{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43896/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43896","id":"gutenberg_43896","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43896","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church and state"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHURCH AND\n                                 NATION\n\n                THE BISHOP PADDOCK LECTURES FOR 1914-15\n\n\n                  DELIVERED AT THE GENERAL THEOLOGICAL\n                           SEMINARY, NEW YORK\n\n\n                                   BY\n\n                             WILLIAM TEMPLE\n\n                     HON. CHAPLAIN TO H.M. THE KING\n\n                  _Rector of St. James's, Piccadilly,\n                Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury\n            Formerly Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, and\n                         Headmaster of Repton_\n\n\n\n                       MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED\n                      ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON\n                                  1915\n\n\n\n\n                              _COPYRIGHT_\n\n\n\n\n                                   TO\n                               MY MOTHER\n                 WHO FELL ASLEEP AS GOOD FRIDAY DAWNED\n                             APRIL 2, 1915\n\n\n\n\n                               *PREFACE*\n\n\nWhen I received and accepted the invitation to deliver the Paddock\nLectures for the season 1914-1915, no one imagined that these years were\ndestined to have the historical significance which they must now possess\nfor all time.  I was myself one of those who had allowed concern for\nsocial reform, and internal problems generally, to occupy my mind almost\nto the exclusion of foreign questions.  I was prepared to stake a good\ndeal upon what seemed to me the improbability of any outbreak of\nEuropean war.  For all who took this view the events of recent months\nhave involved perhaps a greater re-shaping of fundamental notions than\nwas required by people who had thought probable such a catastrophe as\nthat in which we are now involved.  I found it impossible to concentrate\nmy mind upon any subject wholly unconnected with the war, while at the\nsame time it would have been in the last degree unsuitable that in my\nlectures to American Theological Students I should deliver myself of\nsuch views as I had formed concerning the rights and wrongs of the war\nitself, or the questions at stake in it.\n\nThese lectures, therefore, represent an attempt to think out afresh the\nunderlying problems which for a Christian are fundamental in regard not\nonly to this war but to war in general--the place of Nationality in the\nscheme of Divine Providence and the duty of the Church in regard to the\ngrowth of nations.\n\nBut in a preface it may be permissible to say what would be\ninappropriate in the Lectures themselves, and first I would take this\nopportunity of reiterating certain convictions which have formed the\nbasis of a series of pamphlets issued under the auspices of a Committee\ndrawn from various Christian bodies and political parties, of which I\nhave had the honour to be Editor:\n\n1. That Great Britain was in August morally bound to declare war and is\nno less bound to carry the war to a decisive issue;\n\n2. That the war is none the less an outcome and a revelation of the\nun-Christian principles which have dominated the life of Western\nChristendom and of which both the Church and the nations have need to\nrepent;\n\n3. That followers of Christ, as members of the Church, are linked to one\nanother in a fellowship which transcends all divisions of nationality or\nrace;\n\n4. That the Christian duties of love and forgiveness are as binding in\ntime of war as in time of peace;\n\n5. That Christians are bound to recognise the insufficiency of mere\ncompulsion for overcoming evil, and to place supreme reliance upon\nspiritual forces and in particular upon the power and method of the\nCross;\n\n6. That only in proportion as Christian principles dictate the terms of\nsettlement will a real and lasting peace be secured;\n\n7. That it is the duty of the Church to make an altogether new effort to\nrealise and apply to all the relations of life its own positive ideal of\nbrotherhood and fellowship;\n\n  8. That with God all things are possible.\n\nThese propositions were very carefully drafted by the Committee referred\nto above and entirely represent my own beliefs; but there is something\nmore which I would add. The new Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria, and\nTurkey is no accident; it is the combination of just those three Powers\nwhich openly and avowedly believe in oppression--that is, in the\nimposition by force of the standards accepted by one race upon people of\nanother race.  All nations have at one time or another practised\noppression; certainly Great Britain is not free from the charge, and the\nhistory of Russia has many dark pages in this respect.  But we can all\nclaim that when we have been guilty of oppression it has been under the\ninfluence of fear, whether of revolution, anarchism, or some other force\nthought to be disruptive of the State.  With our enemies this is not so.\nWe all know about Turkey; it is the essentially Mohammedan power, and\nMohammedanism is the religion of oppression; it believes in imposing its\nfaith by means of the sword.  The Austrian Empire consists of three\ndivisions in each of which one race is imposing its manner of life upon\nanother.  In Austria-proper the Germans oppress the Czechs; in Galicia\nthe Poles have, in some degree at least, oppressed the Ruthenes; in\nHungary the Magyars have systematically and avowedly oppressed the\nRoumanians in the east, and the Croats in the south and west.  Germany\nhas shown her political faith by her conduct in Alsace-Lorraine, and\nstill more in Poland.  Nothing has yet appeared so illuminating with\nregard to what is at stake in this war, as Prince Buelow's chapter on\nPoland in his book, _Imperial Germany_; he describes what seems to us\nthe most grinding oppression with obvious self-contentment and without a\nquestion of its righteousness; and there have been abundant signs that,\nat least, many people in Germany are willing to impose German Kultur by\nthe sword as Mohammedans impose belief in their prophet.\n\nIf this is true, and if the analysis in my lectures of the Christian\nfunction of the State and of the principles of the Kingdom of God is\nsound, then it becomes clear that this war is being fought to determine\nwhether in the next period the Christian or the directly anti-Christian\nmethod shall have an increase of influence.  The three most democratic\nof the great Western Powers--Great Britain, France, and Italy--in\nconjunction with Russia, which is after all profoundly democratic in its\nlocal life though imperially it is a military autocracy, are linked\ntogether in a natural union on behalf of freedom as they understand it,\nagainst an idea embodied and embattled which is in exact opposition to\nall they live for.  It was therefore no surprise to find that all the\ncitizens of the United States with whom I came in contact were quite\ndefinitely upon the side of the Allies in sympathy.  To advocate war in\nthe name of Christ is to adopt a position which looks self-contradictory\nand which certainly involves immense responsibility, and yet if our\npeople can maintain the attitude of mind in which they entered on the\nwar and can secure at the end a settlement harmonious with that frame of\nmind, I believe they will have served the Kingdom of God through\nfighting, better than it was possible to do at this moment in human\nhistory by any other means.\n\nW.T.\n\n\nLecture II. in this series is almost identical with the pamphlet _Our\nNeed of a Catholic Church_--No. 19 of _Papers for War Time_.  In\nLectures I. and III. I am under great obligation to Professor A. G.\nHogg, though my position is not at all identical with his.\n\n\n\n\n                               *CONTENTS*\n\n\n                               LECTURE I\n\nTHE KINGDOM OF FREEDOM\n\n                               LECTURE II\n\nCHURCH AND STATE\n\n                              LECTURE III\n\nJUSTICE AND LIBERTY IN THE STATE\n\n                               LECTURE IV\n\nHOLINESS AND CATHOLICITY IN THE CHURCH\n\n                               LECTURE V\n\nTHE CITIZENSHIP OF HEAVEN\n\n                               LECTURE VI\n\nGOD IN HISTORY\n\n                               APPENDIX I\n\nON THE APOCALYPTIC CONSCIOUSNESS\n\n                              APPENDIX II\n\nON MORAL AND SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY\n\n                              APPENDIX III\n\nON JUSTICE AND EDUCATION\n\n                              APPENDIX IV\n\nON ORDERS AND CATHOLICITY\n\n                               APPENDIX V\n\nON PROVIDENCE IN HISTORY\n\n\n\n\n                          *CHURCH AND NATION*\n\n\n\n                              *LECTURE I*\n\n                         THE KINGDOM OF FREEDOM\n\n\n\"And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was\nled by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days, being tempted of\nthe Devil.\"--S. Luke iv. 1.\n\n\nOur Lord, in accepting for Himself the title of the Messiah, or the\nChrist, claimed that it was His function to inaugurate upon earth the\nKingdom of God.  Whatever else might at that time be believed about the\nMessiah, this at least was universally held, that the Messiah, when He\ncame, would inaugurate upon earth the Kingdom of God. That is the task\nof the Lord's ministry; that is the task to which we, as His followers,\nare pledged; and at this time when the civilisation, which for nearly\ntwo thousand years has been under the Christian influence, has\nculminated in as great a catastrophe as has ever beset any civilisation,\nChristian or Pagan, it is well for us to go back and ask, What are the\nfundamental principles of the Kingdom which Christ founded, what the\nmethod by which He founded it, and what are the principles and methods\nwhich He rejected?\n\nThere were various anticipations of the way in which the promised Christ\nwould do His work; but broadly speaking there were two main types of\nexpectation.  There were those who supposed that the Messiah when He\ncame, would rule in the manner of an earthly ruler, establishing\nrighteousness by the ordinary methods of law and political authority,\nand this expectation undoubtedly derived some colour from the way in\nwhich Isaiah had envisaged the coming Christ:[#]\n\n\n[#] Isaiah ix, 6, 7.\n\n\n    \"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the\n    government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be\n    called Wonderful-Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father,\n    Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace\n    there shall be no end _upon the throne of David_, and upon his\n    kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with judgment and\n    with righteousness from henceforth, even for ever.\"\n\n\nIt is a king ruling upon the throne of David that is suggested; and\nwhile it is only the most foolish literalism which will say that the\nProphet himself was committed to such a view, it was natural enough for\nthose who read his writings to conceive of the Messiah as acting after\nthat fashion.\n\nThe people went into captivity; and when they returned, it was not to\nany realised Kingdom of God upon earth, but rather to difficulties\ngreater than had ever confronted them before, until at last Antiochus\nEpiphanes initiated the great persecution whose aim was to stamp out\naltogether the worship of Jehovah, setting up as he did in the very\nTemple Court at Jerusalem the altar of Zeus, on which swine were\nsacrificed--\"the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not.\"\nOut of the fiery furnace of that persecution comes the glowing prophecy\nof Daniel. What is the answer which he conceives God as giving to the\nblasphemer Antiochus?  It is nothing less than the divine judgment and\nthe mission of the divine Deliverer:[#]\n\n\n[#] Daniel vii, 9, 10, 13, 14.\n\n\n    \"I beheld till thrones were placed and one that was ancient of\n    days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his\n    head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels\n    thereof burning fire.  A fiery stream issued and came forth from\n    before him; thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten\n    thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the judgment was\n    set, and the books were opened....  I saw in the night visions,\n    and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto\n    a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they\n    brought him near before him.  And there was given him dominion,\n    and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and\n    languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting\n    dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which\n    shall not be destroyed.\"\n\n\nThis conception of the Messiah, coming in the clouds of Heaven,\nestablishing the Kingdom of God by so manifest an exhibition of the\ndivine authority with which He is endowed, that all doubt and hesitation\nare quite impossible, is that which took the greatest hold upon the\nreligious imagination of Israel, and particularly of that great body of\npeople, the heirs of the tradition of the Maccabees, inheritors of the\nheroism which had stood out against the persecution, whom we know as the\nsect of the Pharisees--men who lived in the strength of a fellowship\nthat had behind it the greatest religious tradition in all the world,\nbut who, because they trusted more to their tradition than to the God\nwho inspired it, were unable to recognise the still further call of God\nwhen it came to them.  The literature of the period between the Old and\nthe New Testament shows how wide and deep was the influence of Daniel's\nvision upon their Messianic hopes.\n\nAt His baptism, the Lord is called to begin His Messianic work; the\nvoice which He heard from Heaven spoke words which were by all\ninterpreters of the time believed to refer to the Messiah:--\"Thou art my\nbeloved son; in thee I am well pleased.\"  The Messiah will be endowed\nwith Divine authority and power.  How shall He use it?  And immediately\nthe Lord goes into the wilderness to face the temptations that arose\nfrom precisely the conviction that His Messianic work is even now to\nbegin.\n\nThe temptation has two sides to it--an inward and an outward.  As\nregards Himself, what does the temptation mean?  Let us remind ourselves\nthat there was apparently no one with Him in this crisis; the story, as\nwe have it, must come from Himself.  It is His own account (of course in\nparable form, like so much else in His teaching) of the struggle of\nthose early days.  What is meant by the parable concerning the turning\nof stones into bread?  Surely for Himself it is the temptation to use\nthe power, with which us the Christ of Cod He is endowed, for the\nsatisfaction of His own needs, and that in such a way as will do no kind\nof harm to anybody else.  No one will be the worse for his satisfying\nHis hunger in that way.  It is a self-concern from which nobody can\nsuffer; it is perfectly innocent and perfectly rational.  But no!  It is\nnot for any selfish purpose, however harmless, that the power of God is\ngiven; selfishness in its most innocent form is set aside.\n\nHow shall He set about His work?  Shall He fulfil that expectation which\nIsaiah's vision had fostered?  He looks out on the kingdoms of the earth\nand the glory of them, and He knows that they can be His, if He will\nfall down and worship the Prince of the power of this world.  Shall He\nuse worldly methods to convert the world to God?  No; worldliness in its\nmost attractive form is set aside.\n\nOr shall He fulfil the expectation encouraged by the vision of the Son\nof Man in Daniel, appearing with the clouds of Heaven, descending upon\nJerusalem up-borne by angels, giving that sign from Heaven which the\nPharisees, who particularly adopted this view of the Messiah, were\nafterwards going to demand so frequently?  From His answer we know that\nthis is a temptation not only to give them a sign, but to secure it for\nHimself, for the answer is \"Thou shalt not tempt,\"--that is, Thou shalt\nnot put to the proof--\"the Lord thy God.\"  The promise of God is to be\ntrusted, not tested.  The test comes as we obey the command and in that\nsense every act of faith is an experiment, but there must be no test\ncases to see whether God fulfils His promise. Infidelity in its most\ninsidious form is set aside.\n\nBut there is an outward aspect also to the temptations.  Shall He use\nHis power to satisfy the bodily needs of men?  Shall He exert a power\nparallel with that of political rulers, which will coerce their conduct\nwithout first winning their free allegiance?  Shall He give such proof\nof divine authority that any doubt, intellectual or otherwise, becomes\nimpossible?  No; not any of these.  And as He leaves the temptation\nvanquished, what He has set aside is precisely every method of\ncontrolling men's action without winning their hearts and wills.  He has\nrejected coercion; He has decided to appeal to Freedom.\n\nWhat is left?  At first, only the commission to proclaim the Kingdom;\nand He comes proclaiming it.  All through the early part of the ministry\nHe moves from place to place preaching or proclaiming the Kingdom of\nGod. He does not at present announce that He is King of that Kingdom; it\nis the Kingdom itself on which all attention is concentrated. He has\nindeed the power to do works of mercy, and when with that power He\nstands in the face of human need, He must for very love exert the power\nand satisfy the need; so people come crowding around Him, attracted by\nHis wonder-working.  But that is not what He desires.  The disciples are\nexcited about it; but He has gone out a long while before dawn, and is\nalone in prayer; and when St. Peter finds Him, and says \"All men are\nseeking Thee,\" He does not say, \"Then let us go to them,\" but, on the\ncontrary, \"Let us go into the villages that I may preach--that I may\nmake my proclamation--there also.\"[#]  As the deadness, the\nindifference, and hostility of the people gradually shows itself to be\ninvincible, He gathers about Him those whose hearts have been touched,\nand from among them chooses twelve, \"that they may be with Him.\"[#]\nThey are to live in His company, catching His Spirit, learning to\nunderstand Him.  With them He goes on two long journeys--north-west to\nTyre and Sidon, and then north-east, to Caesarea Philippi; through all\nthose journeys they are alone with their Master, moving through country\noutside the boundaries of the Jewish religion, and therefore free from\ncontroversy.\n\n\n[#] S. Mark i, 35-38.\n\n[#] S. MArk iii, 14.\n\n\nAt Caesarea Philippi He feels that the time is ripe, and asks them, \"Who\ndo men say that I am?\"  They mention the various conjectures ... Elijah;\nJohn the Baptist; one of the Prophets.  \"Who say ye that I am?\"  And St.\nPeter with a leap of inspired insight answers: \"Thou art the\nMessiah.\"[#]\n\n\n[#] S. Mark viii, 27-30.\n\n\nThe Lord recognises that this is the revelation of God to faith:\n\"Blessed art thou, Simon, Son of Jonah; flesh and blood hath not\nrevealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.\"[#]\nImmediately that He has been thus spontaneously recognised, He begins to\nsay what He had never said before: \"The Son of Man must suffer.\"  The\nSon of Man is the title of the Messiah in glory, as He was conceived in\nDaniel's vision and the Apocalyptic writings which drew their\ninspiration from it.  \"The Son of Man must suffer;\" that is the great\nMessianic act; that is the way in which the Kingdom of God shall be\nfounded.  But it was not what St. Peter meant.  \"Peter took Him, and\nbegan to rebuke Him ... Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be\nunto Thee.\"  And our Lord recognises the voice of the tempter in the\nwilderness, who bade Him take thought for self....  \"Get thee behind me,\n_Satan_, for thou thinkest not God's thoughts, but men's thoughts.\"[#]\n\n\n[#] S. Matthew xvi, 17.\n\n[#] S. Matthew xvi, 22, 23.\n\n\nJust as, when once He was spontaneously recognised, He began to set\nforth the new conception of the Messiahship, \"The Son of Man must\nsuffer;\" so too He immediately starts on that last journey to Jerusalem\nwhich culminates with the Cross.  Arrived at Jerusalem, He arranges the\ntriumphal entry.  He carefully fulfils Zechariah's prophecy--thus\nclaiming the Messiahship, and challenging the religious rulers.  But the\nprophecy which He thus selects for deliberate fulfilment is one which\nrepresents the Messiah as a civil, not a military authority (for this is\nthe meaning of the ass as distinguished from the horse), and as one who\nshall speak Peace to the nations.[#]  It is the conception of the\nMessiah which in all the Old Testament has least suggestion of coercion\nand is therefore the nearest to His own.\n\n\n[#] Zechariah ix, 9, 10.\n\n\nBut the primary purpose of the triumphal entry is no doubt to make His\nclaim and issue His challenge.  On the journey and after the entry\nitself He declares with increasing emphasis that the Kingdom of God is\nat hand; those who stood there should see it come with power; and as He\nstands before Caiaphas, He answers the question \"Art Thou the Christ?\nwith the words, I am, and from this time[#] there shall be the Son of\nMan seated on the right hand of power.\"  Daniel's prophecy is here and\nnow fulfilled.  In the moment that love completes its sacrifice in\ndeath, the glory of God is fully made known and the power of His Kingdom\nis come; this is the Lord's own Apocalypse.[#]\n\n\n[#] Different words in St. Matthew and St. Luke, but agreeing in sense,\nwhich sense the authorised version spoils.\n\n[#] See Appendix I.: _The Apocalyptic Consciousness_.\n\n\nSo He had spoken on that last journey. \"Ye know that they which are\naccounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great\nones exercise authority over them.  But it is not so among you; but\nwhosoever would become great among you shall be your minister, and\nwhosoever shall be first among you shall be servant of all, for verily\nthe Son of Man came\"--(again the title of the Messiah in Glory)--\"not to\nbe ministered unto, but to minister; and to give His life a ransom for\nmany.\"[#]\n\n\n[#] S. Mark x, 42-45.\n\n\nSo, too, St. John records His saying that in precisely this way he would\nwin His royalty--\"I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men\nunto me.\"[#]  The Cross was foreseen by the Lord to be what, as we look\nback, we know that it has been--the throne of His glory and His power;\nand the capacity to realise it as such is for St. Paul the touchstone of\ncharacter, the test of election--\"We preach a Messiah on a Cross--to\nJews a scandal and to Gentiles an absurdity, but to the very people who\nare called, whether Jews or Greeks, a Messiah who is God's power and\nGod's wisdom.\"[#]\n\n\n[#] S. John xii, 32.\n\n[#] 1 Cor. i, 23, 24.\n\n\nHere then is the mode of God's power, and we know that it can be no\nother; for if God is truly King, He must be King of our hearts and\nwills, and not only of our conduct.  There is only one way to win men's\nhearts and wills, that is by showing love; and there is only one way to\nshow love, and that is by sacrifice, by doing or suffering what, apart\nfrom our love, we should not choose to do or suffer. Sacrifice is the\nDivine activity; Calvary is the mode of the Divine omnipotence.  It is\nthe actual Divine method and the ideal human method.\n\n\nAs we come to consider how far it has become also the actual human\nmethod, we are confronted at the outset by the sheer impossibility of\nour applying this method, just because we have not in ourselves the\nnecessary love.\n\nOur perfection, we are told, is to consist in just that quality which\nshows the Father's perfection, namely, that He is kind to the unthankful\nand evil, and makes His sun to rise on the evil and good and sends His\nrain on the just and on the unjust; and we are to be perfect in the way\nthat He is perfect.[#]\n\n\n[#] S. Matthew v, 43-48.\n\n\nBut until we reach that perfection we cannot imitate His action; for a\nman's act is not what He intends; nor is it the mere motion of his body;\nbut it is the whole train of circumstances that he initiates.  Christ in\nHis perfect purity may stand before the woman taken in her sin and say,\n\"Neither do I condemn thee,\" because there is no possibility that she\nwill interpret His mercy as condonation of the sin; but if we said it,\npeople would so interpret it, and usually quite rightly so.\n\nOur problem then is so to guide our conduct that we come as near as we\nare capable of coming to the divine ideal that is set forth in Christ,\nand that we come perpetually closer and closer to it.\n\nThe Lord in His temptation rejected all use of force and substituted for\nit the appeal of love expressed in sacrifice, so far as the actual and\npositive building of His Kingdom is concerned.  For us there must always\nbe some use of the lower method, because we are incapable of applying\nthe highest.  If any man, when he is confronted with evil which he can\nprevent by the exercise of force, refrains from doing it, we must\nimmediately put to him the question, \"But did you so suffer under that\nact of evil that there is any hope of your suffering proving to be the\nredemption of the evil-doer?  If so, well and good; but, if not, then\nyou are idle and cowardly, not Christian.\"  No one who is not a\nChristian in spirit can perform the Christian act; and the Sermon on the\nMount is not a code of rules to be mechanically followed; it is the\ndescription of the life which any man will spontaneously lead when once\nthe Spirit of Christ has taken complete possession of his heart.\n\nAnd yet there is a perfectly legitimate use of force also, and a use\nwhich our Lord Himself makes of it.  We may use force in various\ncircumstances in spite of the fact that for the positive work of the\nbuilding His Kingdom the Lord rejected it.  It is legitimate, in the\nfirst place, when it is applied to immature characters--characters which\nare, as all our characters are in early childhood, a chaos of impulses\nand instincts, as yet unregulated by any governing principle. Here it\nmay be necessary simply to restrain the activity of one set of impulses\nwithout converting the heart or will of the person to whom that\nrestraint is applied, merely in order to give the other side of nature\nits chance of development.  So in education it is legitimate to employ\nforce in this restraining way for the sake of the development which is\nmade possible thereby in the other parts of nature.\n\nBut our Lord's example also shows us that the use of force is\npermissible in dealing with those who are so case-hardened that the\nappeal of love can never reach them until their present state of mind is\nbroken up. It is sometimes said that the Lord never made use of physical\nforce; but whether or not that is true[#]--the question is unimportant,\nbecause for all moral purposes there is no difference whatever between\nphysical and non-physical force.  The appeal to force always means the\nappeal to pain or inconvenience, for these are the only things that\nforce can inflict upon one.  Physical force may break a man's bones; but\none may enforce a certain kind of conduct by the threat, for example, of\nsocial ostracism, which might break his heart; and there is no\ndifference whatever between the two, except that the second is a more\nrefined form of cruelty.  Now in our Lord's denunciation of the\nPharisees, in those words which are thrown, burning and smashing, into\nthe self-complacent contentment of those upholders of tradition, there\nis every moral quality of force and violence.  Their aim is to batter\ndown a state of mind, the state of mind which cannot receive the appeal\nof love, as it shows when it stands beneath the very Cross and only\njeers.  But this use of force is only negative and preparatory; it is\nthe effort of love to make ready for the rebuilding which only love's\nown method can really accomplish.  Only with characters quite immature\nand liable to develop in many different directions, can force be used,\nexcept in this wholly preparatory way; and even there its work is\npreparatory, for at that stage everything that is done is still\npreparatory.\n\n\n[#] _e.g._, whether or not He employed the scourge of small cords to\ndrive men from the Temple Courts as He certainly did the animals; the\nGreek words suggest that He did not.\n\n\nIt is sometimes said that society rests upon force.  Of course it does\nnot, and it could not, because force is a dead thing which can only\noperate as human wills direct it; and, however much force there may be\nin the maintenance of society, that force itself must be controlled by\nthe consent of human wills.  It is true, however, that society, as we\nknow it, rests simultaneously upon two contradictory principles, upon\nthe principle of antagonism and the principle of fellowship. So far as\nit is represented by the police force, it rests upon antagonism.  Men\nare selfish; in their selfishness they are brought into conflict with\none another.  In order that anyone may be able to enjoy, however\nselfishly, any property or comfort in life, it is necessary to restrain\nto some degree the selfishness of all the rest; and to secure that\nrestraint placed upon others, a man submits to a similar restraint upon\nhimself.  And so we arrive at that contract of which Plato speaks: \"the\ncontract neither to commit nor to suffer injury.\"[#]  But, at the same\ntime, as Plato immediately afterwards points out, society would arise\nquite equally if men were wholly altruistic, because men's natures are\ndifferent, and they need one another for support, for protection, and\nfor the very instinct of fellowship.[#]  Now those principles are both\npresent in all actual societies; and progress has consisted of the\nsteady development of the principle of co-operation and fellowship, at\nthe expense of the principle of competition and antagonism.