which it took long to rear, and which can only bloom in the atmosphere of Christian charity. It requires the Christian spirit of hopefulness, patience, wisdom, large-mindedness, and sympathy, together with an unabated intolerance of all that is evil. But there is at least one true hope for the continuance of social and political well-being and of those ideals which even the followers of a negative and secularist philosophy profess to uphold. It lies in the religious faith of a people; and as a safeguard and bulwark, in the permanent institutions of an established Church, the recognised and accredited witness in every part of a nation to revealed truth. That outer rampart must fall before the citadel can be stormed.

The non-conformist bodies of this country, to their great credit, are on the whole well affected to the Anglican Church. They recognise the principles and the value of Establishment. They recognise that our outer walls are their outer walls as well, behind which they pursue their work in perfect freedom and security; that the place which the Bishops hold in the counsels of the nation is not for the privilege and preferment of one Christian Denomination above another, but for the representation of the Christianity of the nation as a whole. And we gratefully acknowledge their invaluable contributions to the religious thought and life of the nation. But there have been and are some prominent exceptions. There have been some who have added the force of sectarian bias to the barren and destructive criticisms of a negative and secularist philosophy. They have proclaimed an ardent faith in the independence of that flying arch, a high Christian ethic apart from any definite Christian teaching; in its stability and permanence against all the winds that blow: as in the education controversy-'education freed from all restrictions and narrowness of tests, creeds, and formularies, but intensely ethical.' They have aided and abetted the progress of secularisation in various directions.

Certain forms of evil there are which can only subsist on the good they attack, and otherwise would perish of inanition. In substance they are only negations. Like parasitic plants they draw their life and nourishment from what they feed upon. They are to be found in the

region of ideas and notions and fancies. But though only 'phantoms of the shadowy night' they have power to do great harm, and to divert the proper flow of vitalising principles, as is seen to our immeasurable loss in national education; and they must be carefully guarded against by clear thinking. The arguments of some members of the Anglican Church deal more with the supposed advantages to their Church of freedom from the fetters of State control, which would follow from Disestablishment. With these we shall deal in considering the probable consequences. We will, however, anticipate certain objections which may be made by this school of thought. The experiment of Disestablishment, it may be said, which you regard as so dangerous, has already been made in many instances; and no very disastrous consequences have followed; on the contrary, the Churches affected by it have gained new life and efficiency. The disestablishment of a Church by no means implies the repudiation of Christianity by the nation. If in the early days of Christianity the Church won its way in the face of State opposition and persecution, what is to impede its progress and influence in the greatly changed and improved conditions of modern Christendom? All this is not denied; but only the seeming inferences. Each case of the severance of Church from State must be studied with regard to the different circumstances, the different causes that brought it about, and the consequences in all their bearings, of which as yet there has perhaps not been sufficient evidence for the verdict of history. Probably Russia will provide the most instructive example on a large scale. But the main purpose of this argument is to draw attention to the importance of the principles of Church Establishment with particular application to the circumstances of the Church of England at the present time. These principles clearly prove the claim of the Anglican Church to continue as the accredited representative of the national religion by reason of her historic continuity, her representative character, and her comprehensiveness. But, failing that, they would provide sufficient reason for the establishment of any other considerable religious Denomination in the country. We readily concede that Disestablishment would not

at once affect the national character, perhaps not even for a generation. The immediate effect would probably only be confusion and dismay and the severing of ancient ties and associations, with perhaps the disruption of the Church. But the task of the early Church was a vastly different, and a far more hopeful one than that of trying to influence a nation that has far gone in apostasy till it is willing to retrace the steps that have been taken and to restore to the throne of the nation's life the Church which has once abdicated. It is conceded that Disestablishment may possibly be inevitable, and even desirable, as the lesser evil. But we urgently plead with all to consider well whether the necessity has yet arisen. We earnestly commend the need and the wisdom of clear thinking, of patience, and of careful weighing of the consequences, to those who are impatiently awaiting the signal for a stampede on the downward way of pis aller.

