I E> RAFLY 
 OF THE 
 U N IVE.RSITY 
 or I LLI NOIS
 
 CUI BONO? '^'"'"^^ 
 
 AN OPEN LETTER TO LORD HALIFAX 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Present Crisis in the Church of England. 
 
 BY 
 
 H. HENSLEY HEN SON, B.D:, 
 
 FELLOW OF ALL SOULS' COLLEGE, OXFORD,- 
 
 INCUMBENT OF S. MARY'S HOSPITAL, ILFORD, 
 
 CHAI'LAIN TO THE LORD BISHOP OF S. ALBAN'S, 
 
 RURAL DEAN OF SOUTH BARKING. 
 
 l.ONDON : 
 
 SKEFFINGTON & SON, PICCADILLY, W. 
 
 ^ublisfjers to I^.Pl. tfje ©uccn auU to I^.E.]^. tljc prince of 32aaUs. 
 
 1898. 
 
 (Price One Shilling.)
 
 GUI BONO? 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 Little more than three years have elapsed since 
 the Church of England exulted in a great electoral triumph. 
 The Nation had spoken its mind in no uncertain tones, 
 and that mind was decisively adverse to the policy of 
 Disestablishment. On all hands men of affairs were heard 
 to declare that the question had been laid to rest for a 
 generation at least. To-day Disestablishment is on many 
 men's tongues, and in all men's minds. The Leader of 
 the Liberal Opposition seems half disposed to risk again, 
 and on a greater scale, the experiment which wrecked his 
 party in 1895. The Liberation Society exhibits once more 
 its baleful activity. The " Free Churches " gather eagerly 
 to another and more hopeful onslaught on their hereditary 
 foe. Where yesterday all was dejection and perplexity, 
 to-day there are all the signs of ardour and purpose. A 
 transformation, equally surprising and melancholy, has 
 passed over the political landscape. The victors of 1895 
 talk with apprehension and uncertainty : the vanquished 
 never exulted in fairer chances. Nor is this all. The 
 change has gone deeper. Grave Churchmen, to whom 
 the idea of Disestablishment has been abhorrent, and 
 who have hitherto rejected the very suggestion of Dis- 
 endowment as a manifest impiety, are now discussing the 
 necessity of the one, and the conditions of the other. A 
 section of the clergy, neither numerically small nor 
 personally insignificant, openly declares that in the
 
 CUI BONO? 
 
 destruction of the State connexion lies its best prospect of 
 obtaining satisfaction for aims, which — whatever may be 
 thought of their character — are held with passionate 
 devotion and advocated with unflagging zeal. All this — 
 so sudden and so ominous — compels reflection even in 
 the most thoughtless. The question forces itself on the 
 mind, and presses for answer, What has brought about 
 this swift and tremendous revolution in the political out- 
 look of the National Church ? What is the spring from 
 which consequences of such magnitude have flowed ? The 
 squalid agitation, set on foot by an obscure London fanatic, 
 destitute of every claim to the public notice, has been the 
 immediate antecedent, but assuredly not the ultimate cause. 
 That lies deeper, and will operate when the iconoclasm of 
 Mr. John Kensit has run its course. The agitation has 
 uncovered the shrouded weakness of the National Church ; 
 it has forced into view the inveterate antagonisms within 
 her pale : it has dragged into publicity aspects and ten- 
 dencies of her manifold activity which are equally novel 
 and repellent to the mass of Englishmen. The question 
 has to be faced by every Churchman what attitude he 
 shall adopt towards the sudden and imperative movement 
 for a restoration of uniformity in the National Church. 
 Shall he lend his influence to swell the demand for 
 repressive legislation against the Ritualists ? or shall he 
 make a bold fight for the illegal or non-legal practices 
 which impunity has made habitual in many congregations? 
 or, finally, shall he cast in his lot with the ancestral enemies 
 of the Church of England, and give his vote for Dis- 
 establishment and Disendowment ? The situation is so 
 grave and so difficult that no thoughtful Churchman can 
 avoid a certain anxiety lest, in the inevitable excitement 
 of an agitation conducted with a brutality happily of rare 
 occurrence in English politics, partisan passions shall 
 become exasperated beyond endurance, and the abiding
 
 CUT BONO? 
 
