of Christian thought built up by men who, like St. Paul, had the most profound sense of sin; and thus, however inadequate their personal sense of it, they do not go intellectually far astray. They are quite aware of God's fatherly love, of His willingness to forgive till seventy times seven. But they know their need of something immeasurably more than this. Sin is not primarily a fact of the past; the past has no existence, except as living on in the present. Sin is primarily a present condition of the will, and the truth of Christ apart from the grace is insufficient to deal with it. Christ is what He is to them, not only because of what He has taught and teaches but because of what He has done, and by His Spirit does. They may indeed sometimes hold theories of His Atonement almost as unsatisfying as that with which Canon Glazebrook deals; but, knowing their need of salvation, and finding in our Lord what the Apostles found, power according to their faith, not to teach and reveal only, but to save, they cannot rest in such views of our Lord's Person and work as seem to satisfy Modern Churchmen. It is an old saying that 'the Nestorian Christ is the proper Saviour of the Pelagian man.' He is that is why some Modern Churchmen are so satisfied with him. But Catholics and Evangelicals find another Christ in the New Testament; they have been taught to seek from Him, they believe that they have found in Him, in spite of the weakness of their faith and the shallowness of their experience, something which the Nestorian Christ could not possess, and received from Him something which the Nestorian Christ could not give. Their reliance upon His grace and power does not paralyze their moral effort; the grace of God stimulates, not pauperizes; to whom much is given, of him will much be required. But it saves them from two things to which Pelagianism leads: self-confidence at the beginning of the Christian life, and profound discouragement afterwards. Those of other schools who most admire the great qualities of many Modern Churchmen sometimes regret the ineffectiveness of their appeal to ordinary men and women. Is it not their want of a gospel which explains it? The

higher the call that is given, the less do we find in ourselves the power to answer it. God brought His people out of Egypt first, and gave them the law afterwards; and moral appeals without a gospel of redeeming love fail to help those who are surrounded by difficulties, and need a great uplift before they can respond.

III

There remains the question of the position of Modern Churchmen in the Church of England. It is a vexed and vexing question, profoundly difficult, and apt to poison our relations one with another. The Bishops need all our sympathy. We do not propose to repeat the familiar arguments either on the one side or on the other; but there are considerations sometimes forgotten, about which a few words may be said.

The first is this. It is the business of the Church as a whole, and, when the Church is divided, of each part of the Church, to determine its terms of communion, to interpret their meaning, and, if necessary, to alter them. Though the decision reached will not be necessarily the best, the individual must bow to it. It might help us much, if Modern Churchmen would tell us what they think that the terms of communion ought to be. But in order to determine them the Church must be free to determine them, and in no case must individuals be deprived of their membership in the Church or its ministry except after a regular judicial process. An expression of opinion upon the part of the Bishops as to the legitimacy of the position of a body of men within the Church cannot take the place of this, though it has the moral authority which the position and character of the Bishops give to it. Now the Church is not at present free to deal with its terms of communion, nor has it any proper system of ecclesiastical courts. The careful work of the Royal Commission on the subject had no result, since no action followed it. Thus, as matters stand, continued membership in the Church and the ministry is for the most part left to the individual conscience; and, while it is thus left, the decision which the individual conscience gives must be frankly accepted. The ministry of the Church

to-day has little to attract any but those who are led to it by the highest motives. If Modern Churchmen are members, they are so for the same reason as that for which others are members, because they believe that God has called them to serve Him in the ministry, and they can but obey. As Mr. Streeter says in Restatement and Reunion, they do not put the question to themselves: 'Am I justified in remaining in, or in entering into, the ministry?' They ask rather, whether they are justified in declining to take that course. Now when men of high character tell us that they are acting conscientiously, we have simply to believe them. To suggest that they are acting dishonourably is intolerable. Bishops may, rightly or wrongly, reject candidates for ordination on the ground of erroneous belief, but, till there are satisfactory courts, it is not easy to see what more they can do.