It is argued that one important gain through Disestablishment would be that of greater freedom for the Church. Here we are more on the ground of one influential school of thought in the Anglican Communion. By the word freedom used in this connexion can only be meant freedom of action. It cannot mean spiritual freedom. For that is not within the power of any Government on earth to give or to take away. As an instance of the freedom of action that is claimed for the Church we may take the appointment of Bishops, which is no doubt of great importance, and is thought to be unsatisfactory under existing arrangements, because it is determined by political influences, and not, as it should be, by the free voice of the Church. One may perhaps be allowed to express the opinion that the present method of appointment with some few exceptions has been justified by the results. However that may be, it should be carefully considered whether another method is feasible, and would produce better results.

First, what is the connotation to be given to the word 'Church' for this purpose? The whole body of the baptised-this would be almost comprehensive of the nation-or the clergy with the comparatively small and undefinable number of the faithful and loyal laity, or the clergy alone? It must be some connotation of the Church hitherto unknown, but one which must be carefully and clearly defined, and if any temporalities whatever are involved, strictly defined and fixed by law. The Church, then, for this purpose would be a close corporation, and not representative of the nation as a whole. As for the results, we may take the following forecast as an example of what may possibly take place : a Bishop is to be appointed; two nominations are put forward as representing two widely different schools of thought (by the electors in a Diocese, or by the Church as a whole?); in the end, in order to avoid extremes and to effect a compromise, the choice falls on some colourless nonentity; but the election is justified; they get the kind of man they deserve. It is sufficient answer to ask the question-is such a procedure and such a result satisfactory for any purpose for which the Church exists? Another matter in which it is thought that greater freedom is desirable is the Church's right to determine her own worship and her own formularies without interference or hindrance from outside. But this could only be secured at the cost of the accentuation of divisions, perhaps of disruption, and of a serious setback to the great cause of Christian reunion.

And outside of the secure enclosure of State connexion, which notwithstanding its occasional checks and drawbacks, provides large room for fruitful activity and ordered liberty and progress, stands the hideous spectre of civil litigation. Indeed, considering the latitude and comprehensiveness of the Church of England, the freedom of experiment and immunity from control which her ministers already enjoy, it is strange that so many should be willing to sacrifice the substance for the shadow by straining after the visionary freedom of a Church severed from the State. It reminds one of the spectacle of a boy's kite tugging at the string.

It is with some diffidence that we approach the subject of Disendowment, as a consequence of Disestablishment, and, as experience has taught, its logical and inevitable corollary; for fear of even seeming to impart mercenary considerations into spiritual issues. The import of Disendowment would not fall on the present Bishops and clergy. Their incomes, such as they are, would probably be secured to them in their present benefices and offices. And there is one argument

W

se

ng

e

of

d

e

t

ies which if it could be trusted, offers a most encouraging and hopeful prospect. It is suggested that if the Church of England were made to stand on her own legs like other religious Denominations, leaning no more on the endowments of the past, then at length the great mass of merely nominal adherents of the Church would be made to realise their responsibilities and to meet their obligations. Against this optimistic argument must, however, be set the fact that temporal changes do not as a rule produce spiritual results; the probability that the loyal few are already in a considerable measure doing their part in the upkeep of the Church's work at home and abroad; and, most convincing of all, the evident decay of religion and character in the nation, the tendencies of the present age, and the general state of mind revealed in literature, in the Press, and in the aims and pursuits of the majority of people, which all combine to depict a future ominous and full of gloom. There is also the danger that the scope of the Church's work might be reduced to mere congregationalism, to a matter of supply and demand; and thus one important principle, for which the Church has hitherto stood, namely, that a minister should be independent of the support of those to whom he ministers, might be sacrificed. In certain wealthy and populous districts there might be a strong demand for the services of a resident minister; in other districts through the fewness, the poverty, or the religious indifference of the inhabitants, there might be no demand. As a result the ministrations of the Church would be given where they were least needed; and at the same time differences of views, preferences, and prejudices would be magnified, and divisions more sharply defined.

A principle of the highest importance, yet one which is all too little appreciated, is that of the national recognition of God. This may be considered in two ways: the place of religion in public acts and ceremonials ; and the recognised witness of the Church at all times and in every parish. What would be the effect of Disestablishment on our public and national ceremonials, our solemn inaugurations, and all the occasions of rejoicing or mourning in which the nation joins as one? There are two alternatives: either all mention and association of religion must be omitted; or new forms