 interests of the Nation be sacrificed to the fury of domestic 
 strife. In venturing to address to your Lordship a few 
 reflections on the present state of the Church of England, 
 I ought, perhaps, to justify my adoption of this mode of 
 discussing a public question. I shall, however, content 
 myself with two statements. I write an " Open Letter " 
 because I desire to address myself to the mass of thought- 
 ful English Churchmen, and they are not easily reached 
 from the pulpit or the platform. I take the liberty of 
 connecting my letter with your Lordship's name, because, 
 not only are you recognized as the leader of a large section 
 of the High Church Party, but also because you have 
 indicated, by proposing a Conference, your own desire for 
 the restoration of peace. In that desire I most sincerely 
 concur, and my single object in writing is to minister to 
 that blessed end. The mischiefs of the present agitation 
 are, indeed, but too evident. A truly fearful responsibility 
 rests on those who began, and on those who 'assist it. 
 The fell and violent passions of the multitude have been 
 deliberately excited, and the objects of their derision and 
 even of their brutality have been very solemn religious 
 facts. The clergy have been, are still, held up to public 
 ridicule and detestation. Their sacred character has been 
 dragged in the mire of popular scorn, and their access to 
 many hearts wholly closed. Religion, itself, in becoming the 
 subject of coarse jests and fanatical diatribes has largely lost 
 its authority over large sections of the people. But I need 
 not continue; the evil consequences of the present agitation 
 are too plain to be missed by any, save the agitators them- 
 selves, to whom, indeed, it has brought notoriety, influence, 
 and, in some cases, even pecuniary profit. I believe the 
 greatest part of Churchmen would welcome an escape 
 from the present confusion, and, certainly, the kindly 
 reception accorded to your Lordship's suggestion of a 
 Conference indicates as much. Personally, I cannot
 
 CUI BONO? 
 
 profess myself very sanguine of the success of that method 
 of reaching harmony. It seems to be the first condition 
 of a useful Conference that the members should be agreed 
 on first principles, and, at least, generally on the objects 
 in view. Assuredly it would be extravagant to claim that 
 this condition would be fulfilled in any Conference which 
 was really representative of the English Church. More- 
 over, I cannot conceal from your Lordship that I feel a 
 certain resentment against private methods of dealing 
 with National questions. The Church of England does 
 not exist for the sake of the religious parties which play 
 so prominent a role in her history, nor can she permit 
 their interests to be identified with her own, or accept 
 their concordats as the law of her own being. Before 
 accepting the proposal of a Conference I should require to 
 be satisfied that it was adequately representative, that the 
 real issues would be placed before it, that its decisions 
 should be submitted to the ratification or rejection of the 
 Church at large. At present, indeed, I cannot perceive 
 such a measure of fundamental agreement and mutual 
 understanding as would justify any reasonable expectation 
 that a Conference would have any other result than to 
 still further embitter those who are now ranged in con- 
 flict. The imperative necessity of the hour is the discovery 
 of a common platform on which Church questions can be 
 discussed on their merits. As things now stand both the 
 contending parties appear to have adopted positions which 
 do not permit of any such discussion. The problems of 
 the National Church are regarded from standpoints so 
 arbitrary and so distinct that agreement is altogether 
 impossible. It is far from my present purpose to criticize 
 harshly any legitimate views of the English Church ; 
 I admit in advance that much may be true, and 
 much more be arguable, which yet cannot be accepted 
 in a useful discussion of practical difficulties. I
 
 CUI BONO? 
 
 certainly hold that the National Church must com- 
 prehend within her fellowship widely divergent opinions, 
 and, within certain inevitable limits, widely divergent 
 practices ; but this comprehension is only possible, and 
 surely it is only reasonable on the condition of a generous 
 mutual toleration. Standpoints which are legitimate 
 enough for all the purposes of personal religion become 
 intolerable when pressed as the necessary assumptions of 
 public policy. Moreover, I must frankly say that neither 
 the High Church nor the Low Church parties exhibit a 
 very coherent or logical faith in their respective principles. 
 Both profess principles which they cannot apply in prac- 
 tice, and which they would not if they could. In both 
 cases the principles are for certain purposes, and under 
 certain conditions true and serviceable ; but in neither 
 case are they so absolutely and universally true as to 
 justify the passionate insistence which both parties equally 
 manifest. The "undivided Church " and the.*' Reforma- 
 tion " are the opposing battle-cries ; but if examined, 
 neither the one nor the other can rightly be proposed as 
 the final authority in the settlement of modern Church 
 problems. 
 
