and the _civium ardor prava iubentium_. The position of a Church which should sell itself to the Labour party would be truly ignominious. It would be used so long as the politicians of the party needed moral support and eloquent advocacy, and spurned as soon as its services were no longer necessary. The taunt of Helen to Aphrodite in the third book of the "Iliad" sounds very apposite when we read the speeches of some clerical "Christian Socialists," who find it more exciting to organise processions of the unemployed than to attend to their professional duties.
heso par" ahython hiohysa, thehon d" haphoeike kelehythoy, med" heti sohisi phodessin hypostrhepseiast "Holympon, hall" ahiehi perhi kehinon hohizye kahi he phyla.s.se, ehist ho khe s" he halochon poihesetai, he ho ge dohylen.[49]
It is as a slave, not as an honoured help-mate, that the Social Democrats would treat any Christian body that helped them to overthrow our present civilisation. And rightly; for Christ"s only injunction in the sphere of economics was, "Take heed and beware of all covetousness,"
He refused pointedly to have anything to do with disputes about the distribution of property; and in the parable of the Prodigal Son the demand, "Give me the portion of goods that falleth to me," is the prelude to a journey in that "far country" which is forgetfulness of G.o.d (_terra longinqua est oblivio Dei_). Christ unquestionably meant His followers to think but little of the accessories of life. He believed that if men could be induced to adopt the true standard of values, economic relations would adjust themselves. He promised His disciples that they should not want the necessaries of subsistence, and for the rest, He held that the freedom from anxiety, covetousness, and envy, which He enjoined as a duty, would also make their life happy. This is a very different spirit from that which makes Socialism a force in politics.
Bishop Gore, we may be sure, will not willingly allow the High Church party to be entangled in corrupt alliances. When he handles what may be called applied Christianity, he does so in a manner which makes us rejoice at the popularity of his books. The little commentaries on the Sermon on the Mount, and on the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians, are admirable. They are simple, practical, and profound. We subjoin a short a.n.a.lysis of the notes on the first part of the Sermon on the Mount, as an ill.u.s.tration of the teaching which runs all through the three commentaries.
The Sermon on the Mount is not the whole of Christianity. It is the climax of law, of the letter that killeth. The Divine requirement is pressed home with unequalled force upon the conscience; yet not in the form of mere laws of conduct, but as a type of character. It is promulgated not by an inaccessible G.o.d, but by the Divine Love manifested in manhood. The hard demand of the letter is closely connected with the promise of the Spirit. We are told that many of the precepts in the sermon were antic.i.p.ated by Pagan and Jewish writers. But this we might have expected, since all men are rational and moral through fellowship with the Word, who is also the Reason of G.o.d. Christ is the light which in conscience and reason lightens every man throughout the history of the race. But the Sermon is comprehensive where other summaries are fragmentary, it is pure where they are mixed. It is teaching for grown men, who require principles, not rules. And it is authoritative, reinforced by the mysterious Person of the speaker. The Beat.i.tudes are a description of character. Christ requires us, not to do such and such things, but to be such and such people. ... True blessedness consists in membership of the kingdom of heaven, which is a life of perfect relationship with man and nature based on perfect fellowship with G.o.d.... The Beat.i.tudes describe the Christian character in detail; in particular, they describe it as contrasted with the character of the world, which, in the religious sense, may be defined as human society as it organises itself apart from G.o.d. The first Beat.i.tude enjoins detachment, such as His who emptied Himself, as having nothing and yet possessing all things. We are all to be detached; there are some whom our Lord counsels to be literally poor. "Blessed are they that mourn" means that we are not to screen ourselves from the common lot of pain. We must distinguish "G.o.dly sorrow" from the peevish discontent and slothfulness which St. Paul calls the sorrow of the world, and which in medieval casuistry is named acedia. "Blessed are the meek" means that we are not to a.s.sert ourselves unless it is our duty to do so. The true Christian is a man who in his private capacity cannot be provoked. On a general view of life, though not always in particular cases, we must allow that we are not treated worse than we deserve. The fourth Beat.i.tude tells us that if we want righteousness seriously, we can have it. The fifth proclaims the reward of mercy, that is, compa.s.sion in action. Pity which does nothing is only hypocrisy or emotional self-indulgence. On the whole, we can determine men"s att.i.tude to us by our att.i.tude to them; the merciful do obtain mercy. "Purity of heart" means singleness of purpose; but in the narrower sense of purity it is worth while to say that those who profess to find it "impossible"
to lead a pure life might overcome their fault if they would try to be Christlike altogether, instead of struggling with that one fault separately. "Sincerum est nisi vas, quodcunque infundis acescit." On the seventh--there are many kinds of false peace, which Christ came to break up; but fierce, relentless compet.i.tion is an offence in a Christian nation. The last shows what our reward is likely to be in this world, if we follow these counsels. Where the Christ-character is not welcomed, it is hated.
From the later sections a few characteristic comments may be given in an abridged form.
