GEORGE HARWOOD, Esq., Bolton, author of "Disestablishment," and "The Coming Democracy."

Ir seems to me that before we can say what is the duty of the teacher of Christianity in respect to National Politics, we must satisfy ourselves as to what is the true relationship of Christianity itself to such politics. For this information we turn to that charter of our religion, the Bible, and at first it seems that its two great component parts give contradictory answers. The Old Testament is the literature of a nation with which, from the beginning to the end, religion was inextricably interwoven with politics. The revealer of its religion was the founder of its constitution; the administrators of its laws were its exponents of the divine will; its greatest priest was its first king-maker; its greatest king, its most sacred poet; its greatest philosopher, its most successful statesman; its prophets, and heroes and martyrs, were its most distinguished politicians, whilst its most religious national aspirations all centred round political events. The Old Testament sets before us, as the most divinely approved polity, one in which religion and politics, if not identical, were at least inseparable.

When we turn to the New Testament we seem to hear a different lesson, but the difference is only that between two parts of one great subject, like that between applied and pure mathematics. For the Old Testament shows us how the principles of religion were worked out in the Jewish polity, whilst the New Testament shows us what are the principles of religion which are applicable to all polities. Whilst Christianity has avoided the danger of tying itself to any form, it has given us what should be the substance of all forms. No Constitution can fail which rests upon Christian principles; whilst no Constitution can long succeed which has any other foundation.

If Christianity be so closely related to politics, we must next ask what is the character of this relationship? The answer will be found by reversing the order of the words forming the well-known democratic otto so freely displayed upon the public buildings of Paris. "Fraternity" is the source of "Equality," and "Equality" is the source of "Liberty," whilst Christianity is the source of "Fraternity" itself. It is one of the most striking anomalies of the present day that so many of those who believe most in what are called "the rights of the people," believe least in that religion from which those rights derive their only justification. They forget that before the coming of Christianity those "rights" had no existence; and that outside the range of Christianity they have now no influence. Jesus Christ was the first true Democrat the world ever knew, and Christianity is the chief armoury of Democracy. The character of the relationship between our religion and politics may be observed in the effect of Christianity upon slavery. It did not formulate any rule; it did not originate any plan; but it simply enunciated certain truths which sapped the foundations of the institution and ensured its downfall. So through the whole range of politics it lays down principles which are a sufficient basis for all the institutions necessary to political life; that is, to man's life as member of a community : and these principles are always on the side of justice, and kindness, and freedom. Let us first consider the history of the past. For centuries

the Christian Church, which is the organisation for this religion, nobly embodied these principles-not only did it feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, and teach the ignorant, but it also sheltered the persecuted and defended the oppressed; the chief promoter of Magna Charta was a leading ecclesiastic, and again and again the Church stood up for the rights of the people, and helped to make the bounds of freedom broader still.

And now, gentlemen, I must ask you to turn to the condition of the present, and I grieve to confess that you will have to look upon a darker picture. There can be no good in disguising the fact-there may be much good in acknowledging it-that the Church does not now stand well politically with the masses of the people. Nor does it deserve to stand well; for though it is the parent of freedom, it has, like Saturn, destroyed its own offspring. It makes one blush with shame-it makes one almost sink with despair-to reflect that during this century the influence of the Church of England, in so far as it has publicly manifested itself, has for the most part been nearly always on the wrong side-on the side of privilege against right, on the side of ignorance against knowledge, on the side of restriction against freedom, on the side of the few against the many. Now, what is to be the course in the future? We have entered upon altered conditions, and we must adopt an altered policy. We read that after Blucher's check Wellington at once changed his base of operations, and so won the battle of Waterloo. Now the time has come when the Church of England must act upon similar tactics, and change its base of operations: hitherto this has rested upon the upper classes; henceforth it must rest upon the masses. Even if respect for our principles did not dictate this change, it is demanded by regard for our interests. The Church of England has always been credited with the faculty of adapting itself to the rulers of the nation, and these are now the body of the people. In such a movement the teachers of religion must take a leading part, for a Church whose natural leaders are in the rear cannot be in a good way. I do not wish them to become prominent partisans-I do not wish them to become partisans at all-for it would be an evil day, perhaps a fatal one, if ever the Church of England became the ally of any particular party. But because that must not be given up to party which was meant for mankind, it does not follow that it must not be given to mankind itself; and as far as the teachers of religion are concerned, this is not a question of action with a party but of sympathy with a principle. Such sympathy may lead a man to go sometimes with one party and sometimes with another; but the sympathy itself should never waver. There may be doubts as to the advisability of changing this or that, but there can be none as to the duty of every teacher of religion sympathising most in his heart with the poor, and the weak, and the oppressed.