 Apart from all questions of ecclesiastical theory, and 
 considering only the practical worth of that authority of 
 the " undivided Church " to which High Churchmen so 
 frequently and so confidently appeal, can it be denied that 
 we are little helped by an authority which is really 
 unconscious of modern conditions, and wholly silent on 
 many subjects of modern perplexity ? I suppose the 
 weightiest decisions of the ** undivided Church " are 
 enshrined in the canons of those famous '' CEcumenical " 
 Synods, to which the Church in all succeeding times has 
 ascribed exceptional authority. But will the puzzled 
 English Churchman be anywise assisted by a reference to 
 those venerated decrees ? Take the first and greatest of
 
 CUI BONO? 
 
 the Councils. Of the twenty genuine Canons of Nicsea 
 [a.d. 325], not one (unless it be the first, which deals 
 with a matter of no practical importance in modern times) 
 is now fully observed ; most are patently obsolete ; and 
 some, by the general procedure of the modern Church, 
 are frankly disregarded. I am not aware that any later 
 Council has specifically repealed the following rules, 
 which, on the High Church theory, are binding on the 
 modern Christian by the Divinest terrestrial authority of 
 which we have knowledge : — 
 
 Canon III. — " The great Synod strictly forbids Bishops, 
 
 Priests, and Deacons, and all clergymen, to retain 
 
 any woman in their houses, under pretence of her 
 
 being a disciple to them [a-vv^laaKTov %xeiv] ; but only a 
 
 mother, sister, aunt, or other unsuspected person. 
 
 Canon XV. — " For the taking away the custom which 
 
 prevails in some places contrary to Canon, it is 
 
 decreed, on account of disturbances and disputes that 
 
 have occurred, that neither Bishop, Priest, nor 
 
 Deacon, remove from city to city : and that if anyone 
 
 after the decree of the holy and great Synod attempt 
 
 it, all the proceedings in this case shall be null, and 
 
 the party shall be restored to the Church in which he 
 
 was ordained. 
 
 Canon XX. — '' Because there are some who kneel on the 
 
 Lord's Day, and even in the days of Pentecost ; that 
 
 all things may be uniformly performed in every parish, 
 
 it seems good to the holy Synod that prayers be made 
 
 to God standing." 
 
 The Canons of Constantinople (a.d. 381), Ephesus (a.d. 
 
 431), and Chalcedon (a.d. 451) have reference, for the 
 
 most part, to contemporary problems, and are wholly 
 
 obsolete. I need not remind you that the Canons of 
 
 these famous Synods form but a small part of the mass of 
 
 ecclesiastical law which was recognized by the primitive
 
 CUI BONO? 
 
 Church. The first Canon of Chalcedon expressly con- 
 firms "the Canons of the holy Fathers made in every 
 Synod to this present time," language which Dr. Bright 
 explains to include not only the decisions of Nicaea, Con- 
 stantinople, and Ephesus, but those also '' of the local 
 Eastern Synods of Ancyra, Neocsesarea, Antioch, Gangra, 
 and Laodicea." He adds that " when the Council of 
 Chalcedon assembled, a collection of such Canons was 
 current." Nor can the legislative legacy of the ** undivided 
 Church " be limited to the formidable mass of Canons 
 recognized at Chalcedon : two, or, as the Easterns afhrm, 
 three more CEcumenical Councils passed fresh enactments: 
 other Synods, less authoritative in themselves, were raised 
 to oecumenical authority by the subsequent acceptance of 
 their decrees. It would be an easy task to fill these pages 
 with examples of Church Laws, which have never been 
 repealed, because, since the division of East and West, no 
 authority exists in the world competent to revise or repeal 
 them, but which are obsolete, or impracticable, or con- 
 trary to modern conceptions of right, or based on demon- 
 strable errors. 
 
 It may, however, be objected that no instructed " High 
 Churchman " could be guilty of the patent absurdity 
 involved in the view of oecumenical authority which I have 
 criticized. The view of Catholic obligation, which is now 
 in the ascendant, has cast aside the rigidity of the older 
 Anglican doctrine, and inclines to accept as binding on 
 the Church only so much of the primitive system as was 
 incorporated in the tradition of the Western Church. 
 The early Tractarians took a sterner view of their responsi- 
 bility ; and the sixth Tract in their famous series was 
 devoted to the task of proving " the present obligation of 
 primitive practice." If I understand rightly your Lord- 
 ship's language at Bradford, you are ready to acquiesce in 
 the extensive departures from the primitive system which,
 