Are we then to be fired, in our effort to obtain satisfactory courts, by the desire to get rid of Modern Churchmen? We know that many would say Yes, and say it from the highest motives. They think that the toleration of error so fundamental endangers the authority of the Church of England as a witness to the truth. It may even be urged that this is the proper conclusion to be drawn from this article. It is not the conclusion of the writer. As has been said, the question is profoundly difficult. But we do not think that those who desire to exclude are those who know Modern Churchmen best. It is sometimes suggested that they are simply a small body of academic people, who make no real contribution to the life of the Church, who have never tried to convert a sinner, or to comfort a mother who has lost her son. That is nonsense. Far more of them are doing parochial work than is sometimes supposed. But, were it otherwise, some must read and think, and the academic Christian has his own gifts by which to contribute to the life of the body. Is not exclusion generally a counsel of despair, and of a despair from which belief in the Spirit of God ought to deliver us? This type of theology was far more prominent in the Eighteenth century than it is to-day, but the new Divine life of the Evangelical and Catholic movements was quite able to deal with it.

If we believed that Modern Churchmen were incapable of understanding a fuller and deeper theology than they possess, and that they constituted a grave danger to the faith of others, we might well hesitate. But we believe neither the one thing nor the other. Just because we hold Catholic theology to be truer and deeper than theirs, more consistent with reason and Scripture, we want them to be where they will be brought into contact with it and we think that they do more good than harm. Such a book as that which we have so freely criticized we can nevertheless welcome. Those of a larger faith will recognize its limitations; those of a smaller will be helped by it. It is of the latter that we chiefly think. It is the Modern Churchmen, who are most in touch with that multitude of Englishmen, who have passed through the Public Schools, and are doing the work of England throughout the world. It is not that they have been strongly influenced by Modern Churchmen. That is not so; influence presupposes change. But the English, like all virile peoples, have a natural tendency to Pelagianism, and the same causes which have produced the Modern Churchman's outlook, those causes which we have tried to explain, have produced the same outlook in multitudes who have given little thought to questions of theology; and it is not easy for Catholics or Evangelicals to get into touch with them. Is it not far better that those multitudes should find in the Church of England those with whom they have more in common? Will not Catholics and Evangelicals themselves have more means of access to them if they do? Some of the young lions who seek their meat from The Modern Churchman may irritate us, but surely we can endure it. There are others, as we see in Canon Glazebrook's book, in whom the spirit of brotherhood is strong, who value every link with the followers of Christ in the past and in the present, whose great desire is for the reunion of Christendom, and who, if Churchmanship consists in caring for the Church rather than for parties within the Church, have the fullest right to the name of Churchmen. They wish to stay with us; shall not we wish to stay with them?

H. L. GOUDGE.

ART. IV.-LONDON COLLEGES, HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS IN SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH

Latin by SIR WILLIAM DUGDALE, Knight, Garter Principal King at Arms. Six Volumes in Eight. (London: James Bohn. 1846.)

2. The Third Universitie of England; or a Treatise of the Foundations of all the Colledges, Avncient Schooles of Priviledge, and of Hovses of Learning & Liberall Arts, within and about the most famous Cittie of London. In 'The Annales of England. . . by JOHN STOW, continued and augmented by EDMOND HOWES.' (London: 1615.)

3. The Life and Raigne of King Edward the Sixt with the Beginning of the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth. Both written by SIR JOHN HAYWARD, Kt., Dr. of Lawes. Second Edition. (London: Printed by Robert Young for John Partridge. 1636.)

4. The Church History of Britain; from the Birth of Jesus Christ untill the Year M.DC.XLVIII. Endeavoured by THOMAS FULLER. (London: Printed for John Williams at the signe of the Crown in St. Paul's Church-yard, Anno 1655.)

...

5. Memoirs of John Evelyn, comprising his Diary Edited by WILLIAM BRAY.

etc.

(London 1818, 1819.)

Contemporary Tracts and Plays.

Two Volumes.

III.

THE three earliest recorded Schools, according to Stow, were (1) that of St. Paul's, (2) that at the Monastery of