\n\n\n[#] [Greek: mete adikein mete adikisthai.] _Republic_ ii. 359*a*.\n\n[#] The whole Ideal State.  _Republic_ ii, 369*b* to vii end.\n\n\nThat has been what we have meant in the last resort by political\nprogress; but the conclusion inevitably follows that society makes\nprogress precisely in that degree in which it realises more and more a\nrelationship of love between its various members, and becomes the\nKingdom which Christ came on earth to found. Thus, at the very outset of\nour enquiry we find that the principles of secular progress and of the\nDivine revelation in Christ are identical.\n\nI shall venture in a subsequent lecture to trace out the way in which,\nas I think, further progress in accordance with this principle will lead\nus.\n\nBut let me close this lecture by recalling our thoughts to that ideal\nmethod for men, which is the actual method of God, setting this in the\nwords of a fable which I take from the masterpiece of the most Russian\nof the Russian novelists--Dostoievsky--merely throwing it into my own\nlanguage.\n\nIn the days of the Inquisition, this fable runs, our Lord returned to\nearth, and visited a city where it was at work.  As He moved about, men\nforgot their cares and sorrows. He healed the sick folk as of old, and\nmeeting with a funeral procession where a mother was mourning the loss\nof her only son, He stopped the procession, and restored the dead boy to\nlife.\n\nThat was in the Cathedral Square, and at that moment there came out from\nthe Cathedral doors the Grand Inquisitor, an old man over ninety years\nof age, clad now, not in the Cardinal's robe in which only the day\nbefore he had condemned a score of heretics to the stake, but in a\nsimple cassock, with only two guards in attendance.  Seeing what was\ndone he turned to the guards and said, \"Arrest Him.\"  They moved forward\nto obey; and he sent the Prisoner to a cell in the dungeon.\n\nThat night the Grand Inquisitor visited his Prisoner, and to all that he\nsaid the Prisoner made no reply.  \"I know why Thou art come,\" said the\nInquisitor; \"Thou art come to spoil our work, to repeat Thy great\nmistake in the wilderness, and to give men again Thy fatal gift of\nfreedom.  What did the great wise spirit offer Thee there?  Just the\nthree things by which men may be controlled--bread and authority and\nmystery.  He bade Thee take bread as the instrument of Thy work; men\nwill follow one who gives them bread.  But Thou wouldest not; men were\nto follow Thee out of love and devotion or not at all.  We have had to\ncorrect Thy work, or there would be few to follow Thee. He bade Thee\nassume authority; men will obey one who gives commands, and punishes the\ndisobedient.  But Thou wouldest not; men were to obey out of love and\ndevotion or not at all.  We have had to correct Thy work, or there would\nbe few to obey Thee.  He bade Thee show some marvel that men might be\npersuaded and believe.  But Thou wouldest not; men were to believe from\nperception of Thy grace and truth or not at all.  We have had to correct\nThy work and hedge Thee about with mystery, or there would be few to\nbelieve.  And which of us has served mankind the better?  Thy appeal was\nto the few strong souls.  We have cared for the weak.  Many who would be\ndisorderly and miserable have been made orderly and happy. And now Thou\nart come to spoil our work and repeat Thy great mistake in the\nwilderness by giving to men again Thy fatal gift of freedom, through\ntrust in the power of love. But it shall not be; for to-morrow I shall\nburn Thee.\"\n\nThe Grand Inquisitor ceased; and still the Prisoner made no reply; but\nHe rose from where He sat, and crossed the cell, and kissed the old man\non his bloodless lips.  Then the Inquisitor too, rose, and opened the\ndoor; \"Go,\" he said.  The Prisoner passed out into the night and was not\nseen again.\n\nAnd the old man?  That kiss burns in his heart.  But he has not altered\nhis opinion or his practice.\n\n\n\n\n                              *LECTURE II*\n\n                           *CHURCH AND STATE*\n\n\n\"He put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head\nover all things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him\nthat, all in all, is being fulfilled.\"--Ephesians i, 22, 23.\n\n\nIf one of the great saints of the early Church had been told that in the\nyear 1915 the world would still be waiting for the final consummation,\nand had tried to conceive the life of men and nations as it would be\nafter that long period of Christian influence, what would his conception\nhave been?  Surely he would have expected that all nations would be\nlinked together in the Holy Communion, the Fellowship of Saints.  Roman,\nSpaniard, African, Syrian, those strange Germans, and the barbarous\nBritons who lived in the remotest corner of the earth, might have\nmaintained their own varieties of culture, but each would find his joy\nand pride in offering his contribution to the life of the whole family\nof nations. Rooted in knowledge of the love of God, their life would\ngrow luxuriantly and bear fruit in love of one another and service of\nthe common cause.  Inspiring each and knitting all together, the Holy\nCatholic Church, fulfilling itself in service of the world, would gather\nup all this exuberance of life and love into itself, and present it to\nthe God and Father of mankind in unceasing adoration.\n\nBut the world in 1915 is not in the least like that.  The old man of our\nselfish nature, selfish himself and therefore supposing that others must\nbe selfish too, so that he relies upon the methods of cajolery and\ncoercion, has indeed received the kiss of Christ; and while that kiss\nburns in his heart, so that sometimes he is roused to an aspiration\nafter an order of things altogether different, his opinions and his\nconduct remain fundamentally unchanged.  And the contrast between what\nis and what might have been is due in part, at least, to the failure of\nthe Church to be true to its own commission.  It is also because of this\nthat no practical man dreams of turning to the Church to find the way\nout from the intolerable situation into which the nations have drifted.\n\nAn eminent politician is reported to have defined the Church on a recent\noccasion in the following terms: \"The Church is, I suppose, a voluntary\norganisation for the maintenance of public worship in the interest of\nthose who desire to join in it.\"  And it is to be feared that many\npeople regard it in some such way as that.  But of course the Church is\nnothing of the kind; the Church is the Body of Christ.\n\nIt is not a \"voluntary organisation\" any more than my body is a\nvoluntary organisation either of limbs or of cells.  No one could\n\"voluntarily\" join the Church, if by that were meant that the act\noriginated in his own will.  \"No man can say Jesus is Lord, but in the\nHoly Spirit.\"[#]  A man cannot make himself a Christian.  The Apostles\nwere made Christian by Christ Himself--\"Ye did not choose Me, but I\nchose you\"[#]; others were made Christian by the Apostles, or (as they\nalways said) by Christ working in and through them; and so successive\ngenerations have been made Christian by the Spirit of Christ operative\nin the fellowship of His disciples--that is to say, in the Church.  This\nis the aspect of truth expressed and preserved in the practice of infant\nbaptism.  We are Christians, if at all, not through any act initiated by\nour own will, but through our being received into the Christian\nfellowship and subjected to its influence.  Just as we are born members\nof our family, so by our reception into the fellowship of the disciples\nwe are \"made members of Christ.\"  In the one case as in the other, we\nmay repudiate our membership or we may disgrace it; we can never abolish\nit.  Let me hasten in parenthesis to add, that this is only one aspect\nof the truth, and the protest of those who object to infant baptism will\nbe a valuable force in the Church, until we are finally secure against\nthe temptation to regard a sacrament as a piece of magic.  For of course\nit is true that, while no man can make himself a Christian by his own\nwill, no man can be made a Christian against or without his will.  It is\nprecisely his will that the Spirit must lay hold of and convert, and the\nwill can refuse conversion.\n\n\n[#] 1 Cor. xii, 3\n\n[#] S. John xv, 16.\n\n\nThe Church, then, is not a \"voluntary organisation,\" but the creation of\nGod in Christ.  In fact it is the one immediate result of our Lord's\nearthly ministry.  When His physical presence was withdrawn, there\nremained in the world, as fruit of His sojourn here, no volume of\nwritings, no elaborated organisation with codified aims and methods, but\na group of people who were united to one another because His Spirit\nlived and worked in each.  And the great marvel lay in this: whereas all\nmen realise that fellowship is better than rivalry, and yet fail to pass\nfrom one to the other because they are radically selfish both\nindividually and corporately, in Christ men found themselves to be a\nreal community in spite of their as yet unpurged selfishness.  By the\ninvasion of the Divine Life in Christ, the ideal itself, the life of\nfellowship, is given, and is made into the means of destroying just\nthose qualities which had hitherto prevented its own realisation.  The\necclesiastical organisations of to-day are not fellowships of this sort,\nbut if the members of the Church lose their hold on this central\nprinciple of fellowship, as they have largely done, we are thrown back\nupon the futile effort to build up fellowship on the foundation of\nunredeemed selfishness.\n\nAs it is not true to say that the Church is a \"voluntary\" organisation,\nso also it is not true to say that it exists \"for the maintenance of\npublic worship,\" at least in the sense that most Englishmen would give\nto the words.  Certainly the Church, consisting of men and women whom\nGod of His sheer goodness has delivered from the power of darkness and\ntranslated into the kingdom of His dear Son, will find its first duty,\nas also its first impulse, in an abandonment of adoration.  But if the\nGod who is worshipped is not only some Jewish Jehovah or Mohammedan\nAllah, but the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, this love and\nadoration of God will immediately express itself in the love and service\nof men, and especially in the passionate desire to share with others the\nsupreme treasure of the knowledge of God. The Church, like its Master,\nwill be chiefly concerned to seek and to save that which is lost,\ncalling men everywhere to repent because the Kingdom of God is at hand.\nWorship is indeed the very breath of its life, but service of the world\nis the business of its life.  It is the Body of Christ, that is to say,\nthe instrument of His will, and His will is to save the world.\n\nThe spiritual life of men is not limited to this planet, and the\nfulfilment of the Church's task can never be here alone.  The Church\nmust call men from temporal to eternal hopes. But in this way it will do\nmore than is possible in any other way to purify the temporal life\nitself.  For most temporal goods are such that the more one person has\nthe less there is for others, so that absorption in them leads\ninevitably to strife and war.  But the eternal goods--love, joy, peace,\nloyalty, beauty, knowledge--are such that the fuller fruition of them by\none leads of itself to fuller fruition by others also, and absorption in\nthem leads without fail to brotherhood and fellowship.\n\nIt is not of worship, the breath of the church's life, but of service,\nthe business of its life, that I wish to speak.  But this can only be\nmisleading if the other has not first been given prominence.  The Church\nserves because it first worships.  Only because it has in itself a\nforetaste of eternal life, the realised Kingdom of God, can it prepare\nthe way of the Lord, so that His Kingdom may come on earth as it is in\nheaven.\n\nOne question which demands attention concerns the nature of the Church\nwhich is to perform this function.  Is it enough that there should be\nvast numbers of Christian individuals gathering together in whatever way\nis proved by experience to be the most effective for edification,\npursuing their profession as Christians, and so gradually leavening\nlife?  Or is there need for a quite definite society, with a coherent\nconstitution and a known basis of membership?  The former has much to\nrecommend it; it avoids the deadening influence of a rigid machinery; it\nensures freedom of spiritual and intellectual development; it may seem\nto correspond with that loosely constituted group of disciples, which\nwas, as we have seen, the actual fruit of the earthly ministry of\nChrist.  Yet it is condemned by all analogies, and is inadequate to the\nessential nature of religion.\n\nAll relevant analogy suggests that a spirit must take definite and\nconcrete form before it can be effective in the world, even as God\nHimself must become incarnate in order to establish His Kingdom upon\nearth.  No doubt the form has often fettered the spirit and sometimes\neven perverted it; the history of the Franciscan movement is an instance\nof this; but the influence of St. Francis would never have done for\nEurope what it actually accomplished if the Order had not been founded.\n\nOne of the clearest illustrations of the principle is before our eyes in\nour experience to-day.  When the spirit of national patriotism makes its\nappeal, no one has to make any effort to understand its claim; our\nnation is a definite and concrete society in which we easily realise our\nmembership to the full.  We know that there is no escaping from it, and\nthat, when it appeals for our service or our lives, we must either\nrespond or refuse.  But the Christian Church, as we know it, is\npowerless to bring home its appeal in the same way. Largely because of\nits divisions and endless controversy about the points, secondary though\nimportant, which separate the various sections, it has become curiously\nimpotent in the face of any great occasion such as the present, and\ncuriously unsuccessful in persuading either its own members or the world\noutside of the nature of its mission.  We are not conscious, for\nexample, that we are permanently either responding to, or else refusing,\nthe appeal to \"preach the Gospel to every creature.\"  That appeal does\nnot hit us personally as does the appeal, \"every fit man wanted.\"  Our\nmembership in the Church does not in fact make us feel a personal\nobligation to assist the cause of the Church.  We are content to \"belong\nto it\" without admitting that it has any power to dispose of its\n\"belongings\"; we think that we \"support\" it by \"going to church\" and\ncontributing to \"church expenses.\"  But we feel no link with our\nfellow-Christians in Germany at all comparable to that which binds us to\nan agnostic but patriotic Englishman, or at all capable of bridging\nspontaneously the gulf fixed by national antagonism.  By a deliberate\neffort we can realise that we and they are equally precious in the sight\nof God, and that they are our fellow-members in Christ.  But there is no\nrealised bond of corporate unity that binds us to each other, and we\nrely upon the very feeble resources of our personal good-will and\npersonal faith for any sense of unity with them that we may attain.  The\nChurch is less powerful than the nation as an influence in our lives,\npartly at least because it is in fact less actual.  The Church\nuniversal, whether as an organisation or as spirit of life, is an ideal,\nnot a reality.\n\nSuch an argument, however, simply invites refutation.  It is pointed out\nthat when the whole of one section of Christendom was organised as a\nsingle religious community under the Pope, men did, as a mere matter of\nhistorical fact, fight and hate even more bitterly than now.  A common\nmembership in one Catholic Church did not prevent Edward III. and Henry\nV. from making war upon their neighbours across the English Channel.\nAnd at this moment Roman Catholic Frenchmen appear to be fighting\nagainst Roman Catholic Bavarians with no more signs of fellowship\nbetween the opponents than appear in other parts of the field of war. So\nfar as the Church is organised as a unity, this does not, in fact,\ncreate unity of spirit in its members sufficient to mitigate national\nantagonisms.\n\nAnd this, it will be urged, is only to be expected.  \"The wind bloweth\nwhere it listeth,\" and machinery cannot control the spirit.  It is only\na personal faith in Christ that will lift men above natural divisions so\nthat they spontaneously recognise as brothers those who have similar\nfaith.  To build up again a great ecclesiastical organisation which\nshall include all Europe, or even all the world, will not of itself\ncreate friendship between the members who compose it if otherwise they\nare antagonistic.  Individual conversion, not ecclesiastical\nstatesmanship, is the one thing needful; nothing can take its place.\n\nNo; of course nothing can take its place. And of course an\nall-comprehensive lukewarm Church will share the fate of its smaller\ncounterpart at Laodicea.  When it is said that the Universal Church is\nnot a reality, it is not only the absence of a world-wide organisation\nthat is deplored; still worse is the total absence of any typical manner\nof life by which members of the Church may be known from others.  Men\ndie for Great Britain, not because Britain is a united kingdom, but\nbecause there is a definite British character which is ours and which we\nlove.  But there is no specifically Christian type of character actually\ndistinguishing members of the Church from others which may make men\nready to die for Christendom.  Christians differ from others, as Spinoza\nbitterly remarked, not in faith or charity or any of the fruits of the\nSpirit, but only in opinion.  Assuredly individual conversion is the\nprimary requisite.\n\nBut half our troubles come from these absurd dilemmas.  Do you believe\nin faith or in organisation?  Well; do I believe in my eyes or my ears?\nWhy not in both? Of course organisation cannot take the place of faith;\nof course faith without order is better than order without faith.  But\nwhy cannot we have in the Church what we have got in the nation faith\noperative through order as loyalty is operative through the State and in\nservice to it?\n\nThe earlier objection, however, is equally serious.  Catholicism has\nfailed in the past and is failing now.  One main ground of its failure\nis to be found, I believe, in its inadequate recognition of nationality,\nwhich has avenged itself by almost ousting Catholicism, and with it\nChristianity itself, where national interests are concerned.[#]\n\n\n[#] I am speaking throughout of the Western Church: the Eastern Church\nhas perhaps been, if anything, too national.\n\n\nThis failure to give adequate recognition to nationality arises from too\nexclusive emphasis on the principle which is, quite rightly, the root\nidea of Catholicism--the idea of transcendence. Here in the last resort\nis the fundamental distinction between naturalism and religion;\nnaturalism may take a form which stimulates the religious emotions and\nsupports a high ethical ideal; but it confines itself to the limits of\nsecular experience.  For naturalism the history of man and of the\nuniverse is the starting-point and the goal; this as fact is the datum,\nthis as understood is the solution. The Will of God, on this view, is to\nbe discovered from the empirical course and tendency of history.  But\nreligion begins with God; it breaks in upon what we ordinarily call\n\"experience\" from outside; in its monotheistic form it regards the world\nas created by God for His own pleasure, and lasting only during that\npleasure; in its pantheistic form it regards the world as a phase or a\nmoment of His Being which is by no means limited to that phase or\nmoment.  Its philosophy does not elaborately conceive what God must be\nlike in order to be the solution of our perplexities, but, starting with\nthe assurance of His Being and Nature, shows how this is in fact the\nanswer to all our needs.\n\nIt is one peculiarity and glory of Christianity that it unites both of\nthose.  Its faith is fixed upon One who \"for us men and for our\nsalvation _came down from heaven_,\" and who is yet the eternal Word\nthrough which all things were made, the indwelling principle of all\nexistence.  Transcendence and immanence are here perfectly combined.\nBut because the former is the distinctively religious element, without\nwhich the latter would have been in danger of relapsing into naturalism,\nthe deliberate emphasis was all laid on transcendence.  We can see, as\nwe look back, that when once the Incarnation has actually taken place\nupon the plane of history, it makes no jot of difference in logic,\nprovided only that the Life of the Incarnate is taken as the\nstarting-point and centre of thought, whether terms of transcendence or\nof immanence are used.  The life of Christ is at once the irruption of\nthe Divine into the world--(for the previous history of the world\ncertainly does not explain it)--and is also the manifestation of the\nindwelling power which had all along sustained the world.  In other\nwords, the God who redeems is the same God who creates and sustains.\nBut it is still true that the note of transcendence, of something given\nto man by God as distinct from something emerging out of man in his\nsearch of God, is the specifically religious note.\n\nAnd the Church, as the divine creation and instrument, shares and must\nexpress this character.  It must be so constituted as to keep alive this\nfaith.  That is the meaning of hierarchies and sacraments.  Whether any\ngiven order is the most adequate that can be designed, is of course a\nperfectly legitimate question.  But every order that aspires to be\ncatholic aims, at least, at expressing the truth that religion is a gift\nof God, and not a discovery of man.  And certainly it is only the gift\nof God that can be truly catholic or universal.  Man's discoveries are\nindefinitely various; the European finds one thing, the Arab another,\nthe Hindu yet another, and none finds satisfaction in the other's\ndiscovery, though in all of them God is operative.  Only in His own gift\nof Himself is it reasonable to expect that all men will find what they\nneed; only in a Church which is the vehicle of this gift, and is known\nto be this, and not a mutual benefit society organised by its own\nmembers for their several and collective advantage--only in a Church\nexpressive of Divine transcendence can all nations find a home.\n\nYet just because of a too one-sided emphasis on this truth, the Catholic\nChurch in the West has, as a rule, not tried to be a home for nations at\nall.  \"Christianity separated religion from patriotism for every nation\nwhich became, and which remained, Christian.\"[#]  Patriotism is\nparticular; religion ought to be universal. The nation is a natural\ngrowth; the Church is a divine creation.  And so the primitive Church\nwas organised in complete independence of national life, except in so\nfar as its diocesan divisions followed national or provincial\nboundaries.  No doubt the conditions of its existence made this almost\nnecessary, for the organised secular life of the Roman Empire refused to\ntolerate it.  But it was its own principle, true indeed but not the\nwhole truth, which led to this line of development. The same principle\nis apparent in the Middle Ages, when there was no external pressure. The\nChurch, as it was conceived in the sublime ideal of Hildebrand, was to\nbelong to no nation, because supreme over them all, binding them\ntogether in the obedience and love of Christ, and imposing upon them His\nholy will.\n\n\n[#] \"War and Religion\" in _The Times Literary Supplement_, Dec. 31,\n1914.\n\n\nThe inevitable result of this was that the instinct of nationality was\nnever christened at all.  It remained a brute instinct, without either\nthe sanction or the restraint of religion. But it could not be crushed,\nand so the Church let it alone; with the result that, though murder was\nregarded as a sin, a war of dynastic or national ambition was not by\npeople generally considered sinful.  No doubt theologians condemned such\nwar in general terms; St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, seems to regard\nas fully justified only such wars as are undertaken to protect others\nfrom oppression, and some of the greatest Popes made heroic efforts to\ngovern national policy according to righteousness. But in the general\njudgment of the Church, international action was not subjected to\nChristian standards of judgment at all.  This way of regarding the\nChurch sometimes leads people to speak of \"alternative\" loyalties so\nthat they ask, \"Ought I to be loyal to my Church or to my nation?\"  And\nwhile faith and reason will combine to answer \"To my Church,\" an\nimperious instinct will lead most men in actual fact to answer \"To my\nnation.\"  The attempt to exalt the Church to an unconditional supremacy\nhas the actual result of making men ignore it when its guidance is most\nneeded.\n\nWhatever truth there may be in the statement that the Reformation was in\npart due to the growing sentiment of nationality, is evidence of the\nfailure of the old Catholic Church in this matter.  In England at any\nrate one main source of the popular Protestantism was the objection to\nanything like a foreign domination.  No doubt the political ambitions of\nthe Papacy were largely responsible for the feeling that the Catholic\nChurch brought with it a foreign yoke.  But the whole principle of the\nChurch as non-national necessarily meant that the Church was regarded as\n\"imposing\" Christian standards rather than permeating national life with\nthem.  The Church tended to ignore the spiritual function of the State\naltogether, claiming all spiritual activity for itself alone; and thus\nit tended to make the State in actual fact unspiritual, and involved\nitself in the necessity of attempting what only the State can do.  It\nthus not only tended to weaken the moral power of the State, but also\nforsook its own supernatural function to exercise those of the\nmagistrate or judge, so that faith in the power of God was never put to\na full test.  The Reformation was not only a moral and spiritual reform\nof the Church, but the uprising of the nations, now growing fully\nconscious of their national life, against the cosmopolitan rule of Rome.\nBut the Reformation did not fully realise its task. It expressed itself\nindeed in national Churches, but in actual doctrine tended to\nindividualism; whereas Catholicism laid emphasis on religion as the gift\nof God, Protestantism, at least in its later development, laid stress on\nthe individual's apprehension of the gift.  But not only the\nindividual--everything that is human, family, school, guild, trade\nunion, nation, needs to apprehend and appropriate the gift of God.  The\nnation, too, must be christened and submit to transforming grace.\n\nThe uprising of the national spirit has had the deplorable result of\ncontributing to the break-up of Christendom, but it is not in itself\ndeplorable at all.  All civilisation has in fact progressed by the\ndevelopment of different nationalities, each with its own type.  If we\nbelieve in a Divine Providence, if we believe that the life of Christ is\nnot only the irruption of the Divine into human history but is also and\ntherein the manifestation of the governing principle of all history, we\nshall confess that the nation as well as the Church is a divine\nCreation.  The Church is here to witness to the ideal and to guide the\nworld towards it, but the world is by divine appointment a world of\nnations, and it is such a world that is to become the Kingdom of God.\nMoreover, if it is by God's appointment that nations exist, their\nexistence must itself be an instrument of that divine purpose which the\nChurch also serves.\n\nThe whole course of Biblical revelation supports this view.  It is quite\ntrue that if we were to read the New Testament for the first time,\nknowing nothing whatever about the Old, we should come to the conclusion\nthat it almost entirely ignored nationality and everything which goes\nwith it.  But then the Church has always maintained that the New\nTestament grows by an organic life out of the Old, and presupposes it;\nand when we go back to that, there can be no doubt whatever about its\nview of nationality.  The whole of the early books of the Old Testament\nare concerned with this, and almost nothing else.  The task of Moses in\nthe wilderness, of Joshua, of the Judges and the early Kings, is\nprecisely to fashion Israel into a nation.  So much is all attention\nconcentrated upon this that we find a contentment with that contraction\nof the moral outlook which presents to many modern readers the chief\nstumbling block about the Old Testament.  Almost everything that was\nserviceable to Israel is approved.  Rahab is guilty of sheer treason to\nher own city of Jericho, but it is serviceable to Israel, and there is\nno word of condemnation.  Jael is guilty of a very treacherous murder,\nbut it was serviceable to Israel, so \"Blessed shall she be above women\nin the tent.\"\n\nEverything is concentrated upon this primary object of fashioning Israel\ninto a nation and persuading individual Israelites to put the welfare of\nthe whole before the interest and ambition of their own clique or\nfaction; and when the time came for an advance to a wider view, it came\nprecisely not by way of saying that national divisions do not matter and\nthat national life itself is unimportant, but by insisting that\nnationality is equally precious in these other nations all around Israel\nas it is within Israel itself.\n\nThe turning point here as in so much else in the Old Testament is the\nBook of Amos, the first of the written prophecies.  It is worth while to\ntry to imagine the effect of those opening clauses.  The prophet begins\nby securing a willing hearing from those to whom he writes: in other\nwords he begins by abusing their neighbours.