 GUI BONO? 
 
 after the breach of ecclesiastical unity, took place in the 
 West. Protracted disuse of primitive practices amounts 
 in your opinion to a tacit, but not on that account the less 
 authoritative, repeal of conciliar decrees which had behind 
 them the weight of Catholic Antiquity. You recognize 
 the binding character of the Western revision of Primitive 
 Practice : subject, however, to yet one further limitation. 
 The " Book of Common Prayer " is allowed to supersede, 
 revise, and condemn the Western revision of Primitive 
 Practice. Your language was unambiguous and decisive : — 
 
 *• We shall oppose by every means in our power any 
 *' attempt to deprive us of the use of all such ceremonies, 
 " laudable customs, and practices not expressly forbidden 
 "by the Book of Common Prayer, with which the Church 
 " in the West has been used to accompany the Celebration 
 *'ofthe Holy Eucharist." 
 
 Of course the authority of the Prayer-book is precisely 
 determined by its origin. I assume that your Lordship 
 accepts it as the formal and constitutional expression of 
 the mind of the National Church. The sanction of Con- 
 vocation can hardly mean less than that, and such 
 sanction the Prayer-book does unquestionably possess. 
 I conclude, therefore, that the " High Church " party as 
 represented by your Lordship does really recognize the 
 plenary authority of the National Church to revise the 
 practical system of Primitive Catholicism, that the 
 precedents of the " undivided Church " may be lawfully 
 set aside by the English Convocation, and that in all 
 matters not affecting the faith and constitution of the 
 Church there is complete liberty of action vested in that 
 assembly. You, my Lord, are prepared to loyally 
 endorse the doctrine of the 34th Article. 
 
 " It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies 
 " be in all places one, or utterly like ; for at all times 
 '* they have been divers, and may be changed according to
 
 CUI BONO? 
 
 " the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, 
 "so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. . . . 
 
 " Every particular or national Church hath authority 
 " to ordain, change, and abolish, ceremonies or rites of 
 "the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all 
 " things be done to edifying." 
 
 It seems to be clear that the constant references to the 
 " undivided Church " are superfluous and misleading. 
 That authority has long since been superseded, first by 
 the Western Church which built up a tradition of its own, 
 next by the National Church of England which revised, 
 superseded, and largely repudiated that tradition. That 
 the drastic action of the Reformers was avowedly deter- 
 mined by their preference for the discarded primitive 
 system may be admitted ; it does not affect the argument. 
 Western tradition or primitive practice are, even on the 
 High Church theory, only so far obligatory on the English 
 Churchman as they are not specifically set aside by the 
 law of the National Church. Neither the one nor the 
 other has any independent authority. The assent of the 
 National Church, either by positive enactment or by tacit 
 acceptance, is the condition of the recognition of that 
 authority : but, that condition fulfilled, the religious duty 
 of such recognition follows as a matter of course. 
 
 Now leaving outside the discussion all question of the 
 intrinsic reasonableness of this position, I am here con- 
 cerned to show that in practice it is really destitute of 
 value. I need not travel beyond your Lordship's Bradford 
 speech for proof of this. You were dealing with the 
 practice of reserving the consecrated Elements for ministra- 
 tion to the sick. You asserted with justice that the 
 practice was primitive, and under certain circumstances 
 plainly convenient : and, then, you faced the Prayer-book. 
 The Bishop of Lichfield's dictum that reservation is 
 primitive but illegal you swept aside with some signs of
 
 10 CUI BONO? 
 
 impatience : and you applied yourself to the task of dis- 
 proving what you disapproved. You explained away the 
 Rubric at the end of the Communion Service, and the 
 very decisive language of the 28th Article : you appealed 
 to the Dean of Lichfield against his Bishop, to a fourteenth 
 century constitution of Archbishop Peckham (which is 
 totally irrelevant if your main contention be unsound), 
 and, finally, to the Episcopate, not to settle the question 
 of interpretation between your Lordship and Bishop 
 Legge, but " in view of the necessities of the case and the 
 custom of the whole Church from the earliest times " to 
 "openly recognize" reservation. But you left out of 
 your argument a fact which, on your own principles, is 
 decisive of the whole issue. The Prayer-book has not 
 left the treatment of sick communicants in any uncertainty. 
 Even allowing (though, 1 think, few impartial men would 
 concede so much) that neither the Rubric in the Com- 
 munion Service nor the 28th Article bear the sense they 
 seem to bear, and have been generally supposed to bear, 
 the illegality of reservation is beyond all question deter- 
 mined by the provision actually made for the Communion 
 of the Sick. Unprimitive certainly, inconvenient very 
 probably that provision may be, but there it is in plainest 
 enactment : — 
 
