And so they turn their thoughts in quite other directions; and the great and pressing work of moral education, of ethical culture, gets no help from them. But who are the men who find little or no difficulty in getting ordained, and in so becoming qualified for office in the National Church? Until recently it was a pre-requisite, very seldom dispensed with, that they should have taken a University Degree. That, of course, is not difficult when it is merely a pass without honours. But very little else is wanted. A certificate of having attended a course of twelve lectures; an easy examination in what is called theology, involving only a superficial acquaintance with a few books of no scientific, and of third-rate literary value; a testimonial as to character from three clergyman, who need know but very little about the man-and that is all; while of these few and easy conditions, the most important one, the University Degree, is now dispensed with as frequently as it is demanded, because the obsoleteness of the required theology makes it necessary that the bishops should put up with the lack of academical training. They would not get half as many men as they want if they insisted on it. Popular control would here, I am confident, bring about a much-needed reform. It would insist on intellectual ability and cultivation; it would not require a declaration of assent to theological dogmas; it would demand men of tried moral strength, it would not rely upon an antique ceremony to provide them with spiritual power and character.

I do not say that the change would come at once. It is a necessity of the case that it should be gradual. But sooner or later we should have a national clergy, abreast of the intellectual and moral progress of the times, no longer a separate caste, wearing a peculiar dress, as if they claimed to be a different species from the rest of their fellow-men, but owing their claim to spiritual leadership to their superior culture, enlightenment, character; and I do not believe the time will ever come when there will be no need of such men. The National Church, when it has passed through the process of this new reformation, might be described as a great society for the extension of University teaching, only it would be considerably more than that phrase at present implies. For not only would its clergy be the authorized agents for conveying the best knowledge of the times in literature, science, and art, into all parts of the country; but they would similarly be commissioned to deal with ethical and spiritual questions-a field which is as yet untouched, as near as may be, by any such society at present existing.

I am, of course, aware that a thousand practical difficulties may be urged as proving the scheme I am advocating to be hopeless and visionary, how, ever admirable in its general idea. No doubt grave problems would arisesome of them hard to solve; but what great reform worthy the name has not been carried out in the face of great difficulties? Some of these prob lems have already been anticipated and considered in a little volume called "Church Reform," one of the " Imperial Parliament Series," published by Messrs. Sonnenschein; and I hope that such of you as are interested in

this question will read what is there contained-it is the work of several writers; for though I think some of the proposals are inadequate, I am in general sympathy with it, and I should be sorry for any of you to carry away the impression that what I am advocating is the mere creation of my brain. An increasing number of thoughtful men and women have, for some years past, been looking in this direction for the best solution of the Church Establishment question. We are all agreed that things cannot remain as they are; but it is not in liberation from State control, so much as in making that control a reality, that we think the true answer will be found. State control, as it exists, leaves the clergy independent of the people whom they serve; and so it has, during the last forty years, done more than anything else to foster the growth of what I must call sacerdotal arrogance-for the thing exists, though I do not like using what sounds like abusive language; but State control in the sense of popular control would soon change all that. The Church of England does not need a liberation which would really give freer play only to ecclesiastical despotism; it is the people who need liberation from that. But it does need freeing from dogmatic fetters forged in an age when modern ideas of toleration were yet unknown. And from personal knowledge I can affirm that, from the Archbishop of Canterbury downwards, there are hundreds and thousands of Churchmen who would be glad to have these fetters lightened, though I admit they are not yet prepared to abandon them altogether.