\n\n\n    \"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Damascus, yea\n    for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....\"\n\n    \"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Gaza, yea for\n    four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....\n\n    \"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Tyre, yea for\n    four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....\n\n    \"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom, yea for\n    four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....\n\n    \"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of the children\n    of Ammon, yea for four, I will not turn away the punishment\n    thereof....\n\n    \"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, yea for\n    four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....\"\n\n\nAnd then, without a change of phrase, without even the compliment of a\nheightened denunciation--\n\n\n    \"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Judah, yea for\n    four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....\n\n    \"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, yea\n    for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....\"[#]\n\n\n[#] Amos i, 3-ii, 6.\n\n\nIt would be impossible more emphatically to insist that all nations,\nIsrael and the rest, stand on an equal footing before the Judgment Seat\nof God, and are to be regarded as real entities, and real moral agents;\nbut that is not enough for the prophet.\n\n\n    \"Are ye not as Children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of\n    Israel?--saith the Lord.\"\n\n\nI have no more care for you than the Ethiopians--who then, as now, were\nblack folk.\n\n\n    \"Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, _and_\n    the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?\"[#]\n\n\n[#] Amos ix, 7.\n\n\nIt is the God who had guided the history of Israel who has equally\nguided the history of the despised Philistine and the hated Syrian.  And\nthis line of thought reaches its culmination where we should expect to\nfind it, in the works of the statesman-prophet Isaiah.  His little\ncountry of Judah was likely to be destroyed by the hostilities of\nAssyria and Egypt, and in the middle of that peril, when these nations\nwere at each other's throats, he looks forward and says:--\n\n\n    \"In that day there shall be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria\n    and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian to\n    Assyria; and the Egyptians shall worship with the Assyrians.\"\n\n\nThere shall be free intercourse between them, and worship of the one God\nshall be the link between them.\n\n\n    \"In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with\n    Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, for that the Lord\n    of hosts hath blessed them, saying, 'Blessed be Egypt my people,\n    and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine\n    inheritance?'\"[#]\n\n\n[#] Isaiah xix, 23-25.\n\n\nJust picture the pallid frenzy of the orthodox Jew at the words--\"Egypt\nmy people.\"\n\nThe teaching of the Bible is plain enough; and as we come to the New\nTestament, with all this in our minds, knowing the emphasis that has\nalready been laid upon nationality, we find that there, too, is the note\nof patriotism.\n\nNo man has ever loved his nation more than the Lord loved Israel, and in\nthe bitterness of disappointment in the lament over Jerusalem we have\nthe measure of His patriotic love for the holy places of His people.\n\nSt. Paul, the author of those great ejaculations--\"That there can be\nneither Jew nor Gentile, Greek nor Scythian, bond nor free, but one man\nin Christ Jesus\"[#]--is also the author of the most ardent expression of\npatriotism in all literature.\n\n\n[#] Gal. iii, 28; Col. iii, 11.\n\n\n    \"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing\n    witness with me in the Holy Ghost, that I have great sorrow and\n    unceasing pain in my heart.  For I could wish that myself were\n    accursed from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen\n    according to the flesh; who are Israelites, whose is the\n    adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of\n    the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the\n    patriarchs, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh.\"[#]\n\n\n[#] Rom. ix, 1-5.\n\n\nOne can almost hear him panting as he dictates the words.\n\nThe Bible, then, strongly insists upon the nation as existing by divine\nappointment, and it looks forward, not to the abolition of national\ndistinctions, but to the inclusion of all nations in the family of\nnations.  So it was well that nationality should insist upon itself\nwithin the sphere of religion in the movement that we call the\nReformation.  But it left us with a broken Christendom, and with what\nare called national Churches.  The old Church endeavoured to tyrannise\nover the State; under the influence of the Reformation the State tended\nto tyrannise over the Church. Then comes a movement towards a free\nChurch in a free State; but we shall only find satisfaction when we have\na free State in a free Church.\n\nThe nation is a natural growth with a spiritual significance.  It\nemerges as a product of various elementary needs of man; but having\nemerged it is found to possess a value far beyond the satisfaction of\nthese needs.  The Church is a spiritual creation working through a\nnatural medium.  Its informing principle is the Holy Spirit of God in\nChrist, but its members are men and women who are partly animal in\nnature as well as children of God.  The nation as organised for action\nis the State; and the State, being \"natural,\" appeals to men on that\nside of their nature which is lower but is not in itself bad.  Justice\nis its highest aim and force its typical instrument, though force is\nprogressively less employed as the moral sense of the community\ndevelops: mercy can find an entrance only on strict conditions.  The\nChurch, on the other hand, is primarily spiritual; holiness is its\nprimary quality; mercy will be the chief characteristic of its\njudgments, but it may fall back on justice and even, in the last resort,\non force.[#]  Both State and Church are instruments of God for\nestablishing His Kingdom; both have the same goal; but they have\ndifferent functions in relation to that goal.\n\n\n[#] See Appendix II.: _On Moral Authority_.\n\n\nThe State's action for the most part takes the form of restraint; the\nChurch's mainly that of appeal.  The State is concerned to maintain the\nhighest standard of life that can be generally realised by its citizens;\nthe Church is concerned with upholding an ideal to which not even the\nbest will fully attain. When a man reaches a certain pitch of\ndevelopment, he scarcely realises the pressure of the State, though he\nis still unconsciously upheld by the moral judgment of society; but he\ncan never outgrow the demand of the Church. On the other hand, if a man\nis below a certain standard, the appeal of the Church will not hold him\nand he needs the support of the State's coercion.\n\nNeither State nor Church is itself the Kingdom of God, though the\nspecific life of the Church is the very spirit and power of that\nKingdom.  Each plays its part in building the Kingdom, in which, when it\ncomes, force will have disappeared, while justice and mercy will\ncoalesce in the perfect love which will treat every individual according\nto his need.\n\nThe Church which, officially at least, ignored nationality has failed.\nThe Church which allowed itself to become little more than the organ of\nnational religion has failed.  The hope of the future lies in a truly\ninternational Church, which shall fully respect the rights of nations\nand recognise the spiritual function of the State, thereby obtaining the\nright to direct the national States along the path which leads to the\nKingdom of God.  We are all clear by now that the Christian Church\ncannot be made the servant of one nation; we must become equally clear\nthat it cannot be regarded as standing apart from them, so that in\nbecoming a Churchman a man is withdrawn in some degree from national\nloyalty.  We must get rid of the idea of \"alternative\" loyalties.  The\nChurch is indeed the herald and the earnest of that Kingdom of God which\nincludes all mankind; but unless all history is a mere aberration, that\nKingdom will have nations for its provinces, and nations like\nindividuals will realise their destiny by becoming members of it.\n\nWe shall, then, conceive the relation of the nation to the Church on the\nanalogy of that between the family and the nation. There is in principle\nno conflict of interest or loyalty here.  The family is a part of the\nnation, owing allegiance to it; but the nation consists of families and\ncan reach its welfare only through theirs.  So the nation (in proportion\nas it is Christian) must learn to regard itself as a member of the\nfamily of nations in the Catholic Church.  No doubt in this imperfect\nworld there is often a conflict of supposed interests, and sometimes\neven of real interests.  Moreover, there is often room for doubt as to\nwhere the true interest lies.  But the family finds its own true welfare\nin the service of the nation, and the nation finds its own welfare in\nthe service of the Kingdom of God.\n\nThe Catholic Church, which is itself not yet a society of just men made\nperfect, while upholding the ideal of brotherhood and the love which\nkills hate by suffering at its hands, and while calling both men and\nnations to penitence and renewed aspiration in so far as they fail to\nreach that ideal, will none the less recognise the divinity of the\nnation in spite of all its failures.  It will not call upon men to come\nout from their nation or separate themselves from its action, unless it\nbelieves that then and there the nation itself is capable of something\nbetter, or unless the nation requires of them a repudiation of the very\nspirit of Christ, or an action intrinsically immoral.  If it is doing\nthe best that at the moment it is capable of doing, the Church will bid\nits citizens support it in that act, lest the nation be weakened in its\ndefence of the right or its control handed over to those who have no\ncare for the right.\n\nThe Church then must recognise the nation having a certain function in\nthe divine providence with reference to man's spiritual life.  It must\nnot try to usurp the State's functions, for if it does it will perform\nthem badly, and it will also--which is far more serious--be deserting\nthe work for which it alone is competent; and the State must, in its\nturn, recognise the Church as the Society of Nations, of which it with\nall others is a member.\n\nNothing but such a spiritual society can secure fellowship among\nnations.  Schemes of arbitration, conciliation, international police and\nthe like, presuppose, if they are to be effective, an admitted community\nof interest between the nations.  But this must be not only admitted but\nbelieved in sufficiently to prompt a nation which has no interest in a\nparticular dispute to make sacrifices for the general good, by spending\nblood and treasure in upholding the authority of the international court\nor council.  What will secure this, except the realisation of common\nmembership in the Kingdom of God, and in the Christian Church, its\nherald and earnest?\n\nAnd yet the Church we know is not only divided but at war within itself.\nThis, the Creation of God in Christ, is not more free from strife and\nfaction than the nations, which are natural growths.  If grace fails,\nhow can nature succeed?  Why should we expect the nations of the world\nto be at peace, when the sections of the Church are at war?\n\nBecause the Church is so far from what we hope it may become, we can\nonly sketch that future Church in outline.  Its building will be the\nwork of years, perhaps of centuries. And probably enough our attempt\nwill fail as Hildebrand's failed; probably enough there will be scores\nof failures; but each time we must begin again in order that for Christ\nand His Spirit a Body may be prepared, through which His purpose may in\nthe end of the ages find its accomplishment, and the nations of the\nearth bring their glory--each its own--into His Holy City.\n\nThere is the goal; dimly enough seen; but the method is perfectly plain.\n\"Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; how know\nwe the way?  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way.\"  And when that way led\nto the Cross, beside the innocent Sufferer there were two others.  One\ncried to Him, \"Save Thyself and us\"; the other recognised His royalty in\nthat utmost humiliation and prayed, \"Jesus, remember me when Thou comest\nin Thy Kingdom.\"  He, and he alone in the four Gospels, is recorded to\nhave addressed the Lord by His personal name. Penitence creates\nintimacy, whether it be offered to God or to man.\n\nWe have been made very conscious of the burden of the world's pain and\nsin, though perhaps that burden, as God bears it, is no heavier now than\nin our selfish and worldly peace.  Will the Church pray to Him, \"Save\nThyself and us\"? or will it willingly suffer with Him, united with Him\nin the intimacy of penitence, seeing His royalty in His crown of thorns?\nWill it, while bidding men bravely do their duty as they see it, still\nsay that the real treasures are not of this world though they may in\npart be possessed here, suffering whatever may be the penalty for this\nunpopular testimony?  For the kingdoms of this world will become the\nKingdom of our God and of His Christ only when the citizens of those\nkingdoms lay up their treasure in heaven and not upon the earth, only\nwhen, being risen with Christ, they set their affection on things\nabove--love, joy, peace, loyalty, beauty, knowledge--only when they\nrealise their fellowship in His Body so that their fellowship also in\nHis Holy Spirit may purge their selfishness away.\n\nHere is field enough for heroism and the moral equivalent of war.  The\nChurch is to be transformed and become a band of people united in their\nindifference to personal success or national expansion, and caring only\nthat the individual is pure in heart and the nation honourable.  In her\nzeal for that purity and honour, and in her contempt for all else, she\nmay have to suffer crucifixion.  It is a big risk that the Church must\nrun; for if she does not save the world she will have ruined it, besides\nsacrificing herself.  If there is no God nor Holy City of God, the\nChurch will have just spoilt life for all her faithful members, and in\nsome degree for every one else as well.  But if her vision is true, then\neverything is worth while--rather the greatness of the sacrifice is an\naddition to the joy when the prize is so unimaginably great. Can we\nbring this spirit into the Church? On our answer depends the course of\nhistory in the next century, and a new stage in the Coming of the Lord.\n\n    _The Spirit and the Bride say, Come._\n    _And he that heareth, let him say, Come._\n        _Yea: I come quickly._\n      _Amen: come, Lord Jesus._\n\n\n\n\n                             *LECTURE III*\n\n                   *JUSTICE AND LIBERTY IN THE STATE*\n\n\n\"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to\ndestroy but to fulfil.\"--S. Matthew v., 17.\n\n\nI.--In the last lecture I said that justice would seem to be the typical\nvirtue of the State, as holiness of the Church.  Let us, then, first\nconsider this virtue of justice in the light of our Lord's teaching\nconcerning one of the most familiar aspects of justice--its penal\naspect.\n\nThose sayings that have of late given rise to so many searchings of\nheart among Christians--the sayings about turning the other cheek and\nthe rest--are given by our Lord as explanations of the saying that He\ncame \"not to destroy the law but to fulfil it.\"  The words \"to fulfil\"\nof course mean not only to obey and carry out, but to complete.\n\nIn what sense is this teaching of our Lord the completion of the law?\nFor the law of Moses, like every other law, was concerned with\nregulating the relations of men to one another, as well as their duties\ntowards God; and it enforced what it enjoined by penalties.\n\nAt first sight no doubt it looks as if He were directly contradicting\nwhat had been said to them of old time--\n\n\n    \"Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth\n    for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not him that is\n    evil; but whosoever smites thee on thy right cheek, turn to him\n    the other also, and if any man will sue thee at the law, and\n    take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.\"\n\n\nHow is this the fulfilment or completion of the Mosaic or any other law?\nAt this distance of time, it is hard to remember what was the original\nsignificance of the law of retaliation. We are inclined to think that\nthe words \"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth\" are intended to\ngive a licence to that degree of vindictiveness; but on the contrary, in\nthe primitive stage in which that enactment was given, it was not a\nlicence given to man's instinct for vengeance, but a limitation set upon\nthat primitive and animal instinct, whose natural tendency, if\nunchecked, is to take two eyes for an eye and a set of teeth for a\ntooth.  The _lex talionis_ said--Only an eye for an eye, and only a\ntooth for a tooth.\n\nOur Lord carries the same principle further; not even that degree of\nvindictiveness is allowed.  The first necessity was to put bounds upon\nman's natural and almost insatiable lust for vengeance.  The next was to\ntell him that the whole method of vengeance could never succeed in what\nis its only really justifiable aim.  For what is the true function of\nthe law, whether that of Moses or any other?  It is always two-fold; it\nmust always aim not merely at checking the evil act, but at converting,\nif possible, the evil will.\n\nThere has never, I suppose, been any legal system which was not\njustified by its upholders on this ground.  No one is really content, to\nthink that the punishment which he inflicts, or may imagine himself as\ninflicting through the agency of the State, or in any other way, is\npurely deterrent; he always thinks it will also be reformative.  But,\nhow are you as a matter of fact to attack the evil will?  The mere\ninfliction of penalty will not of any necessity achieve this goal at\nall.  We know that it is very seriously debated whether our whole system\nof punishment in the civilised States of to-day has any really moral\neffect, at least upon those who fall under its most severe penalties.\nProbably most convicts leave prison worse men than when they entered.\nFor if a man is below a certain level in moral attainment, pain, far\nfrom purifying, only brutalises and coarsens.  It is only those who are\nalready far in the path of spiritual growth who are purified by\nsuffering, even as the Captain of our Salvation was thus made perfect.\nBut it is still true that the aim of all penal law is twofold; to check\nthe evil act and, if possible, to convert the evil will.\n\nNow, as I suggested previously, mere restraint may have indirectly a\npositive moral value; as for example in the case of a child, who is\npotentially of very diverse characters. He has the capacity to grow in\nmany different directions, and it will depend very much upon his\nsurroundings, and the influences which play upon his character, whether\nthis set of instincts or that receives development; and here merely to\nkeep forcibly within bounds the development of certain impulses, which\ntend to grow out of proportion to the proper harmony and economy of\nnature, may indirectly have the effect of preserving that harmony and\nthus develop genuine virtue in the soul.  And again, with those whose\ncharacters are relatively formed, the direct restraint, for example, of\nState action may have positive moral value, inasmuch as it is the\nexpression of the moral judgment of Society. What most of us would\nshrink from, if we were in danger of imprisonment, would not be the\nphysical inconvenience, which is not very great, but the fact that we\nshould have brought ourselves under the censure of Society, and acted in\nsuch a way as to put ourselves below the level which Society generally\nconsiders itself justified in enforcing.  And so the purely restraining\ninfluence of the State, even operating through force, may have a\npositive moral value, because it represents, and is the only way at\npresent devised of representing, the judgment of Society, and to shrink\nfrom the judgment of Society is, so far as it goes, a really moral fear.\nIt is not indeed the highest ground for the avoidance of evil, but it is\na moral ground, for it arises from our recognition of our\nfellow-membership in Society with those whose censure we fear.\n\nBut the State in all its actions is of necessity mechanical, and cannot\ntake account of the individual, and all that makes him what he is. The\nState officer cannot know the prisoner in such a way as really to\ndetermine the treatment allotted to him in the light of what is best for\nhis spiritual welfare; and therefore he has to fall back upon rough and\nready rules which will never be perhaps very far from the right\ntreatment, though they may fail to allot the ideal treatment in any\nsingle case. And here, in parenthesis, let me just mention that this is\nthe chief reason why metaphors and comparisons drawn from the law-courts\nare so sadly misleading when used to illustrate the relation between the\nhuman soul and God; our only fear of the judge is concerned with what he\nwill do to us; but what we fear with our father, on earth or in Heaven,\nis not so much what he will do to us, as the pain we have caused--\"There\nis mercy with Thee; therefore shalt Thou be feared.\"\n\nOur Lord's method is the only one that aims straight at the evil will;\nit is the only method which has in it any real hope of converting the\nindividual.  It may fail time and again; but it is the only one that has\na chance of real and absolute success.\n\nLet us look for a moment at the instances which He chooses to illustrate\nthe principle, and we shall see at once that they are carefully chosen.\nAll the acts chosen are such as are particularly vexatious to the\nordinary natural and selfish man--being struck in the face; having a\nvexatious suit brought against one; being pestered by a beggar; being\ncompelled to do something for the public service when we are busy.\nThose are just the things which the natural man resents and which the\nreal Christian will not mind at all.  For, after all, there is no real\ninjury in being struck in the face, or having one's coat taken away.\nWhat one minds is the insult to one's precious dignity; and the\nChristian who, by definition, has forgotten all about himself will not\nmind such injuries at all.  Therefore if the acts commanded are\nspontaneously done and not done with a laborious conscientiousness--that\nis to say if they are done in the spirit of Christianity, and not in the\nspirit of Pharisaism--they will express a complete conversion in the\nwill of him who does them; they will express absolute conquest of self,\nand a concern solely for the welfare of him with whom we are dealing;\nand there is no heart yet made that can resist the appeal of love which\nis constant in spite of every betrayal, the appeal of trust which is\nrenewed in spite of endless disappointments.\n\n\"He that loveth his brother\"--says St. John--\"walketh in the light.\"  He\nis the man who knows where he is going, because he is the man who\nunderstands people and sees into their hearts.  They will reveal to him\nsecrets of their nature, which they will hide from the contemptuous and\nindifferent; and even if at first he is from time to time disappointed\nand betrayed, in the end his method will succeed, because love and trust\ncreate what they believe in.\n\nThe justice then, which we find at work in the State, is always a\nprovisional thing pointing us to something more, something which the\nState itself by its very constitution is unable to provide, but which\nGod provides in Christ, and will enable us in our measure to provide, if\nwe are faithful, at least in the circle of our immediate activities, so\nfar, that is, as the range of our sympathy will carry us.\n\nII.--The value of the justice which the State is able to secure actually\nresides for the most part in the liberty which it makes possible.\nJustice, as the State interprets it, is of itself, as far as I can see,\nalmost totally valueless.  I can see no kind of advantage in merely\nallotting so much pain to so much evil.  There is moral evil in a man\nand you put physical evil into him as well.  I do not see how you have\nmade him or anyone else the better.  Only in so far as the punishment is\neither deterrent or reformative, has it any moral value at all; and only\nin the latter case, where it reforms the character, can the value be\ncalled in the strict sense moral. So far as it only deters men from evil\nacts which they would desire to commit, it may add to the convenience of\nthe other members of Society, but it is not doing any direct moral good.\n\nIndirectly, however, it has moral results; for when we enquire in what\nsense we can say that such justice as the State secures produces\nliberty, the first answer is to be found in the obvious and elementary\nfact that the liberty of every one of us depends upon our knowledge that\ncertain impulses and instincts in other people, should they arise, will\nbe checked and not allowed to receive full expression.  Our liberty is\nincreased by that check put upon predatory or homicidal impulses in\nother people, and their liberty depends upon the suppression of such\nimpulses in us.\n\nSo far it would seem that there must be in the most obvious sense of the\nwords a certain curtailment of everybody's liberty in order that anybody\nmay have liberty at all.  If we are all to be free to indulge our\npassions of anger and hatred, should such arise within us, then it is\nquite clear that there will be very little freedom of action in the\nSociety which rests on that principle.  Everyone will go about in fear\nof everyone else.\n\nBut that is a very small part of the business. The chief contribution of\nsuch justice to human liberty is that it supplies the necessary\nconditions of discipline without which there can be no liberty.  We\nthink of liberty as meaning freedom from external constraint. We think\nthat an act of ours is free when we can say, \"I did it, and no one made\nme do it\"; but very little reflection is sufficient to convince us that\na man whose life is actually governed by one or several over-developed\npassions which he will, as a matter of fact, always gratify when\nopportunity offers, in spite of the damage that is done to his whole\nlife and to his permanent and deliberate purpose, is not really a free\nman.  To be tied and bound with the chain of our sins is just as much\nslavery as to be in the ownership of another man; and we can acquire the\nreal liberty which is worth having, the liberty, that is, to shape our\nlives, to live according to our own purpose, following out our own\nideal, only in so far as our natures have been welded by discipline into\nunity, so that we are no longer a chaos of impulses and instincts, any\nof which may be set in motion by the appropriate environment, but are\nself-governing persons controlling our own lives.\n\nLiberty, in so far as it is of any value, always means self-control in\nboth the senses of that term: in the sense that we are only controlled\nby ourselves, and also in the sense that by ourselves we are controlled,\nand that every part of our nature is subservient to the purpose to which\nour whole nature is given.  Legislation is really an instrument of\nself-discipline.  The people who write books about political philosophy\nare mainly members of the respectable classes.  They naturally find it\nrather difficult to envisage themselves as liable to commit murder and\nthe like; and they are therefore very liable to represent the criminal\nlaw of the State as being enacted against a few undisciplined or\nrecalcitrant members.  But when we look at the thing more closely, we\nsee that what a community does, especially a democratic community, when\nit passes a law, is to invoke, every member upon his own head, the\npenalties enacted by that law, if he should do the act which the law\nforbids.\n\nLet us consider, for example, an international convention.  What is the\nuse of nations agreeing with one another not to do something, for\ninstance not to poison wells, unless there is some chance that in a\nmoment of strong temptation they may desire to do it?  They therefore\nstrengthen their deliberate purpose to avoid such acts by entering into\nan agreement with one another always to avoid them.  There would be no\nobject in doing this unless they needed help, or thought that they might\nat some time need help, in living up to their own purposes.\n\nAnd we have to remember that in this way the law of the State is, as a\nmatter of fact, perpetually operating upon every one of us.  We are\noften liable to suppose that it is only active in relation to those\npeople against whom it is definitely set in motion; but it does operate\nin the life of every one of the citizens of a community; because the\nfact that certain actions would involve us in State-penalty most\nundoubtedly does keep all of us from indulging in those actions at\ncertain times, even though at calm moments we recognise that it would be\nwrong to do so. Trivial instances are nearly always the clearest. Most\nof us, I suppose, are sufficiently honest to desire in general terms to\npay for what we buy; and we should perhaps usually pay for our places in\nthe train, even if there were no ticket-inspector; still, the existence\nof the inspector just clinches the matter.[#]  The possibility of the\npenalty as a matter of fact helps to maintain our general, permanent,\nand deliberate purpose of honesty against a momentary temptation to be\ndishonest; and so far it is helping us to live up to our purpose, or, in\nother words, is increasing our real freedom.  