 " But if the sick person be not able to come to the 
 " Church, and yet is desirous to receive the Communion in 
 " his house ; then he must give timely notice to the 
 " Curate, signifying also how many there are to com- 
 " municate with him (which shall be three or two at the 
 " least), and having a convenient place in the sick man's 
 " house, with all things necessary so prepared, that the 
 " Curate may reverently minister, he shall there celebrate 
 " the Holy Communion." 
 
 My Lord, I submit that when the Prayer-book prescribes 
 a certain method of performing any Christian function,
 
 CUI BONO? II 
 
 that prescription is necessarily a prohibition of any other 
 method. In this matter I am personally disposed to 
 agree with your Lordship that the primitive system is 
 preferable to that prescribed in the Prayer-book, but as 
 to the prescription there is no possibility of doubt, nor as 
 to the legal effect of it, nor as to the logical requirement 
 of the theory which elsewhere you have affirmed. Here I 
 may be permitted to point out that your Lordship stands 
 committed to a very strict view of the obligation of 
 Prayer-book Rubrics. You denounce in terms of great 
 severity the clergy who omit to read the daily Offices, 
 though the Rubric expressly refers that duty to their own 
 judgment ; or fail to celebrate the Holy Communion every 
 Sunday and Saint's Day, though the Rubric expressly 
 makes that rule contingent on a circumstance which in 
 many parishes cannot always be counted on. Why does 
 the Rubric for Communicating the Sick receive such 
 scanty notice, or rather, why is it ignored altogether, 
 when other Rubrics, dealing with matters of less gravity, 
 are pressed so rigorously ? Is it not evident that, what- 
 ever value for other purposes your view of Authority may 
 have, for the purpose of a serviceable discussion of practical 
 problems it is useless ? Can it be altogether condemned 
 as unreasonable or unfair that ordinary Englishmen, 
 unversed in the subtleties of ecclesiastical theory, should 
 conclude that your Lordship, and those whom you 
 represent, recognize the binding force of the Rubrics only 
 so far as they coincide with their own pre-conceived 
 notions, and ignore Rubrics without hesitation when they 
 conflict with those notions ? Would it not be more frank 
 and more practically useful to abandon these misleading 
 appeals to the ''undivided Church," and "the Church of 
 the West," and the Prayer-book, as if any of these or all 
 of them together were adequate for the guidance of the 
 Church in her treatment of the problems, unsuspected in
 
 12 CUI BONO? 
 
 earlier times, of modern life ? It is no disrespect to these 
 venerable Authorities, nor does it argue any unwillingness 
 to accept the guidance of the past, to maintain that present 
 experience also has its rightful claim, and that the law of 
 progress in Religion as in every other sphere is necessarily 
 a law of change ? I plead for a discussion of our religious 
 difficulties which shall be frank, free, and fearless. A 
 conference in which the several members are pledged in 
 advance to certain decisions could lead to nothing but 
 exasperation. Your Lordship seems to concede this when 
 you remark with obvious justice "that the questions with 
 " which the Church of England has to deal cannot ade- 
 " quately be dealt with merely by a reference to the 
 " settlement of the fifteenth and sixteenth [? sixteenth and 
 ** seventeenth] centuries " : but you seem to recede again 
 into the confusion of your theory when you warn the 
 Bishops in a tone which is minatory to the verge of dis- 
 respect, " that if they would exact respect for their own 
 " authority, it can only be in proportion as they them- 
 " selves recognize and submit to the authority of that 
 *' whole Catholic Church of Christ, of which the Church 
 **of England is but a part, to which it appeals, and to 
 '' which the Episcopate, no less than the clergy and laity, 
 *' are bound to submit." The suspicion crosses the mind 
 on reading such words that your Lordship does not really 
 concede to the National Church any true autonomy, not 
 of course in the sphere of the Faith, or the Sacraments, 
 or the Apostolic Ministry, which admittedly lie outside 
 the range of national action, but of discipline and worship 
 and ecclesiastical customs : and, further, it must be con- 
 ceded that the curious hostility to the term " Anglican " 
 which has manifested itself in the English Church Union, 
 of which your Lordship is the President, and which 
 inspired some amazing utterances at Bradford from a 
 well-known East End Incumbent, lends support to this
 
 CUI BONO? 13 
 
 suspicion. Nevertheless, in the absence of any express 
 declaration to the contrary, I prefer to believe that, since 
 you are prepared to accept the Prayer-book modifications 
 of the Western tradition with respect to the mode of 
 Eucharistic Celebration, you are equally prepared to 
 acknowledge the right of the same National Church, 
 which put forward the Prayer-book, to exercise no 
 diminished authority with respect to other matters. 
 