I will not go into details-indeed I do not know the facts—but I venture to guess it is true of Cumberland, as I know it is true of Lancashire, that in almost every political conflict the great bulk of the clergy are found on one side, and that the side least associated with sympathy for the people. Now I do not ask the clergy to lay aside class association altogether-for, after all, they must have something human about. them but I do ask them to remember that after being servants of God, they are servants of the nation, and that they should have no other

master; but if there is a class with which they specially sympathise, it should be the weakest. The poets of chivalry sang of the prowess of their heroes in fighting for the weak against the strong, and I believe that every Christian teacher should be such a knight-errant for these days. Though nothing of a political partisan myself, I must say that the position which so many of the bishops took up in a recent division in the House of Lords gladdened my heart. I should have been just as glad even if I had disapproved of the particular measure in question, for the Church has blundered so often on one side that it will do well to blunder a few times on the other. It has been so long blighted with prudence that a little generous recklessness will be healthy.

I would therefore answer the question of what is the duty of Christian teachers with regard to National politics by saying, that in sympathy they should always be on the side of the freedom and progress of the many; that in preaching they should, when important political questions arise, be ready to show how these are related to the cardinal principles of the Christian religion; and that in acting they should, whenever these principles are violated, not shrink from coming forward to defend them, no matter against whom. One great advantage of a National Church is that it should provide a body of clergy who can speak and act without fear and without favour; but there must be as little fear of, and at least as little favour to, the rich as the poor. If the teacher of religion feels that he ought actively to take part in some partisan fray, he must remember that he can only do so as a simple citizen, and that he has no right to use any official advantages in favour of one side or the other.

If there is any special fault at the present time, I should say it is that the clergy talk too much to the people, and act too little with them ; they join all sorts of societies for teaching the people how they should be good, but they do not sufficiently join the people themselves in trying to be so. The besetting weakness of Christianity, as of all religions, is to degenerate into superstition by being separated from the realities of life. To guard against this, the teachers of religion should mix not less, but more, in the daily concerns of their people; they should socially be the leaders in every movement calculated to make the lives of the poor more comfortable, and civilised, and joyous; and they should practically always sympathise with the aspirations of the masses after more freedom, and justice, and progress. This is the way to win back to the Church the confidence and love of the people.

Let me beg you not to believe those who tell you that this love cannot be won. The people of England are at heart religious; let those who doubt it turn to the history of the past; or look at the present, with its Salvation Army, for example. Now, the Church of England can give this religion in the best, and freest, and completest manner; there is no other institution which can rival her if she will only use her opportunities in the right spirit; and to do this she must return to her first principle, that of fraternity; and to her first love, that of the people. Those are not always the truest friends of the Church who think themselves so; nor are those always her best defenders who would fight with the weapons of privilege and exclusiveness.

We hear a good deal now-a-days about Church extension, and we all properly rejoice at any success in that direction, but we must not forget

that this is not the first thing. The multiplication of buildings, and clergymen, and parishes, important though it may be, is only one of those things which will be added unto us if we seek first to bring the Kingdom of God into the hearts of the people. It is the people who must make the Church; and if we can only win them, we may pretty much leave the rest to take care of itself. It is the teachers of religion who must be the leaders in this attack. Let them think of the glories of victory let them think of what this England would become if only the National Church was made in reality the Church of the nation-a Church carrying the sweet influence of religion through the length and breadth of the land: ennobling social life, purifying political life, and elevating the masses of the people to that condition which by Christianity should be their birthright.

So far I have spoken chiefly of internal politics, but all that has been said applies with equal truth to external politics. The principles of Christianity ought to govern our relations with other peoples as well as our relations amongst ourselves, and it behoves the teachers of Chistianity to uphold them as much in the one case as in the other. Nay, more, because they are more likely to be forgotten. Men banded together in communities will often freely give way to feelings of which as individuals they would be thoroughly ashamed; and a position of superiority such as that which Englishmen have often to occupy, is very dangerous to morality. It is for the teachers of religion steadily to warn the nation against this danger: against overbearingness and selfishness; against vain-glorying and hectoring; against the too hot assertion of its own rights, and the too cool neglect of those of others. England is often looked upon as rather a Pharisee; as a nation which preaches higher principles than the rest, but is little better in its practice. Therefore the future spread of our religion is involved in our consistency; and the teachers of this religion must unflinchingly impress upon the nation that in its dealings with all other bodies of men, whether civilised or uncivilised, light or dark, near or distant, it is bound to act in all cases upon the Christian axiom of doing to others as it would that they should do to it.