In fact, one main test of\ngood legislation is precisely whether it does or does not in this way\ndevelop real freedom by increasing people's power to live by their own\ndeliberate purpose.\n\n\n[#] I owe the illustration to Mr. A. L. Smith, of Balliol.\n\n\nNow so far we have been considering Society as consisting of relatively\nfree persons (though the freedom exists in varying degrees, both as\nregards the external constraint and capacity for self-control), these\npersons having various claims which have to be regulated by the justice\nwhich the State upholds; in other words, in this stage, we are regarding\njustice in the way in which I suppose it is most usually regarded,\nnamely, as rendering to a man what is due to him.  That is the\ndefinition with which Plato in _The Republic_ starts his enquiry, and he\nnaturally found very soon that it would not work.[#]  It will not work\nbecause the moral values of people are not determinable.  You cannot, as\na matter of fact, ever say what is the relative weight of the various\nclaims that may be made on behalf of this or that man.  Most\nparticularly there is the perpetual conflict between the actual and the\npotential worth of any men.\n\n\n[#] He appropriately puts it in the mouth of Polemarchus, the\nwell-brought up, but wholly inexperienced, young man.\n\n\nSuppose that we decide that we will give to all men in Society that\nwhich is their due. How are we going to determine what is due? Is it to\nbe determined by their economic value, for example by the amount they\nare contributing to the economic or general welfare of Society?  Well\nthen, there are a large number of people at both ends of what we call\nthe social scale who ought to receive nothing at all, because they are\ncontributing nothing economically, or, indeed, in any other way, to the\npublic welfare.  And yet that is not their fault; they have been brought\nup, it may be in squalor, it may be in luxury, but in either case in\ncircumstances which have made them almost incapable of anything like\ngood citizenship.  Are we to kill such persons, or leave them to starve,\nin the interest of the public welfare?  All human instincts will protest\nthat this is unjust, and that they can claim more than they can possibly\nbe represented as contributing, simply because they have had, as we say,\nbad luck, and it is not their fault.[#]\n\n\n[#] See Appendix III, _On Justice and Education_.\n\n\nLet us try what happens if after Plato's example we turn the matter\nupside down, and instead of saying that justice will be found when there\nis rendered to each man what is due to him, we say that justice is found\nwhen each man contributes what is due from him.\n\nNow logically, of course, these two are the same, because duties and\nrights are absolutely correlative.  My rights constitute other people's\nduties towards me, and their rights constitute my duties towards them.\nThe only difference is that it is far more easy in any given case to\ndetermine what is due from somebody--what can be claimed from him--than\nto determine what is due to him.\n\nIn this imperfect stage of the world, where we are passing through the\ntransition from something like barbarism to Christian civilisation, as\nwe hope, it is possible that of two correlative processes, one will\nactually carry us further than the other even though it is logically\ninseparable from it.  And in fact we find at once, that if we put it\nthis way, and say that the principle of justice is not that each man\nshould obtain what is due to him, but that each should contribute what\nis due from him, we are coming to the central principle of God's\nadministration of His world, which is that we should render to every man\nnot according to his desert, but according to his need.  Indeed for\npractical purposes, if we are wishing to bring justice into our own\ndealings, and into the dealings of any public body with which we may\nhave influence, this principle will carry us further than any\nother--\"Render to every man according to his need.\"\n\nLet us suppose that we meet on one day with two beggars.  One of them is\na man who has borne a good character throughout his life, and has lost\nhis work through no fault of his own; the works on which he was employed\nwere closed, and he is now tramping in search of more work.  All of us\nof course will say--\"He deserves help and we will help him.\"  Yes; and\nit is quite easy to help him.  We have only to set him up again, and all\nwill be well.  It is not his own fault and we can rely upon him to make\nuse of another opportunity.  The other beggar is a man who has lost this\nplace, as he has lost many before, through indulgence in some vice, such\nas drink.  There are very many people who will say, \"Well, it is his own\nfault, and now he must suffer for it.\"  If God had taken that line with\nus, where would our redemption be?--\"It is his own fault, now he must\nsuffer for it.\"  To say that is to repudiate the Gospel in its entirety.\nIt is to call the Cross absurd and scandalous.  \"God commendeth His love\ntoward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died.\"\n\nNo; the Christian will say, \"This man needs help more than the other.\"\nIt will not be the same kind of help.  It is no use merely to give him\nmoney.  That may merely help him to go wrong quicker than he would\notherwise.  He needs something that will cost us, probably, more than\nmoney; he needs our time--time to make friends; time to remove his\nsuspicions; time to enter into real sympathy with him, and to detect\nwhat elements of strength there are in his character, that we may build\nthem up again.  But he needs help more than the other, and the Christian\nwill be bound to give it, and he will say--\"It was his own fault; he\ncannot help himself; it depends entirely on us; we will render to him\naccording to his need.\"\n\nAnd all of this would lead to another formula for describing the justice\nwhich we shall desire to practise in the State, and in all our secular\nlife of which the State is the highest organisation--The recognition of\npersonality.\n\nI do not know at all what forms your labour unrest in takes in this\ncontinent, but I claim to have considerable opportunities of knowing\nwhat is the root of that unrest in England, at least among the better\ntype of working people; for I am concerned with an organisation which is\nat work among working folk all over England, having an enormous\nmembership, and which aims at claiming for them, and supplying them\nwith, further facilities for education.  Those with whom I thus come in\ncontact are picked men, no doubt, because those who join an educational\nassociation are thereby marked off at once as intellectually at least\nmore alert than those who do not join; but as I go about them, I find no\nroom whatever for doubting that the root of the labour unrest in England\nis a sense that the whole organisation of our life constitutes a\nstanding insult to the personality of the poor man.  Why, for example,\nhe feels, should it be possible for a well-to-do man to secure for\nhimself, or for his wife, or for his child, the medical attendance that\nmay be needed, while he in very many parts of our country depends upon\ninstitutions maintained by voluntary contributions?  It is quite\ncompatible with gratitude to those whose generosity maintains these\ninstitutions to feel that for such service he should not be dependent\nupon anybody's charity at all--whether the solution is to be that the\nState maintain such institutions or that every man who is doing his fair\nshare of the country's work receive for himself the wage that will\nenable him to deal with such emergencies as they arise.\n\nAbove all, men feel the denial of their personality in the organisation\nof industry itself.  Men have fought and died for political liberty,\nwhich means the right to have a voice in making the laws by which you\nare to be governed.  But the laws of the State do not for the most part\ninvade a man's home, whereas the regulations of an industrial firm do.\nThey determine when he shall get up in the morning and when he shall go\nto bed; they determine whether he shall have any leisure for the pursuit\nof any interest of his own.  In the making of those regulations he has,\nas a rule, no voice whatever, and no opportunity of making his views\nunderstood except by threat, the threat of a strike.  The men feel that\nthey are what they are sometimes called, \"hands\" not persons.  They are\nthe tools of other men.  You must apply all this to your own country, if\nand so far as it does apply.  But one might easily imagine a village in\nLancashire, or any other industrial district where all the inhabitants\nare dependent upon one industry; there are many such; and the control of\nthat industry may be in the hands of a Board of Directors, settled\nperhaps in London; it may only meet a few times a year for the\ntransaction of business, and otherwise not exist at all.  They never see\nthe people whose lives and destinies they thus control. The shareholders\nwho want their dividends make no enquiries as a rule about the\nconditions in which the work is done.  If that Board of Directors\nmismanages its business the village in Lancashire goes hungry.  If that\nBoard of Directors, when they have already got a full supply of work,\ntakes on another large contract, that village in Lancashire works\novertime; and the people have no say in the matter.  Whatever else that\nis, it is not liberty, and in the judgment of the people themselves it\nis not justice.  And indeed it is not either justice or liberty as we\nhave learned in other spheres to understand those terms.  The economic\norganisation of life comes far closer to the individual citizen than the\npolitical organisation, and the development of justice remains\nincomplete until it has secured liberty of an economic as well as a\npolitical kind.\n\nIf it is true that the method of Christ is to appeal to the free\npersonality of the man, so that he obeys out of love and devotion and\nnot from fear of penalty nor hope of reward, other than the reward of\nrealising the love of the Master, then surely it is in the true line of\ndevelopment towards the perfected Christian civilisation if we demand\nthat these opportunities for the development of free personality shall\nbe afforded.  No doubt it must be done with wisdom.  Rough and ready\nmethods, however well-meant, might do far more harm than good, and leave\nus in a situation even worse than that which we know.  But the Church\nhas paid scarcely any attention to those things in England.  It is very\ndifficult to persuade Church-people that, because they are followers of\nChrist, and therefore might be assumed to recognise that they are\n\"members one of another\" with all these others, they are therefore bound\n(for example) in investing their money to find out the conditions under\nwhich their dividends are going to be earned.  In almost every\ndepartment of life we have left such things alone.  Under the stress of\nwar, we have suddenly become acutely conscious of the drink evil.  It\nwas there before; and we have been content that the great majority of\nour fellow citizens should have no opportunity for gratifying those\ninstincts of social life and merriment, which are the birthright of all\nGod's children, except in places where the influence of alcohol was\nsupreme.  We have been content with that. We have not thought it was our\nduty to find a means of supplying them with other places of recreation\nand amusement; we have saved our money.  And then we have the\nimpertinent audacity to claim our own redemption by the blood of Christ.\n\nOne can go on with one evil after another in the same way.  This is what\nmakes the Church weak.  It is no sort of use for us to say that Christ\nis the Redeemer of the world, and the Revealer of the way of life, if\nwith regard to just those evils which press most heavily on men we have\nto say that for them He has unfortunately not supplied a remedy.\n\nNo doubt if these evils are to be dealt with on a large scale, the work\nmust be done by the State, for nothing else is adequate; and the Church\nhere has two main tasks. It is no part of the Church's task to advocate\ngeneral principles or particular maxims of economic science, though its\nmembers, in their capacity of citizenship ought to be active in these\nways.  The first task of the Church is to inspire the State, which after\nall very largely consists of the same persons as itself, with the desire\nto combat the evil; and the second is to counteract the one great\ndifficulty which the State experiences. When the State takes up such\nwork as this, there is one thing which we all fear: \"Officialism.\"  What\nis \"Officialism\"? Simply lack of love; nothing else in the world. It\nconsists in treating people as \"cases,\" according to rules and red tape,\ninstead of treating them as individuals; and the Church which must\ninspire the State to want to deal with these things, must then supply\nthe agents through whom it may deal with them effectively, inspiring\nthem with the love of men which is the fruit and test of a true love of\nGod.\n\nBut beyond all this, the Church must be making demands far greater than\nit has ever made upon man's spiritual nature and spiritual capacity, and\nmust then point to the organisation of our social life and say--\"That\norganisation, because and in so far as it deprives men of the full\ngrowth of their spiritual nature, because and in so far as it prevents\nthem from taking the share which belongs to God's children in His\nworship and the enjoyment of his gifts of nature and Grace, is proved to\nbe of the devil.\"\n\nIn our worship we find for the most part what we expect to find.  There\nmay be gifts offered us, gifts from God, that we never receive because\nwe have not looked for them. It is in our intercourse with Christ that\nwe shall find the means of solving the horror of our social problem, if\nwe are expecting to find it; but we have not expected it. We have not\nreally believed that He is the Redeemer of the World; we have not looked\nto Him for the redemption of Society.  The State by itself, until the\nChurch comes to its help, can do something indeed, but something which\nby itself is almost worthless.[#]  It supplies the indispensable\nfoundation without which a spiritual structure cannot be built up; but,\nif that building never comes, the foundation by itself is little more\nthan useless. To those whom the social order favours it offers real\nliberty and life, but no inspiration; a perfect social order would offer\nliberty to all, but still no inspiration.  The State alone can never be\nthe house of many mansions wherein every soul is truly at home.\n\n\n[#] It is to be observed that the State is by its very nature largely\nlimited to the regulation of those human relationships where men oppose\neach other with rival claims; as soon as men rise to the reciprocity of\nfriendship the method of the State is inappropriate.  People do not go\nto law to determine whether either loves the other adequately.\n\n\n\n\n                              *LECTURE IV*\n\n                *HOLINESS AND CATHOLICITY IN THE CHURCH*\n\n\n\"This is the law of the house: upon the top of the mountain the whole\nlimit thereof round about shall be most holy. Behold, this is the law of\nthe house.\"--Ezekiel xliii, 12.\n\n\"And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty, and the Lamb,\nare the temple thereof.\"--Revelation xxi, 22.\n\n\nThe Bible gives us two elaborately conceived pictures of the perfected\nlife of man. The first is that which occupies the closing chapters of\nEzekiel's prophecy; its leading feature is the immense separation which\nis insisted upon between the Temple and the secular City.  The Hill of\nZion has become a very high mountain; upon the top of it the Temple is\nset, and there is a wide space, at least two miles, between it and the\nCity of Jerusalem, which has been moved away by that distance to the\nsouth.\n\nIndeed, if we take the description as intended to be complete, the City\nseems to exist chiefly to provide a congregation for the Temple's\nservices, and the Prince only to offer representative worship on behalf\nof His people. All attention is concentrated upon the place of the\nworship of God, and the holiness which is to be characteristic of that\nplace.  By thus keeping the Temple holy, through separating it from the\nbody of the City and its secular life, the Prophet attains no doubt the\nend he has in view, but he also, of necessity, though probably\nunintentionally, leaves the suggestion that the secular life itself\ncannot be wholly consecrated.\n\nIn sharp contrast with this is St. John's picture in the Book of\nRevelation; here there is no specific place of worship at all, for the\nwhole City is the Temple of God; more than that, the whole City is the\nvery Holy of Holies, for it is described as being a perfect cube, and\nthe Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple was a perfect cube.\n\n\n    \"And the city lieth four square, and the length thereof is as\n    great as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed,\n    twelve thousand furlongs; the length and the breadth and the\n    height thereof are equal.  And he measured the wall thereof, and\n    it was one hundred and forty and four cubits.\"[#]\n\n\n[#] Rev. xxi, 16, 17.\n\n\nThe City thus corresponds in symbolic form with the Holy of Holies.  It\nis become the dwelling place of God.  No special shrine is needed, no\nplace to which men draw apart, because their whole life is an act of\nworship, and God dwells among them in their daily activities.\n\nThere is one feature about this Heavenly City, which is obscured through\nthe use of the old terms of measurement, for this cube is described as\nbeing 1,500 _miles_ high, 1,500 _miles_ broad, and 1,500 _miles_ long;\nbut the wall which stands for defence against foes without and for the\ncontainment and order of the life within, and indeed represents in\ngeneral the principle of organisation--the wall is only 216 _feet_ high;\nso small a thing is order in comparison with the life which it\nsafeguards.\n\nIt is between those two poles, which are set for us as the extreme terms\nin a process, that the Church must live its life.  There is truth in\nboth of them.\n\nWe were considering in the last lecture justice and liberty, which are\nthe supreme achievements of the National State.  Let us to-day consider\nthe Holiness and Catholicity, which are the supreme treasures of the\nChurch.\n\nHoliness must come first, Holiness which means absolute conformity to\nthe will of God. Whatever obstacles there may be to overcome, whatever\nseductions to avoid, the Church is to remain absolutely devoted to the\nDivine Will.  Only so can it be catholic or universal. It might for a\nmoment achieve an all-embracing unity by giving up everything that is\noffensive to men, and gathering all within it under the glow of a\ncomfortable sentiment; but then its life would be gone, and after a\nlittle while the men who had all become members of it would be just as\nthough they had not.  Only a Church which is perfectly loyal to the Will\nof God, can possibly be the home for all mankind.\n\nBut Holiness has always had two meanings--an outward and an inward, a\nceremonial and a moral.  We shall agree, I suppose, in saying that the\noutward and ceremonial is in itself of no consequence, and exists only\nin order to preserve and make possible the inward and spiritual\nconformity to God's Will; but for that purpose, as all human experience\nhas always shown, it is quite indispensable.  We are made of bodies as\nwell as souls, and if our whole being is to be permeated, there must be\nbodily expression of that which our souls enjoy or need.  We must\nworship with our bodies as well as with our souls.  So St. Paul, after\nall his emphasis upon the spirit as against dead works, begins his\npractical exhortation with the words, \"I beseech you, therefore,\nbrethren, by the mercies of God to present your bodies a living\nsacrifice.\"[#]  The physical and bodily expression is always necessary,\nin this human life of ours, to the full efficacy and to the survival\nthrough the ages of the spiritual, though this no doubt is alone of\nultimate consequence.\n\n\n[#] Rom. xii, 1.\n\n\nIf the Church is to maintain its Holiness, it must of necessity be to\nsome extent separated from the world; it cannot mix as a Church in all\nworldly activities.  It cannot simply set itself out to permeate the\ngeneral life of men, maintaining nothing that is separate and apart for\nitself.  If it does that, it will simply be lost in the general life of\nthe world.\n\nIn the last resort our characters depend almost entirely upon the\ninfluences that play upon them in our environment; the one place where\nwe have effective choice is in determining the influences to which we\nwill submit ourselves.  If there is no place in our society, or in the\nworld, where men may count upon finding the power of God in purity, then\nmen will inevitably fail to rise above that sort of character, which\ntheir worldly environment happens to be forming in them.\n\nThe Church then, precisely in order to do this work in the world, must\nkeep itself in some sense separate from the world; but the vast majority\nof its members are people in the daily life of the world, pursuing their\navocations there; and it would plainly be wholly disastrous to require\nthat all Christian people, in virtue of their Christianity, should\nwithdraw themselves from the ordinary concerns of men.\n\nThere is, therefore, no means by which this separateness of the Church\ncan be achieved unless there are certain persons set apart to be\nrepresentatives of the Church, and of the Church only; and who, because\nthey are official representatives of the Church are thereby deprived of\nthe right to take part in many worldly activities, though these in\nthemselves are right enough.\n\nIt is not because they are more truly members of the Church than others,\nnor because there is a different moral standard for clergy and laity,\nbut because in the whole life of the Church there are certain functions\nwhich are incompatible with others, just as in the State a man cannot be\nat the same time an advocate and a judge, or commander-in-chief and\nambassador.\n\nThus, for example, as it seems to me, one who is called to be a priest\nof the Church, inevitably forfeits the right to take part in the\nhurly-burly of party politics; partly because, in a world which consists\nof many parties, he is responsible for bringing before men the claim of\nGod to which all the parties ought to bow; partly also because a man's\nactivities inevitably affect the quality of his own mind, and if we are\nto be as it were repositories of the Eternal truths, if we are to have\nready for dispensation all the treasures which God commits to His\nChurch, we need a type of mind which cannot, at least by most men, be\nmaintained, if we are engaged in heated controversy and frequent debate.\n\nAnother example may be found in the question whether a priest should\nserve as a combatant in his country's army.  He is called to represent\nthe Church; and the Church is essentially, not accidentally,\ninternational; it is not international merely as a scientific society\nmay be, in that it is not concerned with political frontiers and men of\nall nations are welcome within it; but it is international in the sense\nthat it exists to bind the nations of the earth in one.  The officer of\nsuch a society may be as patriotic in his feeling as anyone else, but,\njust because he is an official, for him to take positive action on one\nside of the other weakens the Church's international position, and is,\ntherefore, a more serious act than it is in the case of the layman. Here\nagain there are not two standards, but there are diverse circumstances.\nIf the Church called on all its members to refuse to serve, the result\nwould be to interfere with the freedom of the State to act in its own\nsphere; if it allows everyone to serve, it is deprived of its Catholic\nwitness just when that is most vitally needed.  The only way of doing\njustice to the legitimate claims of both nationalism and Catholicity, is\nto differentiate between persons; and there is no practicable or even\nsensible way of doing this except to make the Church's officers\nresponsible for the Catholic witness and its lay, or unofficial, members\nfor the national.\n\nBut does this not involve the danger of a priestly caste?  Yes, no doubt\nit does; but there are two ways in which we may avoid falling into that\ndanger.  The first is perpetually to remember that men are called by God\nto the different kinds of work which He has for them to do; and we shall\navoid unctuousness, which is no doubt what men most dread about a\npriestly caste, if we keep it perpetually in our mind that we are not\npersonally holy because our calling is.  We are entrusted with this\ngreat charge.  We have to fulfil it.  It is our work for Him. But there\nare those whom He calls to serve Him as politicians and as soldiers; if\nthey do their work as in His sight, and to His glory, they are serving\nHim every bit as much as we are.  All the work of all the kinds of men\nis needed in the world, and it is only if we suppose that we are made\nmore holy because our calling is concerned with the specifically holy\nthings that we shall fall before that danger.\n\nAnd the other safeguard, paradoxical as it may sound, is a very complete\nspecialised training.  One of the reasons, I am quite sure, why lay\npeople often find us rather stilted and uncongenial is because we have\nnot secured a sufficient grasp upon what is our own special subject to\nfeel full liberty in conversation and to speak naturally. We are\nperpetually wondering at what point we shall be suddenly compromising\nthat for which we are responsible.  We tend to utter (and even to hold)\nmerely conventional opinions and to express ourselves only in the\nstereotyped phrases, because we have not sufficient grasp of spiritual\nand moral truth to trust ourselves in forming individual opinions, or in\nfinding our own language for expressing the opinions which we form.\nPrecisely in the degree in which we know our own work and have full\npossession of what is entrusted to us, shall we obtain liberty and ease\nof manner, and be in general behaviour just like other people, which is\nwhat we ought most to desire.\n\nStill it is in the person of its priests that the Church must maintain\nthat outward holiness, that separation from the world, which alone makes\npossible a concentration upon things divine; and without this\nconcentration it can never become a catholic or universal body.\n\"Universal,\" here does not, of course, mean all-inclusive.  There are\nthose who definitely and deliberately reject the claim of Christ, and\nthose have never been submitted in any way to His influence. The\nunbaptized heathen are not members of the Catholic Church; and if they\nrefuse the Gospel when it comes, they remain outside. Moreover, as we\nhave seen, there is possible a vicious as well as a holy catholicity.\nThere is nothing so seductive as the temptation to suppose that doctrine\nwhich evokes a response is on that account true, or particularly to be\nemphasised.  Sometimes people dislike the truth.  There are people who\nare alienated by it; and the attractiveness of our gospel to people,\nirrespective of their frame of mind, is no evidence of its divinity.\nThere is a picture in the Old Testament where Moses the Prophet is apart\nupon the mountain top, communing with God, while at the foot of the\nmountain, Aaron, the official priest, is ministering to the people the\nkind of religion they like.  He was encouraging them, as the Psalmist\nsatirically says, to worship: \"the similitude of the calf that eateth\nhay.\"  There was nothing very dignified about it. But it was what the\npeople liked; and the response to his ministrations was immediate and\nimmense.  Our task is to lay hold, so far as we may in our infinite\nfeebleness, of the truth that was given to the world in Christ in all\nits sternness as well as its love--or rather in that sternness which is\nan essential part of its love; and this is what we must present to men.\n\nAgain, it is not in proportion to their virtue in the ordinary moral\nsense that men are drawn to the Church; it is in proportion to their\nconscious need of God.  It is perhaps worth while just now especially to\nemphasise the peril of a faithless virtue, and the depth of error\ninvolved in any attempt to take for the basis of a Church \"the religion\nof all good men.\"  What will happen to a man who sets his effort upon\nthe building up of his whole character according to an ethical ideal?\nOne of two things.  Either he may in part succeed, perhaps as much as he\nhimself desires to succeed, and then he may become self-satisfied and a\nPharisee; or else he will find himself either failing altogether, or,\nhaving succeeded in part, incapable of carrying the success to its full\ncompletion, and not knowing where to find the power that will take him\nfurther; and so he ends in despair.\n\nNo, the appeal of the Church, as universal, is simply that it has within\nit that which answers the real and deepest need of every human being.\nThere everyone will find his home, when once he has found his need of\nGod, if indeed the Church is holy.\n\nAnd this is also its distinction from the sects; for it endeavours to\nuphold the entire body of the truth, every particle of it that may be of\nservice to anyone.  I suppose there are very few of us to whom the whole\nof the Creed is a living reality.  We may believe it all, but what we\nlive by is usually a small part of it, and it is a different part with\ndifferent persons.  The essence of sectarianism, as I understand it, is\nthe gathering together of those people who live by the same part of the\nCreed, in order that, like mingling with like, they may develop a great\nintensity and fervour of devotion.  For a moment, indeed, they may be\nfar more effective than the great body of the Church, and yet they\ncannot become universal.  There is something lacking from what they\nuphold, which someone needs.