 If, leaving the High Church party, I turn to their 
 opponents, I find that the same fault in a still more 
 aggravated form marks their discussion of our practical 
 difficulties. The " Reformation " is inscribed on the 
 banners of agitators who would be distressed indeed to 
 define the meaning of the phrase. It is, indeed, the mis- 
 fortune of the Low Church party to have the support of 
 the ignorant multitudes of the lower middle-class, whose 
 religious prejudices are hereditary, and who seem, beyond 
 all other sections of English folks, to be subject to night- 
 mares of religious terror, or suspicion. It would, of course, 
 be unjust to credit the party as a whole with the fanaticism 
 of its rank and file, yet it cannot be denied that the pros- 
 pects of a peaceful solution of the ecclesiastical problems 
 of the hour are gravely compromised by the unreasoning 
 and intractable attitude of the " Protestant" masses. The 
 more moderate Low Churchmen profess to take their stand 
 on the " Reformation Settlement," and they accept the 
 Prayer-book as the authoritative declaration of that settle- 
 ment. But not without large exceptions. They repudiate 
 with some contempt a literal insistence on either the 
 language of the formularies, or the practical directions 
 of the rubrics. They, too — like their rivals — subscribe 
 the Prayer-book with an arriere pensee to the effect that 
 where it clashes with another authority (in this case the 
 " Protestant Faith," in that the '* Primitive Church " and 
 the " Western tradition ") they will repudiate its doctrine
 
 14 CUI BONO? 
 
 and ignore its rules. If the interests concerned were not 
 so serious, the aspect of these competitors in artifice would 
 be actually ludicrous. The Prayer-book, in their hands, 
 bears no inapt resemblance to the venerable relics of 
 ancient Rome in the middle ages. The rival families of 
 the city united to facilitate their decay by using them 
 as a common quarry from which to obtain materials for 
 their internecine conflicts. Both parties have their pet 
 rubrics, which they themselves religiously obey, with 
 which they confront one another, by which they vainly 
 strive to prove their own loyalty and the dishonesty of 
 their rivals. Neither accepts all the Rubrics, and, for the 
 best of reasons, the Rubrics are not capable of practical 
 application. Under these circumstances it would seem 
 the obvious duty of sensible men to recognize that a 
 reasonable course must lie in one of two directions. 
 Either patient mutual tolerance, or revision of the 
 Prayer-book ; a passionate insistence on unqualified 
 obedience to the Prayer-book is indecent in those, who 
 themselves habitually disobey some or other of its rules, 
 and that is the case equally with High Churchmen and 
 with Low Churchmen. To this subject I shall recur 
 later. 
 
 I do not pursue the subject further here because my 
 purpose is not to formally criticize the contending partisan 
 theories, but to point out their practical insufficiency ; 
 and, on that ground, to submit that, for our present 
 necessities, it is futile to appeal against the existing 
 system of the National Church to the law and practice 
 of the undivided Church in the one case, or the 
 " Reformation " in the other. I am far from denying 
 the legitimacy or questioning the value of a constant 
 reference to both. The experience of Christians, though 
 gained under different conditions and in a long-distant 
 age, can never be destitute of value. The problems
 
 CUI BONO? 15 
 
 which confront the Church in her Divine Warfare are 
 at once always novel and always ancient. The circum- 
 stances of human life are in continual flux, and the positive 
 regulations which match the needs of one generation will 
 scarcely do as much for any other. It would seem the 
 primary condition of a sound judgment in ecclesiastical 
 affairs to distinguish clearly between principles which are 
 of perpetual validity, and institutions which at best have 
 but a contingent and temporary usefulness. The rigidity 
 of mental attitude revealed in the religious controversy 
 which has filled the columns of newspapers, both secular 
 and religious, and distracted the minds of men beyond 
 recent precedent, fills me with despondency. The 
 '' Reformation " on the one side, and the '* Undivided 
 Church" on the other have become mere shibboleths, 
 exasperating the minds of men, and really destitute of 
 any practical worth. 
 