Presumably, on the repeal of the Act of Uniformity, while prosecutions on account of unorthodoxy would become impossible, I take it that the various congregations, or parishes, would elect councils whose business it would be to see to the conduct of the Church services, in such a manner as is best suited to the peculiar circumstances of each place; and this would hinder any sudden and violent breach with the past, while it would leave the door open for progressive modifications. The question of the appointment or removal of clergymen presents greater difficulties; and perhaps it would be best to have no uniform method everywhere. In regard to the removal of unsuitable men, doubtless the opinion of the congregation ought to have the greatest weight; but it should be understood that this applies to moral and intellectual disqualifications, and not to a mere disapproval of a man's more liberal views. For it must be borne in mind that a congregation is not infrequently less enlightened than its minister-indeed, the whole idea of the Church as an educational institution implies that this is the normal case—and it would be intolerable if a well-read and conscientious clergyman should be deprived of his post because he tells his people, for example, the truth about the Bible; while we must not forget the case, far commoner than is supposed, especially among Dissenting communities, where the minister preaches down to the level of his flock, and affects an orthodoxy to which his intelligence does not assent, for fear of offending his deacons or other church officials. And the same considerations apply to the question of clerical appointments. Leave VOL. I.-pt. 2.

3 H

the appointments absolutely in the hands of the congregation, whose knowledge of the clerical world hardly extends beyond their own particular church, and you are in danger of encouraging that very narrowness which popular control ought to prevent. I confess that I am all against the direct election of a clergyman by the congregation; I think it bad for both sides. I should like to see the appointments in the hands of a body whose horizon is wider-say, a Committee of the local District or County Council, subject no doubt to a veto of the congregation affected with the grounds definitely stated in writing. But it is a difficult question, and I only throw out these ideas as suggestions. The fact, however, that the Church of England has on the whole been widened by the existence of a considerable amount of lay patronage, even when placed in irresponsible hands, is in favour of my contention that the spiritual freedom of the Church would be best served in the future by a continuance of this method of lay patronage exercised by representative bodies. Of course it is hardly necessary to add that any form of Disestablishment would put an end to this kind of lay patronage. All appointments to posts in our cathedrals and parish churches would be made by the bishops or the clergy or else by those little cliques of devout laymen who are often more clerical than the most reverend of the clergy themselves.

I have said perhaps enough to lay this subject before you for consideration; but now that I am concluding, I see how much more might be adduced to illustrate and enforce my argument. Take, for example, the contemptible condition of theological and Biblical criticism in England as compared with what we see in France, Germany, and even in Holland. Our endowments in aid of these studies are magnificent compared with those in the countries I have named; but the professorships can only be held, in virtue of Act of Parliament, by men in Priests' Orders who have solemnly sworn that they believe about the Bible and Prayer Book much the same that was believed by the divines of the seventeenth century; and if their studies should cause them to abandon this belief, they are bound in conscience (so it seems to me) to resign their posts. The result is that the Established Church has become a kind of endowed conspiracy to hush up all that more independent students in foreign countries have done to throw light on the dark places of theology.

Nor must we forget how this obscurantism of the Established Church affects the smaller voluntary Churches by its side. It sets the fashion, and they follow. The Unitarians themselves, in spite of their far more rational position, are hardly an exception to this rule in England, though in the United States they are less hampered by conservative traditions. But the Church of England's obscurantist influence extends even to America and the colonies, while a widening of its intellectual life at home would doubtless have a corresponding influence across the seas. In truth this National Establishment of Religion, which we have inherited from our fathers, is a great trust, not only in its power for good or evil at home, but in the

part that it is competent to play in the widening of the religious life of English-speaking people all over the world. I think that most of us do not sufficiently realize that, while this Church remains a State institution, we hold its future in our hands. We can, of course, in impatience at its obvious faults, refuse to recognise our responsibility to lapse into the hands of others who will know the worth of what we are giving away. But I would ask you to remember the value of all existing organizations; to remember that the worst use we can make of an institution is to destroy it. It is a fine saying of Burke's: "Wisdom cannot create materials; her pride is in their use." Before many years are gone the people of England will be called upon seriously to consider whether they are able and willing to use, in the light of modern science and criticism, the materials for religious, spiritual, and ethical culture, which the piety of past centuries has created for them; or whether they prefer to let their inheritance pass into sectarian hands. If our consideration of this subject this afternoon has done anything to better the prospects of the former alternative, I do not think that you will complain that I have wasted your time.

1