[#]  The aim of the Church is to be\nuniversal here also, and to uphold the entire body of the truth,\npresenting it in its entirety, even though the priest who is called upon\nto fulfil that office of presenting it to the people may himself be\nactually living by the slenderest portion of it.  No doubt we shall\npresent most forcibly that part of the whole truth which is most real to\nourselves; and for that reason, if no other, we ought to try our utmost\nto gain a personal apprehension of the whole. But men's spiritual\ndiseases are of many kinds, and all the healing truths must be offered\nby the Church in which all men are to find life.\n\n\n[#] This is a description of Sectarianism, not of any particular\nDenomination.  We are all infected with the sectarian spirit.  In many\nrespects Rome is far more sectarian than the great Presbyterian bodies\nin Scotland.  With all its faults I sincerely believe that the Anglican\nCommunion is, in spirit, more of a Church and less of a sect than any\nother body. But then it contains several sects within itself, both\n\"High,\" \"Broad,\" and \"Low.\"\n\n\nThe truth which it thus presents, the Church believes to be the gift of\nGod.  This above all is the idea which it tries to safeguard by the\noutward signs of regular orders and sacraments.\n\nOur belief about the communion service is that there Christ comes to us\njust as once the eternal Word, which was present with all His creation,\nnone the less came in full manifestation under the limitations of time\nand space at a particular moment and in a particular country.  So in the\ncommunion the Divine presence which fills the whole world (\"Heaven and\nearth are full of His glory,\" as we say in the service itself) is\noffered to us, and draws near to us; and that not because of any virtue\nin us; it was while we were yet sinners that Christ came and died; it is\nwhile we are yet sinners that Christ offers Himself to us; and it is as\nguarding against any conception that we can determine how He shall come,\nor when and where, and that we can, as it were, manufacture His presence\nin our own way, that the Church maintains with the utmost emphasis the\norder that is necessary for that service.\n\nIt is to preserve the conception of spiritual life as a gift of God, and\nof the Church as the society which recognises and receives it as such a\ngift, in distinction from a mutual benefit society organised for the\nedification of its own members, that the Church insists upon the due\norder of its administration; and it is through concentration upon this\nidea of holiness, and all that it ought to mean in our personal lives,\nthat we can make our greatest contribution towards bringing into\nexistence again a real Catholic Church, a Church which shall genuinely\ninclude all the persons who believe in Christ in one order and\nfellowship.  The first and indispensable condition of re-union is fuller\ndedication to the will of God in Christ.  We shall be united to one\nanother when we are all truly united to Him.\n\nBut, if that work is to be accomplished, we shall also need wisdom, in\norder rightly to counteract the effects alike of folly and of sin in the\npast history of the Church; and here every man must be willing to make\nwhat suggestions he can, merely submitting them for acceptance or\nrejection by the whole body of the Church; because unless people are\nprepared to speak of the problem as they see it, leaving the final\njudgment to be formed by the body of which they are members, there is no\nhope of our making any progress at all.\n\nI will therefore, venture to suggest to you six principles, upon which,\nas my vision is at present, I think we might come near to agreement\namong ourselves; and if we should agree upon them, then we could offer\nthese or whatever modifications of these the Church thinks fit, to those\nbodies which are at present in separation from us.\n\nI.--First, what do we mean by the Church? Ideally and in its eternal\nreality it is the Body and Bride of Christ, the instrument of His will\nand the object of His love, worthy as both.  But in the process of time\nand upon the stage of this world, what are we going to mean by it, and\nwho are we going to account its members?  When people begin to think of\nthis question, they always start with various enthusiastic schemes.  The\nmembers of the Church are the people who have faith, or the people who\nare conscious of the need of pardon, and the like; but all of this\nbreaks down because you can never tell who these people are.  We must\nhave some perfectly plain outward sign if the Church is to be an\noperative agency in this world; and you will find, I think, that there\nis none which you can reach except that it is the fellowship of the\nbaptized.  Baptism is the Lord's own appointed way by which men should\nbe received in the fellowship of His disciples. We must take that as our\nbasis.\n\nIt is no business of ours to pronounce judgment upon the spiritual state\nof other persons.  We shall thank God for every sign of the Christian\nvirtues and graces shown in other persons who have not been brought to\nbaptism; we may believe that they are members of the Church in heaven;\nbut still, I would submit, we must say for all purposes of practical\nworking, that the Church on earth is the fellowship of the baptized.\n\nII.--That fellowship exists in fragments and sections.  What is the\npeculiar mark of our fragment?  This is authoritatively defined for us\nin the Lambeth Quadrilateral,[#] but our special character may be\nexpressed briefly by saying that we are trustees for the Catholic order,\nwho yet reject what seem to us the accretions which the Church of Rome\nupholds.\n\n\n[#] (_a_) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. as\n\"containing all things necessary to Salvation,\" and as being the rule\nand ultimate standard of faith.\n\n(_b_) The Apostles' Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene\nCreed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.\n\n(_c_) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself--Baptism and the\nSupper of the Lord--ministered with unfailing use of Christ's words of\ninstitution, and of the elements ordained by Him.\n\n(_d_) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its\nadministration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of\nGod into the Unity of His Church.\n\n\nNow some such order as that which we maintain, is necessary, as it seems\nto me, to the fulfilment of the duty of charity.  I hope I am not unfair\nto those who are separated from us, and are influenced by the ideals of\nPuritanism; but it has seemed to me that their discipline is not always\ncharitable. Indeed, a Church must either excommunicate freely or else\npossess a recognised order if it is to avoid becoming indistinguishable\nfrom \"the world\" about it; if it is to be both holy and a friend of\nsinners it must have an order.  The order which we maintain is simply\nthat which has come down to us as the actual order of historic\nChristendom.\n\nIII.--Thirdly, I would submit that the Body with its orders is a living\nwhole, and that it is illegitimate to discuss such a question as the\n\"validity\" of Orders out of all relation to the historic life of the\nChurch.  The question of Orders must be considered in relation to the\nwhole life of the Body of which they are an organic part.[#]\n\n\n[#] See Appendix IV.  _On Orders and Catholicity_.\n\n\nThus, if we take the famous Quadrilateral as our starting point, a body\nwhich stands by the Canonical Scriptures, the Creeds and the two great\nSacraments, though not upholding the episcopal succession, is closer to\nthe ideal than one which is indifferent to any of these three as well as\nto the succession; it has maintained many of the (ex hypothesi)\nessential features of a true Church; it approximates to the complete\nrequirement.  Moreover, within the field of the problem of Orders, there\nare degrees of approximation; it is generally considered that an\nagreement between the Anglican and Presbyterian communions could be far\nmore easily reached than between the Anglican and some other Protestant\nbodies.  We must, therefore, avoid two kindred errors. One is to set up\nthe abrupt dilemma--\"Either a true Church or not,\" and the other is to\nregard the possession of \"valid\" Orders as being the one and only\ncondition of the Catholicity of the body possessing them.\n\nThe Church Visible cannot be identical with the Church Invisible; it is\nits sacrament. And the question resolves itself into one concerning the\ndegree of adequacy with which it expresses, _and thereby maintains\nthrough the ages_, the fulness of the truth.\n\nOur actual divisions in the West date from the Reformation.  No one\ndisputes that the Church just before that time was corrupt to a horrible\ndegree.  It is possible to hold that the corruption could have been\npurged away without schism if the reformers had been wholly free from\npride and impatience; I see no means of reaching a sound judgment on\nsuch a point; but at least it would seem that the guilt for the great\ndivision was as much in Catholics as in Protestants.  In so far as there\nreally was necessity of choosing between moral purity with schism on the\none hand, and organic unity with sales of indulgences and the like on\nthe other, there can be no doubt which the whole teaching of Christ\nrequired His followers to choose.  \"I will have mercy and not\nsacrifice\"; \"the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath\"; yet\nthe Sabbath and the sacrifice were of Divine appointment.\n\nIf then a fragment of the Church, confronted as it believes, with such a\nchoice, breaks off and organises itself afresh, intending to maintain in\npurity all the Church's life and means of grace, I cannot assert that it\nis for all its generations deprived of Christ's sacramental presence.\nBut assuredly the loss of the continuous order which so impressively\nsymbolises the Divine origin of the Church and of its Sacraments tends\nto undermine the intention to preserve the whole truth and to obscure\nbelief in it.  For Orders, as we understand them, are the pledge of the\nunity of the Church across all space and through all time, so that the\npriest who celebrates, does so as the organ and instrument of the\nuniversal Church, and the congregation at every Eucharist is not the few\npersons gathered together in that building, but Angels and Archangels\nand all the company of Heaven, with whom we join in prayer and worship.\n\nIV.--Consonantly with this I would come to my fourth principle--that the\nwhole question of Orders and Sacraments must be considered in reference\nto the Church's life through the ages, and not with direct reference to\nthe gift received by any individual at any given service.\n\nHow are we to secure (this is our problem) that from generation to\ngeneration men shall continue to feel that in the service of the Holy\nCommunion Christ comes to them as by His own appointment, and they have\nonly to be ready to meet with Him; and that in meeting with Him they are\nunited with the whole Church in the Holy Communion, the Communion of\nSaints?  I believe that the continued recitation of the Creeds in our\nown and other branches of the Church is the main safeguard, not only for\nourselves but also for those who do not say the Creeds, against that\ncombination of Pelagianism and Unitarianism to which men always tend to\ndrift; similarly I can conceive that, just because we uphold the full\nconception of sacramental worship, others are enabled to receive\nsacramental grace at their communions.  It may be so; I know not.  Of\ncourse it cannot be received if it is not there; but even if it is\nthere, its full benefit will not be enjoyed except by those who believe\nin its full power.  Two men may stand opposite the same picture; both\nsee the same lines and colours, the accidents; but it may be that only\none sees the artistic reality or substance--the Beauty--while the other\nis blind to it.  But the man who finds it does not put it there; the\nartist put it there; and if he had not done so no one could find it\nthere; so too the reality of the Sacrament is the work of God.  But our\nfruition of it depends on our faith, and even on the exact content of\nour faith.  Now I do not for a moment believe that that faith in the\nfull doctrine of sacramental grace can survive through the centuries, if\nit is once separated from the whole order which expresses it. Therefore,\nwhile I am not entitled to deny, as I am equally not concerned to\nassert, that the members of other denominations at their communion\nservice receive the same gift that we do; still I say that as trustees\nfor the Catholic order, and considering the matter in the light of the\ncenturies, we have no right to sacrifice any of those means by which\nthis full doctrine has been given to us, and by which perhaps it has\nbeen also preserved for them.\n\nV.--Fifthly, I would suggest that in any scheme for practical reunion no\nman must be required to repudiate his own spiritual ancestry.\n\nAfter all, if the Church is the fellowship of the baptized, then our\nbrethren of the separation, as we sometimes call them, are members of\nthe Church; but they are not members of our branch of the Church; and\ntheir faith is corporate and active in their membership of their own\nbodies; consequently we are bound to hold that they and their bodies are\nparts of the Catholic Church in this time of the division--the division\nwhich is due to sin.\n\nIf it is true that it was largely, and perhaps mainly, the fault of the\nmedieval Church that the split became a necessity; if it is true that it\nwas partly, and perhaps mainly, the fault of the Church of England that\nthe Wesleyan movement (for example) ever broke off, because we refused\nto make room for what was in its early stages most undoubtedly a\nmovement of the Spirit of God in the world, then we have no right to\ncondemn those who by reason of our sin, at least as much as their own,\nare outside our fellowship; and we must recognise that, just as in St.\nPaul's argument about the true Israel, blindness in part happened to\nIsrael, and so God used the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy--so\nblindness in part happened to Catholicism, and God is using the\nProtestant bodies to provoke us to jealousy.\n\nWe must, I believe, maintain that our order is for us the only possible\norder for the reunited Church.  But order is not everything.  The wall\nof the Holy City is minute.  When the time for reunion comes, we must\ninsist upon our own part of the truth in such a way as to avoid all\ncondemnation of other bodies for having been separated during this\ntime--at least, all condemnation which we do not pronounce quite equally\nupon ourselves.  What has happened in the divisions of the Church is a\nseverance from one another of elements which are every one of them\nnecessary to the healthy life of the Body.  If one set of people could\nonly get dry food and no drink, and another set could only get drink and\nno food, neither would be healthy.  They would have to combine their\nstores before health was possible.  Catholics have preserved perhaps a\nfuller sense of worship and of the gifts of God; Protestants have\nperhaps a truer zeal for righteousness and a more intimate access to God\nin prayer.  Let us not judge the past; God will judge.  But let us\nrecognise our need of one another and accept from each other the\npositive truth and life which God has given to either.\n\nVI.--Meanwhile, in the time of the division, different bodies have\ndeveloped different types of religious life.  There is a wealth of\nspiritual activity in the world now such as it is difficult to imagine\nunder a rigidly united Church; but we can easily preserve that if we are\nready that there should be within the United Catholic Church different\nOrders--an Order of St. George Fox for example, testifying to the great\nideal which Christ brought into the world, not as I think, and as I have\nalready explained, the right ideal to be followed by all men in all\nsorts of circumstances, but undoubtedly the one method by which in the\nend the work of God can be finally accomplished, and for testimony to\nwhich I believe some men, and indeed the whole Society of Friends, are\neven now called by God. Also there may well be an Order of St. John\nWesley, insisting more especially upon the need of individual\nconversion, which the Church, as a vast organisation concerned with\nworld movements, is perpetually tempted to leave too much on one side.\nThese Orders can quite well govern themselves to a very large extent,\nand order their worship in very many ways, just as is the case in the\nOrders familiar in the medieval Church, and in the Church of Rome at\nthis time.\n\n\nThese are the principles which I would venture to submit.  Probably not\none of them will win universal assent even in our own communion.  But\namid all our amiable sentiments it is time for somebody to say something\ndefinite, or as definite as the complexity of the problem allows.  In\ncriticising and rejecting individual utterances we may at last reach a\ncorporate mind.\n\nBut let me add one particular warning about the way we go: for in my own\nmind I am quite sure that the Communion is just the place where we need\nto be divided until our unity is real.  People say \"How terrible to be\nseparated there.\"  Yes, terrible indeed!  It is the measure of the sin\nof schism. But we must not try to escape the consequences of the sin\nuntil we have got rid of the sin itself.  I say nothing of the problem\nof the mission field or of the possibility of exceptional occasions.[#]\nBut I am quite sure that in normal Church life, where all people have\naccess to their own services, intercommunion can only be disastrous, as\ntending to obscure the need for real unity, and the difference between\nthe various excellences whose combination is to be desired.\n\n\n[#] It must of course be recognised that the problem of intercommunion\nin the mission field is of urgent practical importance.  On the present\nsituation, the Archbishop of Canterbury's statement, _Kikuyu_.\n\n\nBut let us come back to what after all is the only true guarantee and\nthe only condition of reunion--the achievement of holiness; that\nholiness needs, as we have seen, to be safeguarded, and the safeguarding\nof it is peculiarly entrusted to us, the ministers of the Church.  What\nneed then for personal dedication!  For upon the degree in which we are\nwholly given to our work depends in large measure the time when God will\nreunite His Church.\n\nWe keep separate even from many right activities, but only in order to\nkeep pure that spirit by which we are to permeate the whole life of the\nworld, bringing it to bear, so far as we are able in our detachment,\nupon every sort of problem, private or public--industrial, commercial,\npolitical, international--till at last the whole world is governed by\nthat spirit, and there is no need for separation any more nor for any\nspecial place of worship nor special order of religious ministers; for\nthen the world and the Church will be indistinguishable in the Holy City\nof God, wherein is no temple, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb\nare the temple of it.\n\n\n\n\n                              *LECTURE V*\n\n                      *THE CITIZENSHIP OF HEAVEN*\n\n\n\"Our citizenship is in heaven.\"--Philippians iii. 20.\n\n\"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.\"--S. John xiv. 9.\n\n\nWe have considered in outline the functions of the State and of the\nChurch, the two great instruments of God for the furthering of His\nkingdom.  Let us now turn to consider, still in mere outline, for\nnothing more is possible, the nature of that Kingdom itself.\n\nThere are very many ways in which the subject might be approached, but I\nthink that it will be most consonant with the general line of our\nthought in these meditations that we should consider it as the home of\nman's spirit, the fulfilment of his spiritual being. And to that end,\ninasmuch as the Kingdom can only be known by living according to the\nprinciples of its citizenship, and our present effort is by its very\nnature intellectual only, we must try to reach it in thought as the goal\ntowards which the whole spiritual life of man is tending.\n\nNo life can be set forth in scientific terms. The moment it is analysed,\nthe vitalising power is gone.  And even the poet, who has far more\nchance than the logician of making us realise what the life signifies\nfor those who live it, is still speaking of it from outside.  It is only\nby life itself that we can truly know the Kingdom of God.\n\nWe find, all through the New Testament, a contrast drawn between earth\nand heaven. And it is worth while to consider the logical principle of\nthat contrast, even though the result is somewhat dry and barren.  The\nplace of careful analysis here is analogous to that which criticism\nholds in relation to art. The critical analysis of a work of art will\nnever of itself enable us to appreciate it, if we are without the\ncultivated artistic faculty; but it may enrich our appreciation.  We may\nthereby find more than we should otherwise have found of the elements\nthat are combined together to make up the total effect.  And then in the\nunity of the renewed experience we receive more enjoyment than we had\ndone before.  So, too, the Kingdom of God, which for us is something\nthat we still hope to reach, and of which the foretaste that we have as\nyet received is a very slight earnest of the glory that shall be\nrevealed, may be a goal more potent in its attraction to our wills, when\nwe have seen it as the fulfilment of the principles of our whole\nspiritual life as these are discoverable in other departments and\nactivities.\n\nThe goods of this world, as we have already noticed, are such that the\nmore one has the less there is for others.  The goods of heaven are of\nsuch a kind that the more one has the more there is on that account for\nothers. So it is with the true virtues of the spiritual life, with love\nand joy and peace, the fruits of the spirit.  So it is too with other\nexcellences which belong to man as a spiritual being, and which are out\nof the reach of our animal nature: loyalty, beauty and knowledge.\n\nNow the principle of this whole spiritual life is precisely the\nprinciple of unity, not as distinct from variety but as distinct either\nfrom antagonism or transitoriness.  The two things that distress the\nsoul of man are enmities, and the passing away of that which he loves.\nIt is by rising above these evils, which beset us in this earthly state,\nthat the satisfaction of the soul is found.\n\nThere are four main departments of the spiritual life which aspire in\nthis way to rise above the evils which beset our mortal state. They are\nScience and Art and Morality and Religion.  As we know them in our\nexperience, they are all of them due on the human side to a\ndissatisfaction with our experience as we find it.  The scientific man\nis disturbed by the apparent chaos in his experience, and he sets out to\ngive order to it, and he is satisfied in so far as he discovers that all\nthe while it was not chaotic, as it seemed, but orderly. The artist is\ncraving for a beauty which, in his ordinary experience, he does not\nfind. He selects, he concentrates attention on certain aspects, to reach\na satisfaction which the world otherwise seems not to give.  The man of\nmoral aspiration is dissatisfied with the world as he sees it, and he\nsets himself therefore to alter both himself and it, that it may be\nmodelled more in accordance with the heart's desire.  And the religious\nman finds all of these sources of dissatisfaction working together\nwithin his soul; he seeks, and in faith finds, that which gives him both\npeace and power.\n\nLet us then begin with what is in itself the least rich of these forms\nof human activity, and consider how it is that Science reaches its\nunity.  Let us first recall that there are two forms of multiplicity or\ndivision which we are seeking to overcome: that which arises from the\nclash of various ideals or desires, the antagonism of man with man; and\nthat which arises from the changeableness of the world as we see it.\nWith regard to the latter, science does indeed reach real unities; but\nthey are unities which leave Time out of sight. Sometimes, no doubt, the\nsubject matter which is handled is itself non-temporal, but not in the\nsense of being eternal.  So, for example, geometry is entirely without\nrelation to time. There is no temporal sequence between the equality of\nthe sides and the equality of the angles in the isosceles triangle.  But\nwhere the subject studied is something that changes in Time, it remains\ntrue that the aim of science is to reach an unchanging principle.  So,\nfor example, the student of biology may be trying to discover the\nunchanging principle which governs the successive variations of species.\nBut when he has found it he has not really mastered the transitoriness;\nhe has not in any way gathered up the past and dead into his present\nexperience; he has merely found the principle which applies to every\nstage as that stage comes.  He reaches some superiority to the\ntransitoriness of things, only by abstracting from Time altogether.\n\nAnd, similarly, the unity between men which is produced by a common\nabsorption in such pursuits does not strike very deep. For a man's\ntemperament has nothing in the world to do with his scientific\nconclusions, or at least ought not to have.  In the ideal pursuit of\nknowledge, all of the things that set men at variance count for nothing\nwhatever.  Consequently the differences, just because they are ignored,\nare not overcome, with the result that, as at the beginning of this war,\nwe may find professors of the various nations, who had been linked\ntogether, as one might think, closely enough in the pursuit of\nknowledge, hurling manifestoes at one another across their national\nfrontiers.\n\nWhen we pass to the second of the great departments, a real progress may\nbe noted in just these points.  For in the experience of the artist Time\nis genuinely mastered. We get some illustration of this from the\nabsorption which marks the aesthetic contemplation of a picture or a\nstatue.  For the time that we are really held by it, we forget about\ntime altogether.  But the case is clearer with regard to those arts\nwhich handle temporal processes--music and poetry. For it is the whole\npoint, let us say, of a drama, that it shall follow a certain\nsuccession; it is vital to its significance that the scenes shall be in\nthat order and no other.  If you have two plays, each in three acts, in\none of which the first act is cheerful in tone, and the second is\nneutral, and the third depressing, while in the other the first act is\ndepressing, the second neutral, and the third cheerful, the total effect\nof the two plays is not the average of the three acts in each case,\nwhich would be neutral for both, but is in the one particularly\ndepressing, and in the other particularly cheering.  For the play is\ngrasped as a whole.  It makes a single impression, if it is a good play.\nWe know what it means--not indeed because we can state it in other\nwords, for it is the only expression of its own meaning; but it has a\ndefinite significance for us.  And the name of the play comes to stand\nfor that significance.  This is especially noticeable in tragedy, where\nthe Greeks, with their sure instinct, chose a story whose plot is known\nto the spectator in advance, so that we have throughout the play both\nthe impression of the entire story and the particular impression of each\nscene as it comes and passes.  It is significant that the Greeks did so\nchoose for tragedy stories whose plot was known, while their comedians\ninvented their own plots.  And most will agree that we enjoy a great\nplay better when we have read it in advance, or when we have already\nseen it on the stage before; because then we do reach something that may\nserve perhaps as the nearest image that we can get for eternity--a grasp\nof the whole stretch of time, realised in its successiveness and in the\nmeaning which that successiveness gives to it, and having the sense of\nthe whole throughout and seeing each moment, as it comes, in the light\nnot only of the past but of the future too.\n\nOn this side, then, art is able, for the moment at least, and with\nregard to a period definitely limited by our capacities of\ncomprehension, to master Time and give us a unity which includes its\nsuccessiveness within it; so that the past, and even the future, are\ngathered up into the real experience of the present, and we are not only\nconscious of what is before our eyes, but are conscious of it as a part\nof the whole to which it belongs.\n\nIn a similar way we notice that while different temperaments are needed\nfor the production of different types of art, yet in appreciation all\nare united.  For example, it would be quite impossible for the great\nRussian novels to be produced in any other country than Russia; it would\nhave been quite impossible for the great German philosophy to have been\nproduced in any other nation than Germany; it would have been quite\nimpossible for the great English poetry to have been produced in any\nother nation than England.  These literatures belong to the soil out of\nwhich they spring.  But the people of all the other nations can\nappreciate them, and all are glad because they are different.  And so\nfar as the artistic side of our nature governs our whole being, it is\ncapable of linking us together in a real fellowship, which includes and\nis based upon our differences and the appreciation of them, and is\ntherefore firmly rooted, because what might have been the source of\nantagonism is become itself the bond of unity.\n\nBut we must notice that each of these only reaches a very provisional\nattainment.  If science likes to mark off a certain department of\nreality for its investigation, it can reach something like finality\nconcerning just that department.  I suppose that mechanics is something\nlike a complete system of truth, so far as the mechanical aspect of\nthings can be isolated from all other aspects.  