 My Lord, while these ''Shibboleths" are bandied to 
 and fro in the conflict of parties, the Church of England 
 stands to lose, whichever way the victory inclines. There 
 are, as I have already said, many signs that the general 
 body of citizens is growing resentful of these incessant 
 disputes, and tends to incline an attentive ear to the 
 suggestions of those, the ancestral foes of the English 
 Church, who counsel the ruinous policy of Disestablish- 
 ment. I observe that the ^' High Church " party is growing 
 more patient of the prospect of Disestablishment, and not 
 a few of the more ardent members of the party openly 
 declare that they are looking in that direction for escape 
 from present difficulties. Their rivals are being forced by 
 the necessities of the agitation to which they have, in evil 
 hour, committed themselves, into an ever closer association 
 with the Nonconformists. That alliance has its price, and 
 thaty acquiescence in the political project which the Non- 
 conformists pursue with an almost religious ardour. The
 
 i6 CUI BONO? 
 
 moment is propitious for the advent of a destructive 
 politician of ability : the National Church, torn with 
 internal dissensions, invites attack : her normal enemies 
 have been suddenly reinforced from unexpected quarters, 
 and a great political party confessedly needs a policy 
 which could quicken its enthusiasm and re-unite its ranks. 
 It must be confessed that the ecclesiastical outlook is not 
 encouraging. What can be the outcome of the amazing 
 agitation which has spread sacrilege and blasphemy from 
 one end of England to the other ? Some parliamentary 
 action seems to be necessary, if English precedents are to 
 hold good. What will that action be ? All men agree 
 that it will be directed towards the restraint of Ritualism : 
 whether that restraint be really required or not need not 
 here be discussed. Probably the overwhelming majority 
 of Churchmen are agreed that a stiffening of Authority 
 against clerical individualism is required : nevertheless the 
 passing of any Act in restraint of Ritualism would only 
 intensify the existing anarchy. Experience has made it 
 abundantly evident that the Ritualistic clergy are so 
 wedded to the practices which they have adopted that no 
 adverse laws would obtain their obedience. The familiar 
 cycle of events would be duly rehearsed. The law passed 
 amid the frenzied zeal of its promoters would be treated 
 with ostentatious contempt by its victims. The dangerous 
 and delusive cry of '' Erastianism " would certainly be 
 raised, and as certainly would rally to the party of resist- 
 ance large numbers of excellent Churchmen, whose zeal 
 for the Church's theoretical rights is unchastened by any 
 adequate appreciation of facts. There might be prosecu- 
 tions : in that case, there would be a new succession 
 of " martyrs." The exasperation of parties would be 
 extreme, and could hardly fail to create a general demand 
 for Disestablishment from the High Church party. Such 
 a demand would moralize the policy of the Liberation
 
 CUI BONO? 17 
 
 Society, and go far to reconcile the national conscience 
 to projects which in themselves are nefarious. 
 
 I venture, therefore, to make appeal to all who regard 
 with fear and aversion the prospect of Disestablishment 
 to weigh seriously the actual tendency of their own action 
 at this juncture : and I add my protest against the perilous 
 insistence on partisan positions which marks the attitude 
 of the combatants on both sides of the present conflict. 
 
 I submit that the true and only legitimate standpoint 
 from which to regard ecclesiastical questions is that of the 
 religious interest of the nation. The Church of England 
 is the principal instrument by means of which Christianity 
 is brought to bear on the national life. I suppose even 
 her political opponents will admit as much as this. The 
 Nonconformist bodies are active, and, it is confidently 
 affirmed, growing : undoubtedly they have exercised a 
 powerful influence on English society, and in the main, 
 though with considerable exceptions and limitations, that 
 influence has been wholesome. But these denominations 
 are all of recent growth, the most aggressive is of 
 yesterday, and most have only become considerable within 
 this century. They have no roots in antiquity : their 
 development is rapid, but not more rapid than their 
 decline : they produce few theologians of distinction, and 
 their moral effect is seriously compromised by their 
 inveterate political attachments. Moreover, they are not 
 well adapted for pastoral work : they languish wherever 
 the conditions of life are unfavourable to sensational 
 methods. It would not be wholly unjust to say that their 
 strength and their weakness lie in the fact that they tend 
 to reflect contemporary social and political movements. 
 Over great part of England they are practically unknown. 
 The National Church in hundreds of country parishes, 
 and in the poorest urban districts, is the sole representative 
 to the people of the Faith and Discipline of Christ.
 
 i8 CUI BONO? 
 