We are apt to have rather free and easy notions of the Divine fatherhood. To call G.o.d our Father, we must ourselves be sons; and it is only those who are led by the Spirit of G.o.d who are the sons of G.o.d.... Ask for great things, and small things will be given to you. This is exactly the spirit of the Lord"s Prayer.... Act for G.o.d. Direct your thoughts and intentions G.o.dward, and your intelligence and affections will gradually follow along the line of your action.... You must put G.o.d first, or nowhere.... It is a perilous error to say that we have only to follow our conscience; we have to enlighten our conscience and keep it enlightened.... There is no greater plague of our generation than the nervous anxiety which characterises all its efforts. We ought to be reasonably careful, and then go boldly forward in the peace of G.o.d.... Our Lord did not mean to make of His disciples a new kind of Pharisee.
...."Judge not," means, Do not be critical. The condemnation of one who is always finding fault carries no moral weight.
It is those who have the lowest and vaguest standards of what is right who are often the most critical in judgment of other people.... We ought so to limit our desires that what we want for ourselves we can reasonably expect also for others.... A man who wants to do his duty must always be prepared to stand alone.... Christianity is not so much a statement of the true end or ideal of human life, as a great spiritual instrument for realising the end.
These extracts will be sufficient to show what are the characteristics of these little commentaries. They exhibit extreme honesty of purpose, fearless acceptance of Christ"s teaching honestly interpreted, scorn of unreality and empty words, and a determination never to allow preaching to be divorced from practice. No more stimulating Christian teaching has been given in our generation.
The valuable treatise on the Holy Communion, called "The Body of Christ," is too theological for detailed discussion in these pages. The points in which the Roman Church has perverted and degraded the really Catholic sacramental doctrine are forcibly exposed, and the true nature of the sacrament is unfolded in a masterly and beautiful manner.
A study of the whole body of theological writings from the pen of this remarkable man leaves us with the conviction that he is one of the most powerful spiritual forces in our generation. It is the more to be regretted that in certain points he seems to be hampered by false presuppositions and misled by unattainable ideals. His loyalty to "Catholic truth," as understood by the party in the Church to which he consents to belong, prevents him from understanding where the shoe really pinches among those of the younger generation who are both thoughtful and devout. He makes a fetish of the Creeds, doc.u.ments which only represent the opinions of a majority at a meeting; and what manner of meetings Church Councils sometimes were, is known to history. He is still impressed with the grandeur of the Catholic idea, as embodied in the Roman Church, and will do nothing to preclude reunion, should a more enlightened policy ever prevail at the Vatican. But this country has done with the Roman Empire, in its spiritual as well as its temporal form. The dimensions of that proud dominion have shrunk with the expansion of knowledge; new worlds have been opened out, geographical and mental, which never owned its sway; the _caput orbis_ has become provincial, and her authority is spurned even within her own borders.
There is no likelihood of the English people ever again accepting "Catholicism," if Catholicism is the thing which history calls by that name. The movement which the Bishop hopes to lead to victory will remain, as it has been hitherto, a theory of the ministry rather than of the Church, and its strength will be confined, as it is now, mainly to clerical circles.
Catholicism and Protestantism (in so far as they are more than names for inst.i.tutionalism and mysticism, which are permanent types) are both obsolescent phases in the evolution of the Christian religion. "The time cometh when neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem shall men worship the Father."
A profound reconstruction is demanded, and for those who have eyes to see has been already for some time in progress. The new type of Christianity will be more Christian than the old, because it will be more moral. A number of unworthy beliefs about G.o.d are being tacitly dropped, and they are so treated because they are unworthy of Him. The realm of nature is being claimed for Him once more; the distinction between natural and supernatural is repudiated; we hear less frequent complaints that G.o.d "does nothing" because He does not a.s.sert Himself by breaking one of His own laws. The divinity of Christ implies--one might almost say it means--the eternal supremacy of those moral qualities which He exhibited in their perfection. "Conversio fit ad Dominum ut Spiritum," as Bengel said. The visible or Catholic Church is not the name of an inst.i.tution which has the privilege of being governed by bishops. It is "dispersed throughout the whole world," under many banners and many disguises. Its political reunion is (Plato would say) an hen mhytho ehyche, and is at present neither to be expected nor desired. Among those who are by right citizens of the spiritual kingdom, those only are in danger of exclusion from it who entrench themselves in a little fort of their own and erect barriers, which may make them their own prisoners, but which will not hinder the great commonwealth of seekers after truth from working out modern problems by modern lights, until the whole of our new and rich inheritance, intellectual, moral, and aesthetic, shall be brought again under the obedience of Christ.
FOOTNOTES:
[24] In 1908.
[25] Palmer"s _Narrative_, p 20.
[26] _Contemporary Review_, April 1899.
[27] _The Church and the Ministry_, pp. 9, 10.
[28] _Ibid_., p. 74.
[29] _The Church and the Ministry_, p. 110.
[30] _Ibid_., p. 344.
[31] _Ibid_., p. 345.
[32] _Ibid_., p. 348.
[33] _The Mission of the Church_, p. 32.
[34] _Church Congress Report_, 1896, p. 143.
[35] _Ibid_., p. 142.