But then, nothing in the\nworld is mechanical and only mechanical.  Nothing in the world is\nchemical and only chemical.  There are always other qualities there,\nfrom which abstraction has been made.  Science therefore inevitably sets\nbefore itself as its goal the understanding of the universe, and it\ncould not reach any absolute certainty concerning any real fact except\nso far as it had obtained omniscience.  In mathematics it reaches\ncertainty, because in mathematics the object is what it is defined to\nbe, and nothing else.  But no given material thing is just a triangle.\nIt may even be disputed whether any given thing can be, according to the\ndefinition, a triangle at all.\n\nScience then is marked by a restlessness until it reaches this\nomniscience.  It began when the first man said \"Why?\"  The moment that\nquestion is asked, Science is launched upon its course.  But the answer\nto that question merely prompts anyone of scientific instincts to say\n\"Why?\" to the answer.  Why is there a war?  Historical science will\npoint to the diplomatic documents, and from them to the course of\nhistory moulding national aspiration.  Then if we say, \"Why was the\ncause of war such?  And, why were there such national aspirations?\" we\nshall find ourselves soon investigating the literature of the countries\nand then their climates; from this we are shortly involved in astronomy\nand geology and all the other sciences.  You can have nothing that is\nfinal until you reach omniscience.  And so Science moves, perpetually\nsaying \"Why?\" to every statement that is made.  Far in the distance, in\nthe infinite distance, is its goal of a complete satisfaction gained\nthrough understanding the universe in its entirety.\n\nArt can similarly only achieve a provisional attainment of its goal; but\nthe attainment while it lasts is more substantial.  Its method, as\ndistinct from that of science, is mental rest. The aim of the artist is\nto concentrate attention upon the object, holding it there by various\ndevices.  That is why pictures are put into frames.  Something abruptly\nirrelevant, although not discordant, is put round the object to help us\nfix our minds upon it.  That is why poetry is written in metre.  The\nmind is abruptly brought back by the recurrence of the rhythm or the\nrecurrence of the sound in rhyme, and held within the total composition.\nWe notice that it is precisely where the subject matter of the poem is\nslight that the rhythm needs to be strongly marked or the system of\nrhyme complicated; where the subject matter itself has a strong appeal,\nany rhyming seems to be out of place and tiresome.  The aim is simply to\ngrip the attention and hold it upon the object and make us see it as it\nis; not after the fashion of science, connecting it with other things,\nbut understanding it by getting to know it in and for itself as\nthoroughly as may be.[#]  Now in thus concentrating attention upon some\none object and claiming complete absorption in that object, art is\nimplicitly claiming to give a perfect mental satisfaction and an\nabsolute peace.  But it can never succeed in that unless the object upon\nwhich it is concentrating our attention is an adequate symbol for the\nwhole truth of things in which the whole of our nature will find such\nsatisfaction.\n\n\n[#] This is why no great work of art over becomes out of date, whereas\nthe work of a great scientist is always liable to do so, because his\nsuccessors revise it in the light of ever widening knowledge.\n\n\nMoreover, these activities of the mind or spirit fail to govern our\nlives as a whole precisely because they are contemplative and not\nactive.  We stand before the world gazing at it, setting our minds\nindeed to work upon it in certain ways, yet not fundamentally changing\nit.  But we are active beings, with wills as well as contemplative\nminds, and our volitional action lies very largely outside the range\nwhich these activities and interests can control.  And therefore it is\nthat so little real unity is reached by means of them.\n\nIn Morality the practical instincts and impulses are for the first time\nincluded. Morality is the science or the art, or both, of living in\nsociety; of living, that is to say, as fellow members with other beings,\nwho also have aspirations and ideals as legitimate as our own, so that\nour own claim to pursue our own ideals must be won by recognition of\ntheir equal claim to pursue theirs.  And the man who, with full mastery\nof himself, if such a man exists, is following out a great purpose that\nis adequate to satisfy his whole nature, is a man who has achieved the\nconquest of Time in the completest way.  It is essential to the pursuit\nof a purpose that we move from stage to stage, as we adapt means to our\nend, and yet all of it is one thing, thought and experienced as one.\nIndeed a test that we always instinctively apply to a biography is\nwhether it enables us to see the different stages of a man's life as\nconstituting one spiritual whole.  That is just what we desire the\nbiographer to set forth before us.\n\nAt the same time Morality conquers antagonism because it is the life of\nfellowship. It begins with the recognition that other men have as much\nright to live as we have, and we buy our rights precisely by conceding\ntheirs. Its root principle is the recognition of this brotherhood or\nfellow-membership.  And yet it, too, never reaches its goal; it fails in\ntwo ways; every man in this world, however perfectly he may achieve\nmastery of his own nature--and it may be doubted if any man has ever\ndone even that by his own strength--is so conditioned by circumstances\nthat he is never able to make his life a perfect masterpiece of art; and\nas regards the whole fellowship of which he is a member, and his own\nrelation to it, he can find no absolute rules except the command to\nreach a state of mind which he cannot reach by his own will.  There are\nno moral laws that are absolute except the law to love one's neighbour\nas oneself. All the rest have exceptions somewhere. \"Thou shall not\nkill,\" was the formula of the old law.  But we have altered it into,\n\"Thou shalt do no murder.\"  It is always wrong to murder, because murder\nis such killing as is wrong.  But it is not always wrong to kill. And so\nwe find no principle that can be made entirely binding and universal,\nexcept the law to love our neighbour as ourselves.  But how are we to do\nit?  Is there any man who seriously thinks that by taking thought he can\nmake himself love somebody else?\n\nAll of these three then, and the last as emphatically as any, in spite\nof its comprehending a greater section of human nature, fail to reach\ntheir own achievement.\n\nIn the fourth stage, in Religion, all would find their fulfilment.  For\nthe purpose of God, if there be a God, is the principle of unity which\nthe scientist is seeking.  The nature of God, if there be a God, is that\nperfect beauty which would be the culmination of the life of Art.  The\nrighteousness of God, if there be a God, is the satisfaction of the\nmoral aspiration. But we are not left so to conjecture what life would\nbe like if we could carry our own spiritual faculties to their own\nhighest development. We are given the express image of the person of\nGod.  \"He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.\"  We shall not indeed\nhave perfect knowledge of the sphere of religion until we have seen how\nthe whole of history and every detail of our lives is, after all, the\nresult and work of creative Love; but while Science and Art and Morality\nstruggle towards their goal and only realise their need for it, God\ngives Himself as the satisfaction of that need.  It is His gift, not our\ndiscovery; but we see that in this principle all Time is gathered up,\nfor if the life of Christ is the manifestation of the nature of God,\nthen it is the manifestation of the root-principle of all history.[#]\n\n\n[#] I am aware that the argument here is _per saltum_, but space forbids\nits full development.  I hope soon to have completed a book which will\nfill in the outline sketch offered in this Lecture.  Meanwhile I would\nrefer to my essay on _The Divinity of Christ_ in _Foundations_,\nspecially pp. 213-223, 242-263.\n\n\nThen we see, too, how all men may be united in perfect fellowship,\nbecause all men loving God will find themselves loving those whom God so\nloves.  This hope or conviction remains in the region of faith, not of\nknowledge; what of that?  In the other departments also we have found no\nknowledge.  We have only found approximation towards it.  We have, as it\nwere, converging lines which never meet; and we have also the point at\nwhich we see they would meet if produced.  Is that not enough?  Here we\nfind is the principle that will give unity, as we work it out, to the\nwhole scheme of our spiritual life.  Morality says, \"Love all men.\"  How\ncan I?  Science says, \"Realise the truth which explains the universe.\"\nHow can I?  But I can gaze upon the manifestation of God in Jesus\nChrist; I can meditate upon His Cross and Resurrection. I can see here\nand there how it may be true that this is indeed the explanation of all\nthe sorrow, even of all the sin.  For if it is true that the supreme\nmanifestation of the love of God was historically conditioned by the\nsupreme sin of humanity in the treason of Judas, then surely one begins\nto see how even out of the grossest evil the glory of God wins triumph\nfor itself, which we too may share if we are first drawn to share the\nsacrifice.\n\nAs I become absorbed in that contemplation I find in the first place a\nnew power to love all men, as I remember that He died for them just as\nHe died for me.  In the degree in which I really believe that this is\nthe manifestation of the power of God and the governing authority of the\nuniverse, I find this thought over-ruling other thoughts and temptations\nto hostility or enmity.  As I remember that those whom I am inclined to\ndespise or hate are those for whom He thought it worth while to die, my\ncontempt and my hatred are rebuked and cancelled.\n\nAnd similarly, if I realise--or in the degree in which I realise--that\nhere is set forth the power that governs all things, that this is the\nway in which God rules the world, and that Calvary is the mode of His\nomnipotence, I begin to find myself indifferent, and that increasingly,\nto those things which are called sorrow and pain.\n\nBut we shall only find this as we expect to find it.  All through our\nspiritual life we may be perpetually in contact, as it were, with the\nmeans of receiving what is good, and never receive it because we are not\nexpecting it.  We have not expected peace of mind from our worship, we\nhave not expected a sense of security against evil; that is why we have\nnot found it; but it is our fault.  And certainly most of us have not\nexpected to find fellowship from worship.  We have known something of\nthe grace of Jesus Christ, perhaps even of the love of God; but of the\nfellowship of the Holy Spirit, of the sense of being linked to one\nanother because all dominated by that one power, most of us have found\nnothing, because we have not expected it.\n\nBut if we are expecting this, all the testimony of the saints in every\ngeneration goes to show that we shall find what we have expected.\n\nThe power that can give us security against the transitoriness of the\nworld and against the instincts of antagonism is there in the faith that\nwe place in God.  \"I will put my trust in God,\" the Psalmist says, \"I\nwill not fear what flesh can do unto me.\"  This is not because flesh\nwill not do such hurt as it can to the man who puts his trust in\nGod--the Jews crucified Christ--but because to the man who puts his\ntrust in God, anything whatever that happens becomes part of God's\npurpose for his life, and therefore he will not fear it. For \"all\nthings,\" sorrow as well as joy, pain as well as pleasure, sin as well as\nrighteousness, \"all things work together for good to them that love\nGod.\"\n\n\n\n\n                              *LECTURE VI*\n\n                            *GOD IN HISTORY*\n\n\n\"I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, which is and which\nwas and which is to come, the Almighty.\"--Revelation i. 8.\n\n\nWe have considered the two great instruments of God by which He fashions\nthe spiritual life of man, and we have considered that spiritual life\nitself in the outline at least of its four main departments; and now, as\nwe close our line of thought, we need still to consider how it is that,\nin these fields and by these instruments, God carries forward His work.\n\nThe conception of God as at work in human history, guiding it,\ncontrolling it, and judging men by its course, is the great contribution\nof Israel to the religion of the world.  It is linked of course with\nthat belief in the union of perfect righteousness with the divine, power\nwhich we usually speak of under the somewhat cumbrous title of Ethical\nMonotheism.  We remember what was really at stake in that great day upon\nMount Carmel when Elijah confronted the priests of Baal; it was whether\nthe conception of God as righteous and demanding righteousness should\nprevail, or the conception of God as a capricious Being, needing only to\nbe propitiated, and in connection with whose very worship licentiousness\nwas tolerated and even encouraged.\n\nBut, after all, the greatest souls, at least in every highly-developed\nreligion, have believed that God is righteous in Himself. What gives to\nIsrael its supreme significance in the spiritual history of mankind is\nthe conviction that this righteous God is daily and hourly at work in\nthe history of men; and that conviction gives to the faith of Israel a\nprimacy and supremacy over all the other partial faiths, even though\nthey may be superior in certain departments.\n\nIf we think of some of the conceptions by means of which we try to bring\nbefore our minds the meaning of the word \"God,\" we may find that with\nregard to several of them, other nations had advanced further than\nIsrael before the coming of the Lord.\n\nGod is Spirit.  The Hindu knew that, and knows it still, quite as much\nas Israel.\n\nGod is Law.  The more thoughtful at least among the ancient Romans, and\nparticularly the great Roman Stoics, knew that with a vividness that was\nscarcely ever attained in Israel.\n\nGod is Beauty.  Assuredly the ancient Greeks knew that as Israel never\nrealised it at all.\n\nBut the conception of Israel that God is at work in history means that\nthe God of Israel gives to these other gods or conceptions of God, each\nits own time and place of emergence and decay.  The God who is revealed\nto us in the Old Testament is Himself the Being who appoints that the\nIndian or the Roman or the Greek should reach these particular\nconvictions; and in these partial apprehensions of the Divine, before\nthe full revelation came, the faith of Israel is determinative and\nregulative for all the other faiths; and moreover, it is this faith that\nGod is at work in the actual daily history of men, which makes the faith\nof Israel the natural and proper introduction to the Incarnation, where\nGod Himself took flesh and lived among men and died at a time and in a\nplace--in Palestine and under Pontius Pilate.\n\nThis exaltation of the Holy God, actually at work within men and at\ntheir side, while it leads to a sense of awe before the Holiness of the\nAlmighty, also leads to a sense of the dignity of this world, and of\nman's life in it, which is lacking, as a rule, from other great\nreligions, and that too in proportion as those other religions are\nspiritual.  For the Hindu, for example, this world and all that is in it\nis mere illusion.  He is spiritual enough but he is not material enough;\nand we find there that contempt for the things of the body which\ninvariably issues in a contempt for moral conduct; for our moral conduct\nhere, while we live upon this planet, is wrought out through our bodies.\nBut the religion of Israel, and especially its completion in the\nIncarnation, wherein God Himself came in the flesh, gives at once a\ndignity to this world of ours, to our bodies, and to all the material\nside of life.\n\nWhen Christ stood before Pilate, the Kingdom of God was in appearance,\nat least, undergoing judgment at the hands of the kingdom of this world;\nbut it is not merely a contrast of good with evil.  It is a contrast of\nthe perfect with the very imperfect, but yet not merely evil, power.\nPilate is not Satan; and the Lord Himself, in the moment of His trial,\nrecognises that the authority by which He is condemned is an authority\nthat is derived from God--\"Thou couldest have no power at all against\nMe, except it were given thee from above.\"  The kingdoms of this world,\nwhich are to become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ, are not\nsimply something evil.  The contrast of Church and World is not the\ncontrast between good and evil; but it is the contrast between two\nstages in the work which God is accomplishing in history, and those two\nmay often come into conflict.\n\nLet us then ask what is the central principle of God's guidance of His\npeople, so far as it may be deduced from the tiny fragment of history\nthat we really know.  In that fragment at least, we may say, I think,\nwith little hesitation, that its method and its aim is spiritual growth,\nor, if you like to put it an expansion and enrichment of personality.\n\nWe are sometimes inclined to think our own personality is something that\nis given to us from the outset, and entirely belongs to us; but that\nidea will not stand examination for a moment.  Individual personality is\na social product.  It can only be developed under social influences.  A\nman may be born with many great talents, but if his environment does not\nencourage their development, these talents will remain for the most part\nundeveloped and unknown--either to himself or to anybody else.  Indeed\nthe greater the talent with which a man is endowed, the more difference\nis made to him by the kind of surroundings in which he is put.  A man of\nvery few gifts and little natural capacity will be much the same,\nwhether he has abundant opportunity for mental and spiritual growth or\nlittle opportunity; but the man of great capacities, needing for their\ndevelopment the encouragement of surroundings, is an entirely different\nbeing according as those surroundings are favourable or the reverse; and\nso we reach the curious result that the greatest personality, while no\ndoubt he must have brought into the world something given to him by God\nthat was capable of development, is yet more entirely dependent upon the\nsociety in which he is living than people with a less wide range of\ngifts.\n\nAgain, it is only within a society which has developed some character\nfor itself, which has indeed a personality of its own, that individual\npersonality can reach very much development. You cannot have genius in a\nsavage tribe. Genius is the focal expression of the personality of a\nwhole people.  It is that people coming to life, and possessed of voice;\nand you do not find it where there is little social development.  It is\nonly as the tribe or the nation begins to have some definite character\nof its own that it is itself sufficiently organised to develop from its\nown individual member those gifts, and elicit those activities, which\nare the signs of genius.\n\nWe find then, that individual personality, or spiritual life, is\ndependent upon the spiritual life of society; and we need to notice that\nthis society has every mark by which we distinguish personality in the\nindividual.  It has aspirations: it has a predominant character; it has\nclaims, and it has duties. It has in fact, in the literal sense of the\nword, corporate personality, and just as the many instincts and impulses\nwhich are to be found in human nature, and may be very discordant with\none another, are welded together to make up the single life of a human\nbeing, so the whole gifts and instincts and ambitions and aspirations of\nall the individual citizens are welded together, to make up the\npersonality of the whole society.\n\nMoreover, every nation is in itself not only the combination of\nindividual citizens, but also of minor groups within itself, all of\nwhich have these same marks, and all of which are in the real genuine\nsense persons, spiritual individuals with a life of their own.\n\nNow, as we look over the history of the development which thus goes on\nside by side in the individual and in society, we find that its\nprinciple in the fragment of history that we really know has been that\nisolated excellences should be brought to perfection first; and after\nsomething like perfection has been reached in the separate departments\ntaken singly, the combination of them is brought about, in order that\nthe richer and fuller life may be perfected, in which all of them find a\nplace.\n\nEuropean history derives its whole life from Palestine, Greece and Rome;\nand in each of those three peoples, some one excellence was developed to\na peculiar degree.  Rome perfected and has bequeathed to us the\ninstincts for social order, as embodied in law. The history of the Roman\npeople is of significance, precisely because one may there trace the\ngrowth and working out of this instinct for social or political life.\nThere has never been anything to rival it in history. No modern nation\nhas shown the same extraordinary political sense and sanity.  The Romans\nwere not great political philosophers. They did not think very much\nabout the principles on which they acted; but simply because of their\npeculiar gift in this direction they welded together a social order\nwhich lasted throughout their Empire in a wonderful way; and to this day\nthe law of Europe is to an enormous extent the law of ancient Rome.\n\nTo ancient Greece, it is hard to say what we do not owe.  Her peculiar\ncharacteristic is intellectual passion; a passion for reaching\nperfection in just what the intellect is particularly qualified to\ngrasp, truth and beauty. No doubt the ancient Greeks themselves thought\na great deal about their ordinary politics and their military\nactivities, and the wars between the various States; but these matter\nvery little.  The Greek people are significant for evermore not because\nof the Athenian trireme or the Macedonian phalanx, but because Aeschylus\nstood in astonished awe before the operation of the Divine Justice;\nbecause Sophocles reflected the whole of human life, even its ugliest\nmanifestations, in the mirror of a soul so calm and pure, that as we\nlook at that reflection all life seems bathed in peace and beauty;\nbecause Euripides entered into the sorrows of simple folk; because\nThucydides, with a still unrivalled zeal for the genuine truth of\nhistory, said the wise word about nearly every political condition that\nhas arisen since his time; because Plato dreamed \"a Vision of all time\nand all existence,\" proclaimed that it can never be just to do harm to\nany man whatever harm he may have done to us; proclaimed also that \"God\nis in no way unrighteous, but in all ways absolutely righteous, nor is\nanything more like to God than whosoever among men shall become\nperfectly righteous;\" foreseeing also that if a perfectly righteous man\nshould come on earth he would die, scourged and crucified.[#]  There is\nnowhere before the New Testament anything that comes nearer to its own\nhighest truths, not in the Old Testament itself, than what you will find\nin Plato.\n\n\n[#] _Republic_ i. 335*d*; _Theaetetus_ 176*c*; _Republic_ ii. 361*e*.\n\n\nThis influence,--the influence of this intellectual passion--has been\nthe driving force in nearly all the movements since that time. It has\nbeen said there is nothing in the world which moves that is not Greek in\norigin, and it is almost true; it is from the Greeks that we have learnt\n\"the use of reason to modify experience\" and they derived it from the\nintellectual passion for truth and beauty.\n\nTo Palestine we owe the inspiring and governing faith of which I have\nalready spoken--the one faith that can give real significance to these\nother two, faith in the Holy God at work in history.\n\nIt is noticeable that each of these countries was conspicuously weak in\nthose other qualities which were not especially entrusted to it.\nAncient Rome was not at all specially religious and was conspicuously\nunintellectual. The people of Greece again are not conspicuously\nreligious, though in their cults there is a haunting beauty; and they\nwere not at all politically successful; the history of Athens, the\nflower of Greece, is the history of a State in which almost every\ngeneration threw up a supreme genius who proceeded to change the\nconstitution in accordance with his magnificent ideas; the result was\npolitical instability of an appalling character.[#]  And Palestine has\ncontributed very little to us as regards social organisation, and is\nmarkedly lacking in the scientific and artistic gifts. We have only to\nconsider the great images that are set before us, let us say in the Book\nof Ezekiel, or again in the Book of Revelation, to see that there is no\nattempt in these efforts of the imagination to achieve a beautiful or\nharmonious whole.  The symbolic elements are added one to another\nbecause of the value of their meaning; but there is no effort to\nvisualise the whole; and if we try to make it, we quickly find that such\na thing was never intended.\n\n\n[#] It is of course true that the Greek genius gave us what we now mean\nby civilisation, namely, the combination of political unity and personal\nfreedom.  On this see the admirable first chapter of Mr. Edwyn Bevan's\n_The House of Seleucus_.  But it remains true that the race from whose\nintellectual genius this whole product sprang had not in any\nconsiderable degree the capacity for controlling their own invention.\n\n\nEach of these then reached a genuine supremacy in its own department;\nand the history of Europe is to an enormous extent the history of the\ninter-action of these three forces as they mingle and combine in the\npolities of the barbarian invaders who wrecked the Roman Empire.  We\nwatch the periods of domination of each successively.  Christianity grew\nup within the Roman Empire, and the fascination of that great Empire\ncast a glamour about it in the minds even of those who destroyed it, so\nthat the life which emerges out of chaos in the Middle Ages is\npredominantly very Latin.  The Renaissance is precisely the invasion of\nGreek influence, and the Reformation is very largely the rediscovery of\nthe Hebrew.\n\nFor a while the three new forces worked together, carrying men's thought\nand action forward; and then in the 18th century it would seem that\nthere was, in England at any rate, a torpor due to their exhaustion;\nwhen revival came it was because Wesley and his friends revived the\nHebrew element in our life, because Newman and Pusey with their friends\nrevived the Latin element, and because F. D. Maurice and the Broad\nChurch movement revived the Hellenistic, and this, with its passion for\nmore adequate comprehension and expression, is the dominant force of our\ntime.  We watch these three influences still at work; but as they\ninteract upon one another and within the persons of the new races, a new\nproduct is gradually being produced, and in those corporate\npersonalities which we call nations, we see a character being born which\nis something that history has not known before.\n\n\nThe first requirement of personality is always freedom--freedom as we\nhave already said in its two senses, that conduct is not dictated from\nwithout but is governed by the whole person, and not by isolated\nelements; and the corporate persons need freedom just as much as the\nindividual; hence the need, the vital and absolute need, for political\nsovereignty in any State which is conscious of itself as a person, that\nis as having a single spiritual life.\n\nBut that life and freedom are exercised only in the citizens who are\nmembers of the State.  We cannot surely assert that the corporate person\nis immortal, as the individual is; and therefore, to destroy a State is\nto inflict a more irreparable loss than to kill a man, which is one\nreason at least, perhaps the chief reason, why a man should die for the\npolitical freedom of his country, and even, if need be, kill for it;\nbut, as freedom is the first requirement of personality, fellowship is\nits first duty, for it is true of corporate personalities quite as much\nas of individuals that they only find themselves and fulfil themselves\nin their inter-action upon one another, and the nations of the world do\nin fact need one another, and need one another's full life.\n\nIn economics we found out long ago that in order to be wealthy, a\ncountry needs rich neighbours who may afford good markets. It is so in\nevery other department.  We need the gifts of the other peoples.  We\nneed that they shall be free and vigorous.  Indeed the chief lesson\nwhich the world at this time needs to learn is just this--that all the\nnations of the world need one another, each needing also that the others\nshould be free, in order that they may bring their contributions to the\ncommon life in which all share.\n\nBut we should, I think, be reading the signs of the times amiss if we\ndid not also take account of the fact that there has been growing up\nlately a new type of corporate personality, not known to history before,\nand exemplified by your own United States and by the British Empire; the\nconception of sovereign States linked together in a single life, and\nexercising therein a joint sovereignty in dealing with those who lie\noutside the federation, is something of which history bears no record;\nand we need to try to understand its principle, and see what it is\ncapable of contributing to the life of men in order that we may not fail\nto use our opportunity, and bring our contribution.[#]\n\n\n[#] See Appendix V.  _On Providence in History_.\n\n\n\nThere is our outline sketch of the way in which the history of our own\ncivilisation has grown, within which the Church and Nation are at work.