Thus both in internal and external politics the teachers of religion occupy a position of great and unique influence, and they will be false to the principles of Christianity if that influence is not used on the side of greater freedom at home and greater justice abroad.

DISCUSSION.

The Rev. C. S. COLLINGWOOD, Rector of Southwick,
Sunderland.

As Christian teachers we are "to point to Heaven and lead the way," but in that capacity nothing of human interest is beyond our province, and we have to teach the application of Christian principles to every part of life. Of man in society there is hardly a higher range of duties or a nobler sphere of his operation than what concerns politics, first, in regard to the making of laws, where he exercises one of the great responsibilities delegated to him by God, in legislation. Here no lower motives and principles than such as God sanctions may properly be introduced, for the laws of a

country are among its most important educational agencies, and must be on the side of God. Again, in the ordering and shaping of the policy of the country on national and international questions the Divine rules may alone prevail. It is impossible to maintain under these circumstances that the Christian teacher as such can look unconcernedly on the politics of his country, or deem that they are a topic outside his province, or dare to be for ever silent thereon. He must be a teacher here as elsewhere, and his politics must be in the application of Christian rules and measures to each public question as it rises, in weighing each in the balances of the sanctuary, and his teaching, where utterance is demanded by the occasion, on those lines. From this point of view (the true point I maintain) the Christian teacher can hardly be a party man that is, to give to party that allegiance which was meant for God and mankind. The principles of either party are probably taken from a lower level than he feels bound to adopt, and by no means cover so wide an area as his fealty demands; and an adhesion to a party may frequently involve a sacrifice of great interests to the exigencies of State-craft, and the adoption of a false expediency. In his politics, as in everything else, the Christian teacher is the servant of God, and may call no man master. As regards his actions as teacher, there are many questions and many occasions on which he will feel that he is not called upon to speak, and to do so would do more harm than good; but his duty generally will be so to leaven his people with principles that on each public question, as it comes to the surface, they will be likely to form a right judgment-such principles as that in public as in private life, in our dealings with other nations as with our neighbours, we must "do unto others as we would they should do unto us; that the courtesy, the kindness, the justice, the forgiveness which are so potent to prevent quarrels in private life, ought to influence our policy in dealing with nations; that we must never concede that "the end justifies the means; that we must make no compromise with wrong; that we should defend the right at any cost, and deliver the oppressed and not be oppressors ourselves; that we are bound for Christ's sake to "honour all men;" that whatever hinders men in doing right should be taken out of the way so as to make it easy to do right and hard to do wrong; that God in all things must be glorified; that righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people; and that as the foremost Christian nation of the world England should set the highest example of justice and mercy, of purity and honourable dealing. Occasions may arise when a direct application of these and like principles is demanded from the Christian teacher, and when such is the case he must speak out without fear or favour. But there is a large class of questions which are coming more and more into prominence. and upon which the Christian teacher is bound, I think, to be very pronounced, and to speak out boldly as the servant of God. Such a question once was that of slavery and the slave-trade; but alas! when that was on the carpet, the Church of England and her Christian teachers by no means took their proper position. Such questions now are all that bears on the temperance reformation in its legislative aspects, the respect or desecration of the Sunday, the religious teaching in Board schools, the shocking infamy of the opium traffic, and, I may add, the immoral system of dealing with immorality which has within recent years been imported into England. On topics such as these, and these are only samples, the Christian teacher cannot be true to his colours and be silent. Here he should deliver himself with no uncertain sound and with no bated breath.

66

The Right Hon. the EARL NELSON, Trafalgar, Salisbury.

I AGREE that Christian teachers should be free to adopt their own political views and to act upon them. I do not, however, think they should be political agitators, or take a prominent part in politics. I have no hesitation in saying that they ought not to teach party politics as a party, and that the Church of England ought not in any way to ally itself, as a body, to one exclusive party in the State; but I do think that the clergy ought to teach their people the true principles which underlie the relations between man and man. It is perfectly true that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, which I take to mean that we are not to put our trust in worldly wealth or worldly power. What is given to us by God we ought to use to the glory and honour of His name, but it is not right to put our trust in those things, and treat them as if they were necessary or essential to Christian religion. Nevertheless, Christianity, I believe, was given for the purpose of improving the moral and social position of mankind all over the world, quite