\nWe are members of both. What duty falls upon us as the result of that\ndual membership?  The Christian citizen is called of necessity to fulfil\none of three functions--prophet, priest and king.\n\nThe prophet is one who is called to testify to the ideal unflinchingly,\nnot considering consequences, not perhaps considering ways and means of\nreaching the ideal, but simply insisting on its nature and calling men\nand nations to penitence so far as they fail to reach it.  It may\nrequire more courage than the office of the king or statesman, and yet\nin itself it is the easiest, because it is relatively simple.\n\nIn all modern nations, and more so in the degree in which they are\ndemocratic, every citizen partakes of the duty of kingship. He has some\nshare in determining how his nation shall act, either in the management\nof its own internal affairs or in its dealings with other people, and\none who has this responsibility and is also a Christian, is involved in\nthe absolute duty of trying to think, and to think with genuine effort,\nhow he may be actually guiding his nation toward the ideal. He must not\nbe content with pious platitudes leading to no action, nor content to\nconsider only his own country's welfare; but as a member of the Church\nof Christ which embraces all mankind, he is called to think out and,\nhaving thought, to pursue in act the methods by which his nation may\ngenuinely be doing its part to build up the one great Temple of God--His\nHoly City.\n\nThe priest is prophet and statesman, both at once.  He, as minister of\nthe Word of God, must perpetually insist upon the true ideal, and bid\nmen to guard against all self-contentment so far as they fail to reach\nit; and yet he must be ready to take his stand by the side of every\nindividual or group of individuals, even of the nation itself, nerving\neach to do the best of which it then and there in the circumstances of\nthe day is capable.  And meanwhile he is a wretched human being like the\nrest, terribly liable to pride if he upholds an ideal higher than is\nusually recognised; terribly liable to worldliness, alike in his own\nsoul and in his teaching, if for a single moment he forsakes the Divine\nPresence; and uniquely exposed to the deadliest of all temptations; for\nwhile we preach what neither we nor anybody else can practise, we are\nsorely tempted to be content with spiritual mediocrity ourselves.\n\nBut above all, at this time the necessity, I think, is for a clear\ntestimony concerning the purpose of God for His people, and His kingdom\nthat shall surely come.  We have made our precepts so tame; our efforts\nfor peace and fellowship have been so much less exhilarating than other\nmen's efforts for war; we have been very mild; and that is not the\nspirit of Christ, or of His Kingdom.  The spirit of Christ is the spirit\nof all heroism in all ages.\n\nIn 1848, a little republic was founded in Rome to stand for justice and\npurity of government amid the corrupt States all round.  It was attacked\nby those States, and at last it yielded; on the day when the\ncapitulation was signed masses of people were gathered together in the\ngreat Piazza outside St. Peter's, and there rode among them the man\nwhose faith and heroism had sustained that siege for more weeks than the\nwiseacres thought it could last days.  When the cheering had subsided,\nhe made no acknowledgment, but simply said:\n\n\n    \"I am going out from Rome.  I offer neither quarters, nor\n    provisions, nor wages. I offer hunger, thirst, forced marches,\n    battles, death.  Let him who loves his country with his heart\n    not with his lips only follow me.\"\n\n\nAnd they streamed out after him into the hills.  His name was Garibaldi;\nand because of his heroism and theirs the kingdom of Italy is in the\nworld to-day.\n\nBut the invitation of Christ is in exactly that spirit--\"I offer neither\nquarters, nor provisions, nor wages.  I offer hunger, thirst, forced\nmarches, battles, death.\"  \"If any man would come after Me, let him deny\nhimself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.\"\n\nThe cross, when our Lord spoke those words, was quite a real thing.  To\ntake up the cross did not mean bearing life's little inconveniences with\nequanimity.  It meant literally to put the rope round one's neck, and be\nready simply for anything that might come.  That is the spirit in which\nwe are summoned to work for Christ.  Can we rise to it?  The Prince of\nPeace was not a \"mild man.\"  This is the vision that His disciple had of\nHim:\n\n\n    \"His head and His hair were white, as white wool, white as snow;\n    and His eyes were as a flame of fire; and His feet like unto\n    burnished brass, as if it had been refined in a furnace; and His\n    voice as the voice of many waters.  And He had in His right hand\n    seven stars: and out of His mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged\n    sword; and His countenance was as the sun shineth in its\n    strength.  And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as one dead.\"\n\n\nCan we present the figure of Christ as endowed with anything like that\ncompelling power?  If so, we are worthy ministers. It not, we are making\ndull the one great adventure of the world.\n\nThere is only one way in which we can succeed.  It is that we cling to\nfaith in God, the Author of the drama, in which we play our part; God,\nHimself the Guide along the path we are to follow; God, not only the\nGuide, but the very Way in which we are to walk; God, not only the Guide\nand Way, but the Strengthener within our souls, enabling us to follow;\nand God the Guide, the Way, the Strengthener, Himself also the Goal to\nwhich we would come.  \"For in Him we move and live and have our being.\"\n\n    Yea thro' life, death, thro' sorrow and thro' sinning\n      He shall suffice me, for He hath sufficed;\n    Christ is the end, for Christ was the beginning,\n      Christ the beginning, for the end is Christ.\n\n\n_I am the Alpha and the Omega, saith the Lord God, which is and which\nwas and which is to come, the Almighty._\n\n\n\n\n                              *APPENDIX I*\n\n                   *ON THE APOCALYPTIC CONSCIOUSNESS*\n\n\nIt is very difficult for the modern reader to recover the frame of mind\nin which Apocalypse has its origin, but we may do this more easily if we\nlook for parallels outside the field of religious history.  It has been\nwell said that the mediaeval man looked upwards and downwards--to Hell\nand to Heaven; his view of the world is on a vertical plane; the modern\nman has a horizontal view, looking to the past and future--the past as\nit has existed, and the future as it shall exist, in the history of\nhuman society upon this earth.  We need if possible to combine these\ntwo, but it is a very difficult achievement.  With our point of view we\ninevitably read Apocalypse as if it were a literal history of the future\nwritten before the event; but this is not its primary significance.  The\nreligious consciousness from which it springs was highly indifferent to\nthe lapse of time: very likely the seer expected the speedy realisation\nof his vision so far as he thought about things in that way at all, but\nthis was not his primary concern.  Let us take a parallel, as was\nsuggested a moment ago, from another field.  The socialistic movement in\nits early days seemed committed to an immediate expectation of the\nmillennium following upon a catastrophic change in the structure of\nhuman society.  The arrival of the millennium now seems postponed\nindefinitely and evolution has taken the place of revolution as a\nmethod, and yet a socialist who is really in the movement does not feel\nany breach of continuity; he knows that he is one in spirit with the\nearlier writers and that they were never mainly concerned either with\nthe date at which the millennium would come or the means by which they\nimagined it brought about, but precisely with the contrast between the\nideal as they conceived it and the actual as they saw it.\n\nWe may take another instance from a slightly different department of\nthought. Dante imagined that the Mount of Purgatory was the immediate\nantipodes of the Hill of Zion, but if some traveller had gone round the\nworld and assured him that the Mount of Purgatory was not there, it\nwould not in the smallest degree have affected his doctrine of\nPurgatory.  So it is with the apocalyptists; there is an immense amount\nof machinery provided by which this world is to be abruptly changed into\nthe Kingdom of God, and because that Kingdom is so present to the\nconsciousness of the writer, he can speak of it as even now about to\nappear upon the earth.  But this is not what chiefly interests him: his\npoint of view is vertical, not horizontal; all time-spans are\nforeshortened into a moment, because his whole interest is in the\ncontrast between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world; we\ntherefore do him wrong in supposing that the postponement of his hope is\nany grievous disappointment, or any proof of real error.  The date of\nits fulfilment was never a matter of much concern to him.\n\nSo we may, I think, reverently believe that our Lord Himself passes\nthrough the experience of the apocalyptists at moments of great\nexultation, as, for example, when the seventy return and say that the\ndevils are made subject to them, or when He realises the imminence of\nthe fall of Jerusalem, and therefore the removal of the chief barrier to\nHis Kingdom's progress.  All time is foreshortened; Satan falls from\nHeaven and the Son of Man appears in glory; but this is no forecast of\nhistory as we understand history.  One evangelist tells us of a parable\nwhich He uttered precisely because of His perception that the disciples\nerroneously supposed \"that the Kingdom of God was immediately to\nappear.\"  All His insistence upon the coming Kingdom is focussed in the\nPassion, as has been shown in the text.  When the revelation of God's\ninmost nature was completed in the completion of His own self-sacrifice,\nthis brought with it the power that could change the kingdoms of this\nworld into the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ.  From then onwards\n\"He cometh with the clouds\"; but the completion of His Kingdom when\n\"every eye shall see Him, and they which pierced Him,\" lies still in the\nfuture. The contrast of tenses in this passage can hardly be accidental;\nfrom the moment when He was lifted up from the earth in the Passion,\nResurrection and Ascension (which are the revelation in successive\nphases of the one unchanging glory of God) His coming is a present fact;\nbut our perception of His coming is something still growing as His\nSpirit guides us into all the truth, until at last we know even as we\nare known.\n\n\n\n\n                             *APPENDIX II*\n\n                   *ON MORAL AND SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY*\n\n\nIt may be objected that the Church should never in any circumstances\nemploy force--at any rate, physical force.  But I believe the objection\nis due, partly to a latent Manichaeism which holds that matter is always\nevil, or at least \"unspiritual,\" and partly to a very just fear that\nforce may be wrongly used if its use is permitted at all.  Yet there are\nsome cases where the Church would plainly be not only at liberty, but\nmorally bound, to use force.\n\nSuppose a clergyman begins to give teaching that is absolutely at\nvariance with the doctrine of the Church, the Church may appeal to his\nbetter feelings and ask him to resign; but if he will not, the Church\nmust assuredly have the right to turn him out, and that, if necessary,\nby force.\n\nNo doubt in a civilised country what the Church does as a rule is to ask\nthe State to act against the man, on the ground that he has broken\ncontract and holds his position on false pretences.  This is what the\nMediaeval Church called \"handing the offender over to the secular arm.\"\n\nBut let us imagine the situation in a Mission Church where a convert\nhas, for penance, been excluded from attendance at public worship for a\nperiod.  Suppose he insists upon coming; then certainly the congregation\nwould be right forcibly to remove him.  Again, supposing the use of\nforce as discipline may be of advantage to moral development (and up to\na certain stage I am sure it may), and supposing there is no civilised\nState to employ it, the Church will be right to do what is best for the\ncharacter of those for whom it is concerned.  But no doubt all this is\npurely preparatory to the positive spiritual work of the Church, which\nmust always take the form of appeal and not of force.\n\nThere is, however, so much confusion on the subject of moral and\nspiritual authority in general, that it may not be out of place to add\nhere some remarks upon it.\n\nThe word \"authority\" is derived from a Latin word which may perhaps be\nbest translated by \"weight.\"\n\nWhen we speak of a man of weight, or an opinion that carries weight, we\nhave something very near the original meaning of the term authority.\nSometimes we are inclined to think of authority as best represented by\nthe political ruler, or the military commander. But these are not really\ntypical kinds of authority.  They are very special cases where authority\nis clothed with compelling force. But in the spheres of which we are\nthinking there is not necessarily present any compelling force at all.\nWhen we think of authority in religion, in its connection with morals\nand such questions, there is no force, at any rate necessarily, present\nat all, and the Church's authority in the true sense is not any the less\nbecause it does not practise the methods of the Inquisition: nor was it\nany greater in the days when to its own proper authority it added\ncoercive power, appealing to people in the name of what is in itself not\nauthority strictly speaking, at all.  For if I believe just because the\nChurch is an assembly of the saints of God and its formularies are\nsummaries of their experience, then I am believing on the ground of the\nChurch's authority.  But if I believe because an officer of the Church\nthreatens me with the rack in the case of disbelief, I am believing not\nbecause the Church has authority, but because I dislike physical pain.\n\nSo authority always in the end means weight--what carries weight with\nour judgment. We can weigh one authority against another; we may weigh\nthe authority of one theologian with that of another by considering\nwhich has shown the greater knowledge of the subject in question and the\nsounder judgment in dealing with it.  In moral questions we do as a\nmatter of fact perpetually come back to the man of moral weight.  And\nwhat constitutes his weight is to begin with a certain uprightness in\nhis own character, and then a certain sympathy and insight which enables\nhim to understand how he would apply to the circumstances of other\npeople the principles by which he lives in his own.  So, for example,\nAristotle in the end determines all moral questions by reference to the\nstandard which the man of moral sense would use; everything in the last\nresort is determined simply by his judgment.  Virtue, he says, resides\nin a mean between two vicious extremes, and the mean is to be determined\nby a principle which the man of moral sense would use.  Later on, after\nan interlude of two or three books wisely interpolated, he comes to ask,\nWho is the man of moral sense? and he turns out to be the man who has\nthe right principle enabling him to determine the mean between vicious\nextremes; that is to say, that his standard of judgment in the end is\nsimply the good, sensible man, and for practical purposes that does well\nenough, because for practical purposes we do know whose judgment we\nvalue, we do know who it is whose approval we should care to win, whose\napproval would of itself assure us that our conduct was right, and whose\ndisapproval would of itself go far at least to assure us that our\nconduct was wrong, or at any rate that the matter needed careful\nreconsideration.\n\nThere is indeed another method than this of reliance upon the authority\nof a wise man, and it is represented by the other great thinker of\nGreece, by Plato.  Plato's ideal method in moral questions was to try to\ndetermine the purpose of the whole universe and then determine how in\nany given circumstances a man may serve that purpose.  The basis of his\nmorals, in other words, was what we should call theological; and so far\nas we are able to apply this, it is the only finally satisfactory\nmethod; so far as we can say that the principles of Christianity\nimperatively demand some particular action or attitude of mind, we shall\nnot care how little other authority we can quote, but shall say that we\ncan see quite clearly that our allegiance to Christ and His religion\ninvolves a certain point of view for us; and if no one else has taken\nthat point of view, provided we can find no flaw in our reasoning, we\nshall say none the less, This is the point of view which we, as\nChristians, are bound to take.\n\nThat has been the method by which, as a matter of fact, most Christian\nreforms have been carried out.  That was the way by which, in an\ninstance to which I shall return in a moment, slavery was abolished.\nSlavery had been tolerated by the Christian Church for centuries.  The\nauthority of the Christian Church might therefore have been quoted as\nsubstantially in favour of it.  A very large number of Christians did,\nin fact, favour retaining it, because, of course, the abolition of the\nslave trade was an interference with property, and heartrending appeals\nwere made in the name of \"the unfortunate widow with a few strong\nblacks,\" as in our day appeals are made against legislation in the name\nof the widow who has shares in breweries.  But Wilberforce's point of\nview was simply this, that whatever the Church may have said through all\nthese centuries, when you look at the Christian principle of the right\nway to treat human beings it condemns slavery; and if all the Christians\nin all the ages had denied that, it would not have altered the fact\nthat, as we see it--so Wilberforce and his friends would have urged--as\nwe see it, slavery is condemned; that is enough for us; we go forward in\nthe certainty that we are carrying out the will of God.  Wilberforce\nbrought people round to his point of view; now you will hardly find a\nChristian to defend slavery as an institution.  Some day, perhaps, it\nwill be the same with war.\n\nBut in most moral questions the authority to which we appeal is not that\nof the good and wise individual, but that of the moral sense of our\ncivilisation.  We can very seldom give an adequate reason for those\npoints on which we have the strongest moral convictions. For example, in\nargument I suppose we should most of us find it very difficult to\nproduce a case for monogamy as against polygamy anything like so strong\nas the feeling which we have in favour of the one against the other.\nThat feeling is implanted in us by the experience of our civilisation, a\ncivilisation which has, in fact, emerged from one into the other, and\nthese very strong instinctive feelings, which are common to great masses\nof people and for which usually any one individual in all that mass can\nonly give a most inadequate reason, are something to which an enormous\nvolume of human experience has contributed. Generation after generation\nhas come to feel that certain relations of the sexes are, as a matter of\nfact, the only ones that can be maintained with real wholesomeness, and\nthis belief becomes so strong in the community that it is received with\nthe air we breathe all through the formative years of our life, and the\nresult is an intense conviction for which, as I say, we can hardly give\nany argument--an intense conviction that one sort of thing is right and\nthe other wrong; and what most of us mean by our conscience is just this\nbody of feeling concerning right and wrong which has been implanted in\nus as the result of the accumulated experience of civilisation.  From\nthe point of view of the individual it is usually more an emotion than a\nreasoned judgment; and it is much more of the nature of prejudice than\nof an argumentative conclusion.  When people talk about conscientious\nobjections to obeying the law, it is always quite impossible to\ndistinguish between their prejudice and their conscience; there is no\nstandard by which to determine.  But the fact that it is unreasoned in\nthe individual does not mean that it is irrational, or without reason in\nitself.  What has been built up by the steady pressure of whole\ncenturies of experience has enormous weight of pure reason behind it,\neven though the individual cannot himself give the reason, and even\nthough there may be no individual alive who can give it; it has come out\nof the logic of experience; it has been built up in the strictly\nscientific way by a whole series of facts.  There is an enormous\ninductive background, an enormous scientific basis for the moral\nconvictions of the better, more self-controlled members of any civilised\nsociety.  The moral verdict of society, and the conscience of the\nindividual, which is his own echo, for the most part, of that moral\nverdict, is a thing of quite enormous authority.\n\nBut, it will be urged, the authorities clash. The verdict of European\ncivilisation is for monogamy; the verdict of certain other civilisations\nis quite as emphatically against it.  Does this mean that the whole\ndistinction of right and wrong is a mere matter of convention?  No, it\ndoes not.  But even if it did, the thing would not be as bad as people\noften imagine, because convention is not something artificial in the\nsense of contrary to nature or fictitious; a convention is simply the\nexpression of human nature working on a large scale.  Man is a being\nwhose nature it is to set up conventions, and a convention is a product\nof human nature, a property and mark of human nature, just as much\ngravitation is a property and mark of mechanical nature; and it only\nbecomes contrary to nature and a nuisance when it has survived the\npurpose for which it originally grew up. But none the less there is\nsomething more than any convention or social growth about the\ndistinction of right and wrong; the distinction in itself is absolute\nand fundamental.  It is the distinction between recognising oneself as\nmember of a community and not so recognising oneself.  Morality is\nalways recognition of a claim on the part of other persons, the\nrecognition that their point of view and their interests have to be\ntaken into account in the determination of my conduct.  As man is by\nnature social, as by nature he is designed to live in communities, the\ndistinction of right and wrong, that is the recognition of the claim of\nthe community and of the members in it, is absolute and final.\n\nBut what is the content of the two terms right and wrong, what actual\naction shall be called right and what wrong on any given occasion, may\nvary easily according to circumstances, according to the degree of\nsocial development and the like.  There is conduct which is right at one\nstage of society and wrong at another, precisely because at one stage it\ntends to the health of society, while at another it will be bad for the\nhealth of society; just as there are ways in which it is good from time\nto time to train children in which it would not be well to train\ngrown-up people; and there is conduct which is appropriate to earlier\nstages of society, because beneficial to society, which becomes\ninappropriate and harmful at any other stage.  What is right and what is\nwrong may depend very largely upon circumstances, stage of development,\nspiritual receptiveness, and a host of other things; but the distinction\nbetween right and wrong itself remains unaffected by all these, and\nabsolutely fundamental and invariable.\n\nNow, how is it that in society progress is actually made in morals?  The\nappeal to authority can always be made in two ways. It can be made in\nthe most obvious form in the interest of mere stagnation, by saying,\n\"What was good enough for our fathers is good enough for us,\" a thing\nnobody ever does say; or by saying, \"What is good enough for us is good\nenough for our children,\" a thing which numbers of people say.  While\nthe first form may be some safeguard against wild experiments--and wild\nexperiments in morals are more dangerous than wild experiments anywhere\nelse in life, for a reason I will mention in a moment--yet the tendency\nof this appeal is to pure stagnation.  But the right appeal is to ask,\nnot what the great men of the past actually did, but what were the\nprinciples upon which they acted.  What we want to be doing with the\nprophets of the last generation is not saying again, like parrots, just\nwhat they said, but finding out the principles and spirit of their life\nand applying that same spirit to circumstances which are changed just\nbecause those prophets lived and wrought.  They would not have been\nprophets, they would not have been great men, if they had not changed in\nsome degree the world they lived in.  Then just because they have\nchanged the world their action may no longer be appropriate; it is not\nthe action which they themselves would now take if they were still alive\nand retained their power of development.  What we do then is to appeal,\nnot to their conduct but to the principle of their conduct.  So when\nWilberforce started the campaign against slavery what he did was to\nappeal from the conduct of the Church to the principle of that conduct\nwhich it professed and admitted.  In other spheres it admitted the\nsanctity of human personality; but it had never applied this principle\nto the particular problem of slavery.\n\nIn this way the appeal to authority is both just, safe, and progressive.\nIt is only a fool who will throw away all that the experience of the\nages has built up.  But the wisest man of all is surely he who,\nrejoicing in that great inheritance, can still appeal not to its outward\nform, but to its indwelling, living spirit, and carry forward the work\nwhich the past has done.  The ages in the past that we value are not\nthose in which people were mainly concerned to praise their\npredecessors, but those in which men were agreed to press forward to\nwhatever new life God has in store. So it must be here: if we would be\ntrue to the great men of the past, to the authority of those who have\nbuilt up our moral life, it will not be by standing still, but by moving\non in the direction to which they point.\n\nThe appeal to authority, then, will not be an appeal to practice, but\nalways an appeal to principle; and so we shall be saved from that danger\nof moral experiment, a danger that is so immensely great because the\nindividual who has made the experiment has thereby very often spoilt\nhimself.  One cannot experiment in the moral life with the detachment\nthat we use in science.  I may try mixing a couple of fluids together to\nsee what happens, and I can regard the result quite accurately; but I\ncannot try the experiment of stealing, or of murder, in order to see\nwhat the real moral value of the thing is, because in the process of\ndoing the act I shall vitiate my own soul; here the material in which we\nexperiment is itself the instrument by which we have to judge; and the\nman who has once done an evil thing himself, very seldom has the same\nclearness of vision concerning its good and evil as the man who has kept\ntrue to some lofty purpose.  The mere experiment, the mere trying what\nit feels like to be a murderer--not that anyone would take so extreme an\ninstance as that--is always a method condemned in advance to futility,\nbecause in the process of making the experiment we destroy our power of\njudging the result.  We want therefore to rely upon some authority;\nbeing unable to experiment for ourselves, we must follow the general\nrule that I have stated; the authority to which we appeal must be an\nauthority of principle and not of practice.\n\nBut what of the authority of our Lord Himself?  To us who have accepted\nit, or who are trying to accept it, it is final; yet still, surely, in\nthe spirit rather than in the letter.  Why did He teach by a series of\namazing paradoxes if it was not to prevent us setting up a code of rules\nas His legislation, if it was not to force us back upon the spirit of\nHis teaching, behind the detailed regulations in which that spirit was\nembodied? Even here it is still true that the appeal is to the authority\nof His Spirit and not to that of detailed action or individual precept.\n\nAnd beyond all this, it is certain that He Himself wins His authority by\nfirst submitting Himself to the moral judgment of His people. He\nrejects, in the second and third of the Messianic temptations after His\nbaptism, the method of coercion.  He rejects this, and stands before men\nsubmitting Himself to their moral judgment, to their conscience, to\ntheir capacity to understand pure goodness and love, as that capacity\nhas grown through the civilisation which God Himself had guided as the\npreparation for His final revelation in His Son.  So He submits Himself\nfirst of all to our moral judgment; and thus our conscience, coming down\nto us, as it does, out of the Divinely-guided history of the past, is\nthe supreme authority; if we choose Him to be the Guide of our life it\nis because our conscience has first pronounced Him to be the highest and\nthe holiest, which we must needs love when we see it.\n\n\n\n\n                             *APPENDIX III*\n\n                       *ON JUSTICE AND EDUCATION*\n\n\nAs long as there are great numbers of citizens whose faculties are\nundeveloped it is impossible for society to be justly ordered. The\ndemocracies of the world have been curiously blind to this truth, as\nthey have to the parallel truth that education is essential to true\nliberty.\n\nAs long as there is a vast difference between a man's actual worth to\nsociety and his potential worth, there will be two just claims\nconcerning him, and no possibility of adjudicating between them.  To\ntreat a man who is in fact useless as though he were useful, is to\ninjure the community by encouraging a parasite; to treat him as useless,\nwhen only lack of opportunity has prevented his becoming useful, is to\ninjure him.  A vast amount of the existing social order is an attempt to\ncompromise between these two injuries, by inflicting a little of both.\nThe only real solution is to be found in a complete educational system\nwhich will raise the actual worth of every man to the level of his\npotential work precisely by enabling him to realise his potentialities.\n\nBut education which is to have this effect, without producing mere\nselfishness and aggressiveness and thereby defeating its own object,\nmust be a moralising force; and that means, if the argument of Appendix\nII is sound, that its processes must be largely sub-conscious. In fact,\none root of the great sin of Germany is to be found in the effort to\ncontrol life through the highly developed conscious intellect.  The\nspecialised training of administrators and the attempt to guide human\naction by scientific method is doomed to failure.  If it were possible\nto collect all the relevant facts, it might be right merely to form an\ninductive conclusion and act upon it.  But in regard of any human\nproblem it is never possible to collect all the facts; they are at once\ntoo numerous and too subtly differentiated. Consequently the English\nmethod, though grotesquely deficient just where the German is strong, is\nyet morally preferable and politically more successful.  It takes a boy\nand throws him into a society of boys which largely governs itself;\nappalling risks are taken and disasters are not unknown; boy standards\nare allowed to prevail, with the result that form-work is regarded as a\ntiresome though inevitable adjunct rather than the chief business of\nschool life.  Perhaps it is as well to mention here that the exaltation\nof games over work, however disastrous in its exaggeration, is yet\nmorally sound; for the boy feels that in his games he plays for his\nhouse and school, while his work is done for himself.  Wise seniors will\ntell him from the pulpit that he should work hard at school so as to fit\nhimself for the service of the community in later years; and this is\ntrue enough; but the boy will be a terrible prig if he is continually\nconscious of its truth.\n\nThe same principle determines our University ideal.  The primary test\nfor a degree is \"residence\"--that is, an adequate share in a general\nlife.  Colleges may require attendance at lectures, but the University\ndoes not. It demands that a candidate for a degree should have some\nknowledge--not very much, it is true--but it never asks where or how he\ngot it; it only asks if he has \"kept his terms.\"\n\nAt the end of the process there are some failures, of course; but those\nwho represent the system's success, and they are the great majority,\nthough they may not have any large amount of knowledge, have acquired\nthe instinct to act wisely in almost any emergency with which they may\nbe confronted.  Very often they could not give any theoretical ground\nfor acting as they do, for their wisdom is largely sub-conscious or\ninstinctive; but the action is right all the same.\n\nIn England we are at the present time witnessing the collision of two\neducational types, of which I have outlined the older and more\ntraditional.  But this collision is itself of such exceeding interest\nthat, at the risk of some repetition, I would venture to sketch out the\ntwo opposing types and attempt to indicate the mode of their\ninteraction.\n\nThe aim of education may be defined as the attempt to train men and\nwomen to understand the world they live in, so that they may be able to\nassist or resist the tendencies of their time in the light of ideals and\nstandards resting on the widest possible foundation of knowledge and\nexperience.\n\nNow, our educational history for the last hundred years has been the\nresult of the interaction between two predominant educational types,\nwhich I may call, simply for the purposes of description, the\ntraditional and the modern.  The traditional type comes down to us (with\nmodifications, no doubt) by a continuous history from the Middle Ages,\nand its chief representatives in England at the present time are those\nlarge private institutions which are called public schools, and the two\nolder universities.  The first great mark of this type of education is\nthat in practice--whatever its theory may have been--in practice it is\ncorporate.  It has believed in educating people rather through influence\nthan through instruction, and it has believed in educating them in\ndirect relation to their social context and setting.  Now that, in a\ncountry of aristocratic organisation, inevitably involved an exclusive\nand aristocratic type of education.  If you have got a society\nstratified in layers one above the other, and you are then going to\neducate people in direct relation to their social context, your\neducational system is bound to be similarly stratified.  That is\ninevitable, and consequently, through the social conditions of the time,\nthe education which is most strongly corporate in tone and spirit has\nalso tended to be aristocratic.  As I have said, this method deals with\npeople rather through influence than through instruction. Of course, it\ndoes not ignore instruction, but it is true that not very long ago I\nheard a very distinguished lady asked whether a certain school was what\nwe call a public school; \"Oh, yes,\" she replied, \"it is a real public\nschool.  I mean they don't learn anything there.\"  The instruments which\nfor the most part this education has used have been the great\nliteratures of all ages, and particularly the literatures of Greece and\nRome, and their civilisations.  These literatures and civilisations have\na great advantage over all others as instruments of education, because,\nwhile they are in many ways closely akin to our own, which are descended\nfrom them, they are complete and can be studied in their entirety. The\naim of this type of education has been to bring the student's mind into\nclosest possible contact with the greatest minds of the human race in\nall ages, with the minds that have done or attempted most (in history),\nwith the minds that have thought most accurately and deeply (in science\nand philosophy), with the minds that have felt most tenderly and truly\n(in poetry).  It may, or may not, succeed in that aim.  It may attempt\nit in the case of individual students who are particularly ill-suited\nfor it; but that is its aim, and no one is going to say that it is an\nignoble aim.  In doing this, it has supplied to those who have been most\nable to profit by it standards of judgment, standards of criticism.\nThis enables a man to stand apart from the tendencies of the moment and\nto pronounce judgment on them in the light of what has been best in\nhuman experience.  Those are the strongest points, as I consider, of the\nold traditional type.  But it has certain faults, one of which I have\nalready mentioned, which is a fault in our day if it was not a fault in\nthe day in which this type of education became predominant. I mean that\nit is liable to be exclusive, to shut up people within the limits of\ntheir own class so that they are unable to acquire any living\nacquaintance with the great movements going on in the world around them.\n\nThe other system has not these particular evils; this more modern type\nof education, so far as you can draw lines across history at all, may be\nsaid to begin with Rousseau; it is predominantly individual rather than\ncorporate, intellectual rather than spiritual, democratic rather than\naristocratic; it supplies people with knowledge of facts rather than\nwith standards of judgment.  It is individual rather than corporate, for\nit began to take possession of the world when the forces of progress\nwere almost all of them strongly individualistic; at that time the\ndemand of democracy was for the abolition of privileges, the breaking\ndown of class restrictions and the insistence that the individual must\nbe able to live his own life; with all of which we entirely agree,\nthough we think it needs a good deal of supplementing; and,\nconsequently, its tendency has been to suggest to people that the aim of\neducation is that they may get on in the world.  The instrument which it\nhas used has been for the most part instruction, and its appeal has\nbeen, not as in the traditional system to sympathy and imagination, but\nto intelligence and memory.  This, it seems to me, is precisely because\nit believes in the career open to talent, and so far cuts across all\nsocial divisions.\n\nIts ideal is the educational ladder.  Now there would be no objection to\nthe educational ladder if people went down it as well as up, if, that is\nto say, men of small ability and character always sank in the social\nscale and men of great ability and character always rose. But so long as\nyou have social classes maintained in their position, not by ability and\ncharacter alone, but by the mere accident of possession, so long it will\nbe true that to lift a man by education from one social stratum to\nanother is to expose him to a terrible temptation--the temptation to\ndespise his own people. And when once a man's native sympathies have\nbeen rooted up, it is hard for any more to grow.  There is real danger\nthat the more modern type of education may serve to produce a race of\nself-seekers.  But this modern type has great advantages.  It is alive\nand in touch with the world at the moment; and the people who receive\neducation of this kind will probably be very vitally aware of most of\nthe living interests of their own time.  But it fails to supply\nstandards of judgment.\n\nNow, of course, no existing institution belongs purely and entirely to\neither of these types; but we can all think easily of institutions in\nwhich one or the other is the predominant characteristic.  And one of\nour troubles is that most parents like the faults and dislike the\nvirtues of both types.  They like the aristocratic and exclusive tone of\nthe traditional type; and they like the pushfulness and\n\"get-on-in-the-world\" tone of the modern type.\n\nThe great problem before the educational world in the next period is to\ndraw the two types and tendencies in education closer together, to leave\nthe whole strength of both unimpaired, but to unite them.  It is not\neasy to do.  It is a very big problem, easily stated, but very hard to\nsolve in practice. I would suggest that one of the flaws of the modern\ntendency is that it leaves people very strongly aware of what is going\non at the moment, but not always equally aware of what has been thought\nby the greatest men in the history of the world.  This is very liable to\nlead people to suppose that whatever is modern is on that account good.\nNow that is exactly as foolish as to suppose that whatever is ancient is\ntherefore good.  The fact its antiquity or modernity has nothing to do\nwith its value at the present moment.  Of course, it is true that any\ninstitution which has lasted through many centuries is likely to be of\nuse again, though we may always have just reached the point at which it\nbegins to be an incubus.  Of course, it is true that an idea which\narises out of the stress of life at the moment is very likely to be very\nwell adapted to the realities of that moment in which it arises, but,\nalso, it may be well adapted to assist a downward course.  What we want\nis that the people shall know the facts and also have the power to judge\nthem--to be able, as I said, to assist or resist the tendencies of their\ntime, in the light of the best ideals and standards.  There is a very\nstrong inclination among many of us (I am personally very much aware of\nit in myself) to think that the new thing must be good; and yet one\nremembers the words of Clough:--\n\n    \"'Old things need not be therefore true,'\n    Oh, brother men! nor yet the new.\"\n\n\nAgain, the old type which trains people through their social setting is\nvery largely co-operative in its methods.  It merges the individual in\nhis school, or his college, so that he comes quite genuinely to care\nmore keenly for the welfare of his house and school and college than for\nhis own progress. Nobody who has had any intercourse at all with the\nlife of public schools or universities can doubt that.  The modern\nmethod, on the whole, I suppose, trusts mainly rather to competition.\nIt aims at assisting people to put out their best energy by pitting them\nagainst one another.  I want to raise a very serious question to which I\nam not prepared to give an answer.  I want all people interested in\neducation to consider it.  Is it worth while to get the greatest effort\nout of a person at the cost of teaching him that he is to make efforts\nin his own interest?  I am very doubtful.\n\nI heard a little while ago a distinguished schoolmaster describe the\nvisit of the father of one of the boys in his house; the boy was being\nvery idle, and this distinguished man said, \"I wish you would speak to\nhim as seriously as ever you can\"; the father said, \"I will.\"  He saw\nthe boy and when he came back he said, \"I spoke to him very seriously,\nin fact I spoke to him quite religiously.  I said 'You must be getting\nalong, you know, or other people will be pushing past you.'\"  The\nreligion would appeal to be of a \"Darwinian\" type.\n\nNow I wish to express a purely personal conviction with regard to these\ntwo types of teaching, and it is this: while we have got to incorporate\nall, or at any rate, nearly all, that the more modern type of education\nhas given us, it has got to be used in such a way as to leave the great\nmarks of the traditional type predominant.  Education, I hold, should\nremain primarily corporate rather than individual, primarily spiritual\n(that is, effective through influence, and through an appeal to sympathy\nand imagination), rather than primarily intellectual (that is, effective\nthrough an appeal to intelligence and memory), primarily concerned with\ngiving people the power to pronounce judgment on any facts with which\nthey may come in contact rather than supplying them simply with the\nfacts.  It should be primarily co-operative and not primarily\ncompetitive.\n\nIt is mainly the new democratic movements in education which have\nemphasised this view. Indeed, the Workers' Educational Association has\nunderstood more definitely than any other body I am aware of, that what\nit finds of supreme value in the great centres of education is the\nspirit of the place rather than the instruction; and those of us who\nhave received the best, or at all events have been in a position to\nreceive the best, that Oxford can give, and those who have had just a\ntaste of her treasures at the Summer School, will agree that Oxford does\nmore for us than any lectures do.  But while we say that, we need also\nto insist on a greater energy and efficiency, a greater and more living\ncontact with the world of to-day in some, at least, of the centres of\nthe old traditional type.  Yet it is the traditional type that must\ncontrol, because the traditional type on the whole stands for spirit\nagainst machinery.  I have no doubt it is true that the old schools and\nuniversities are amateurish in method; and I have no doubt that we ought\nto organise ourselves more efficiently.  There is a good deal of waste\nthat may be saved; but I shall regret the day when we become efficient\nat the cost of our spirit.\n\nI believe that in the University Tutorial Classes organised by the\nWorkers' Educational Association you will find upon the whole the\nsoundest educational principles which are at this moment operative\nanywhere in England. The classes choose their own subjects, and, as a\ngeneral rule, they choose those subjects about which nobody knows the\ntruth.  Those are always the best instruments of education; for if\nanyone knows the truth, he has only to say what it is and his hearers\nbelieve him. That may be instruction, but it is not education. Real\neducation is always best conducted as a joint search for truth; and in\nthese Tutorial Classes we have, not one teacher and thirty hearers, but\nthirty-one fellow students, one of whom has commenced the study earlier\nthan the rest, and can therefore act as guide.\n\nThese are wide-reaching problems; and, indeed, there is no limit to the\nrange of the influence of education.  It is the supreme regenerative\nforce.  What is the chief obstacle of all who work for progress in any\ndepartment of life?  Always the apathy of those whom we especially wish\nto help.  And why are they apathetic?  Simply because they have had no\nopportunity of finding out what is the life from which they are\nexcluded.  But open by the merest chink the door of that treasure-house\nwherein are contained the garnered stores of literature and science, of\nhistory and art, and they will be foremost in demanding that they shall\nno longer be excluded from the birthright of the sons of civilisation.\nThese are the good things of which no one is deprived because another\npossesses them; they are the true social goods of which possession by\none redounds to the enrichment of all.  It is the taste of them that can\nmost stimulate the zeal for progress; and as it supplies the motive\npower, so it supplies also the directive wisdom.  The perfecting and\nexpansion of our education is just what is most vital for social\nprogress to-day, and for the establishment of real justice in our social\nlife, for it alone can bring within the reach of all that knowledge\nwhich is at once the source of power and the guarantee that the power\nshall be beneficent.\n\n\n\n\n                             *APPENDIX IV*\n\n                      *ON ORDERS AND CATHOLICITY*\n\n\nThe position taken in the text of these lectures might be summarised as\nfollows: It is the living body which gives authority to its Orders; it\nis not the possession of valid Orders which gives authority to the body.\nIn support of this view I have the kind permission of Dr. Headlam to\nquote the following from his article--\"Notes on Reunion: The Kikuyu\nConference,\" in the _Church Quarterly Review_ for January, 1914.\n\n\"On December 20th, 1912, the Bishop of Madras delivered an informal\nspeech to the members of the National Conference of Missionaries, at\nCalcutta.  This created in India and elsewhere a considerable amount of\nsensation.  As in that speech he referred to something which the present\nwriter had written and to an article in the _Church Quarterly Review_ by\nDr. Frere,[#] and as his speech has been very widely misunderstood, I\nthink I may be allowed to refer briefly to the points he raised.  The\nviews which he propounded were those which I had put forward in the\n'Prayer Book Dictionary,' and I should like to be allowed to quote them\nagain:\n\n\n[#] \"The Reorganisation of Worship,\" by W. H. Frere, D.D., Superior of\nthe Community of the Resurrection, Mirfield (_Church Quarterly Review_,\nOctober, 1912).\n\n\n\"If we combine the Patristic theory of Orders with the rule of\nordination, we shall be able to put the idea of Apostolic Succession\ninto its right place.  It is really a deduction from the right theory of\nOrders, and the mistake has been to make Orders depend upon Apostolic\nSuccession and transmission.\n\n\"The authority to consecrate and ordain, or to perform all spiritual\noffices, resides in and comes from the Church to which God gives His\nHoly Spirit.  From the beginning this work of the Church has been\nexercised by those who have received a commission for it, and the rule\nof the Church has been that that commission should always be given by\nthose who have received authority from others with a similar commission.\nThe historical fact, therefore, of Apostolic Succession has resulted\nfrom the rule of the Church being always regularly carried out.  If this\nbe correct, the following further deductions may be made:\n\n\"1. The idea of 'transmission' is an additional and late conception\nwhich, instead of expressing the idea of Succession, has, by its\nexaggeration of it led to a rigid and mechanical theory of the Ministry.\n\n\"2. As the grace of Orders depends upon the authority of the Church and\nnot upon mechanical transmission, all objections from supposed\nirregularities of ordination are beside the point, and the opinions of\nchurchmen and others who have maintained that in certain circumstances a\npresbyter may ordain are explained.  Ordination depends upon the\nauthority of the Church, and not the Church upon ordination.\n\n\"3. The idea of Succession, which results from the Church's rule of\nordination, is an historical fact, and not a doctrine.  It represents an\nexternal connection with the first beginnings of Christianity of\ninfinite value for the Church; and nothing should be done to break such\na connection, as it acts like a link for binding together the Churches\nas parts of a living whole.\n\n\"4. One part of the work of Christian reunion should be to restore and\nsecure the links of Succession throughout the whole Christian world; but\nno rigidity or mechanical theory of Orders need compel us to deny divine\ngrace to those separated from us.[#]\n\n\n[#] _The Prayer Book Dictionary_ (Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd.,\n1912), p. 42.\n\n\n\"The particular point that I wish to emphasise is that there are two\nthings to be separated--the one the rule of the Church, the other the\ntheory of that rule.  I do not believe that it would be possible on any\nCatholic principle to depart from the rule of the Church with regard to\nOrders; I should go further and say that I believe that no real reunion\nwould ultimately be possible except on the basis of that rule.  At the\npresent time, however, continuous emphasis is laid on the theory of\nOrders, and that theory is often put as an extreme form of a mechanical\nconception of the Apostolic Succession.  Now it is quite true that from\nthe beginning Bishops have been looked upon as 'the successors' of the\nApostles, but I can find no authoritative interpretation of that phrase\nother than that they perform at the present day those functions of the\nApostles which were not miraculous or extraordinary.[#]  Neither the\nformularies of the Church of England nor, so far as I am aware, those of\nany other Church, lay down any theory of ministry, and to impose,\ntherefore, any such theory on the Church is to depart from Catholic\ntradition.\n\n\n[#] See, for example, Van Espen, i. 16, 1.  Council of Trent, Sessio\nxxiii., Cap. iv.\n\n\n\"An incidental result of this is that our attitude towards Sacraments of\nNonconformist bodies will not partake of that rigid character which is\nso characteristic of some in the present day.  We are glad to see that\nDr. Sanday takes exception to these.  'It seems to me to be a very\ndelicate matter, and, indeed, scarcely admissible for one Christian body\nto take upon itself to pronounce upon the validity or otherwise of the\nministrations of another. I think that at least the question ought not\nto be put in that bald and sweeping form.'  It is interesting to note\nthat Dr. Pusey would have been equally averse to such language. He of\ncourse accepts the doctrine of Apostolic Succession in very definite\nform, but he writes as follows:\n\n\"'But while maintaining that they only are commissioned to administer\nthe Sacraments who have received that commission from those appointed in\nsuccession to bestow it, we have never denied that God may make His own\nsacraments efficacious even when irregularly administered; we should\ntrust it might be so.'\n\n\"It would be of great advantage if we were to speak of non-episcopal\norders and sacraments as 'irregular,' which we know they are, not as\n'invalid,' about which we know nothing.\"\n\n\nWith these words of Dr. Headlam I am in profound agreement.  But there\nis another quite different matter to which I would allude. If the Church\nis indeed to be the vehicle of the power of Christ in its plenitude, it\nmust be Catholic not only in principle and right, but in actual fact.\nDeeper than all divisions of \"Catholic\" and \"Protestant\" is the division\nof the great human family--European, Indian, Chinese, and so forth.\nThese great civilisations must each bring its own gift, consecrated by\nthe Spirit of Christ, to the life of the whole Body before that Body\nreveals the measure of the fulness of the stature of Christ.  A merely\nEuropean Church cannot be fully Catholic, nor can it ever do, even for\nEurope, what the Catholic Church is called by God to do for the nations\nwhich become its provinces.\n\n\n\n\n                              *APPENDIX V*\n\n                       *ON PROVIDENCE IN HISTORY*\n\n\nThe most outstanding facts in the history known to us, which plainly\nreveal the providential guidance of its course, are the careers of\nAlexander the Great and Napoleon.  There had developed in Greece the\nwhole spirit of civilisation in reference to the small problems of the\ncity-state; the whole principle of civilisation which had been thus\nworked out was now established; Greek civilisation was so perfectly\ndeveloped that it had even a perfect theory of itself in Plato and\nAristotle. Just at this moment there appears upon the scene the\nabsolutely amazing figure--Alexander of Macedon, himself the pupil of\nthe man in whom the Greek spirit reached its final formulation.  He\ncarries that spirit in his astounding triumphs through Asia Minor and\nSyria to the Western Provinces of India. As a military achievement the\nmere leading of his troops to the banks of the Indus is one of the\nsupreme wonders of the world.  No doubt he was conscious of a mission to\nspread the gifts which Greece held in trust for humanity; but also no\ndoubt he was very much concerned with the political fabric which his\nconquests set up.  The moment his work is finished, he himself dies.\nPolitically his Empire was not established and it immediately fell to\npieces.  Spiritually it remained.  It supplied the inspiration of\nChandra gupta, and the career of Asoka is unintelligible apart from\nAlexander.  The arrival of the Greeks in India is, I am assured, the\nbeginning of all that we now understand by Indian art.  Far more\nimportant to the history of the world was the bringing of Greek culture\ninto Palestine; this culture in itself was no doubt decadent, and the\nChasidim and Pharisees were right enough to resist it: yet the leaven of\nthis humanising influence is an essential part of the preparation for\nthe Incarnation in the soil of Judaism.  It is to be noticed that\nGalilee was a region particularly affected by the Greek influence and\nthe settlement of Decapolis was still mainly Greek in the Gospel period.\nAsoka and St. Paul are not at all the kind of successors that Alexander\nwould have anticipated or desired, but his conscious desires were\nutilised by Providence to serve an end of which he never dreamed. His\nearly death before his Empire could be consolidated in a political sense\nis as markedly providential as his emergence at the precise moment of\nhistory when he appears upon the scene.\n\nThe case is similar with Napoleon.  Alexander at his death was 32 years\nold.  Napoleon was 52.  He also appears at a critical moment, is active\nprecisely as long as he can serve what we now see to have been the cause\nof progress, and is then removed.  The great feature of the period is\nthe growth of the sentiment of nationality.  This is the sense of\nmembership in a people united by common characteristics and a common\npurpose; it is therefore always democratic in spirit though it need not\nat all necessarily be democratic in machinery.  The old European\nconstitutions, which had been valuable enough in their time, were\nbecoming a barrier to its further development; the flood of progress\nburst the dam in France, and soon after there appears the supreme\ngenius, not himself a Frenchman, who was to carry the spirit of which\nFrance had just become consciously possessed through the entire length\nand breadth of Europe.  Napoleon, like Alexander, was conscious of his\nmission; he thought of himself as being the organ of the Revolution; he\nis reported to have said that moral principles did not apply to him;\nthey applied only to persons, and he was a force.  But there can be no\ndoubt that he was as much concerned with establishing a vast French\nEmpire as he was with merely carrying the principles of the French\nRevolution into the other nations.  He is allowed success so long as the\nwork of destruction is still needed; his activities first as general and\nthen as ruler began the unification alike of Italy and Germany; but as\nsoon as the spiritual work which he was to do is fully accomplished, the\npolitical construction, which was as a great scaffolding surrounding it,\nfalls to pieces, and he is driven into exile to end his days in solitude\nand impotence.  Perhaps some day people will look back upon the horror\nthat now lies upon the world and not only believe that God was active in\nit, but see the blessings which He was conferring by its means.\n\n\n\n                      PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY\n                    RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED,\n                BRUNSWICK STREET, STAMFORD STREET, S.E.\n                          AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.\n\n\n\n           *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *\n\n\n\n\n                    _*By the Rev. WILLIAM TEMPLE.*_\n\n\nTHE FAITH AND MODERN THOUGHT.  SIX LECTURES. With an Introduction by\nProfessor Michael Sadler.\n\nTHE KINGDOM OF GOD.  A COURSE OF FOUR LECTURES.\n\nTHE NATURE OF PERSONALITY.  A COURSE OF LECTURES.\n\nSTUDIES IN THE SPIRIT AND TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. BEING UNIVERSITY AND\nSCHOOL SERMONS.\n\nREPTON SCHOOL SERMONS. STUDIES IN THE RELIGION OF THE INCARNATION.\n\nFOUNDATIONS. A STATEMENT OF CHRISTIAN BELIEF IN TERMS OF MODERN THOUGHT.\nBy Seven Oxford Men: B. H. STREETER, R. BROOK, W. H. MOBERLY, R. G.\nPARSONS, A. E. J. RAWLINSON, N. S. TALBOT, W. TEMPLE.\n\n\n\nLONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.","title":"Church and Nation: The Bishop Paddock Lectures for 1914-15","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":42123}