 Disestablishment and disendowment would handicap, or 
 wholly extinguish, the ministrations of religion over great 
 part of the country. Nor would even this be the full 
 extent of the calamity. You, my Lord, will appreciate 
 the gravity of the failure of the National Schools. I 
 submit that nothing could avert that failure if the Church 
 were disestablished. The necessary extinction of numerous 
 country cures, the extreme poverty of the clergy, the loss 
 of prestige and even of legal position, the infinite disturb- 
 ance which would be caused by the process of disendow- 
 ment, and the extreme exasperation of men's minds, would 
 inevitably — if anything in human affairs can be described 
 as inevitable — bring about the failure of the National 
 Schools, which have been sustained so long mainly by the 
 exertions and sacrifices of the clergy. 
 
 Hitherto I have assumed that the Church of England 
 would hold together through the process of Disestablish- 
 ment, but I do not believe it. When I read the utterances 
 of the leaders on both sides of the present controversy, I 
 am amazed that even the generous latitude of a National 
 Church can embrace such conflicting opinions. If the 
 agitation now proceeding has done nothing else, it will at 
 least have demonstrated the immense value of the State 
 connexion as an instrument of ecclesiastical harmony. 
 What other power than that of the great National 
 Tradition could hold together antipathies so fierce, 
 aspirations so contradictory, methods so opposed ! 
 Remove that power, and what remains to arrest the 
 natural movement of these heterogeneous elements? 
 Disestablishment means the release of centrifugal forces 
 which no homilies on Christian fellowship can charm 
 into quiescence. The National Church must face, in 
 the wake of humiliation and pillage, the last ignominy 
 of disruption. There are, perhaps, some persons who 
 can regard this prospect with equanimity ; they would
 
 CUI BONO? 19 
 
 prefer the liberty of denominationalism to the unity of 
 a National Institution; theywould exchange the *' honesty" 
 of avowedly opposed sects to the delusive harmony of an 
 established Church. I am not of this way of thinking. 
 To my mind religion gains in breadth of view and range 
 of influence infinitely more than it loses in ecclesiastical 
 symmetry and ardour of conviction by the fact of Estab- 
 lishment. I observe that while the latter qualities rarely 
 are lacking to Christendom, the former are always tending 
 to be lost. I do not think the quality of religion among 
 the disestablished and non-estabhshed denominations is 
 so superior to that among ourselves as to encourage 
 the desire for DisestabHshment. Moreover, I see that 
 at present there is nothing more necessary to the interest 
 of English Christianity than breadth of view and range of 
 influence. The forces that normally tend to narrow the 
 sympathies and restrict the activity of religious people are 
 more than usually powerful ; such forces, I jnean, as 
 reactionary panic, and controversy, and, perhaps, prosely- 
 tizing zeal. The wisdom of the Church is to wait, to 
 avoid conclusions of disputed points, to mark time for 
 awhile before resuming progress. Establishment enables 
 this ; the very indignation with whicli the paralysis of the 
 National Church is denounced by Church Reformers, more 
 zealous than far-sighted, proves the restraining effect of 
 the State connexion. Our anomalous and even anarchic 
 state indicates that Anglican autonomy is not in working 
 order. The enemies of the Church of England are not 
 slow to make capital out of her apparently helpless con- 
 dition. She seems to float on the national life like a 
 rudderless derelict. No doubt there is mischief and fault 
 in all this. It may be that we liave been, as a Church, 
 too complacent, and that, in some directions where the 
 truth was apparent, we ought to have been more vigorous 
 in asserting rights which, though long dormant, are con-
 
 20 CUI BONO? 
 
 stitutionally unimpeachable. But, allowing this, can it 
 be denied that the Church of England has, on the whole, 
 gained in breadth and spirituality by her legislative and 
 disciplinary paralysis during this century, and that 
 experience suggests that we have yet more to gain 
 from the same harsh necessity ? Has the Roman 
 Church gained or lost by that legislative freedom, 
 which the Church of England has temporarily lost ? 
 May it not have been a disguised blessing that, against 
 our will and in spite of our legal rights, we, as a Church, 
 have been preserved from precipitate conclusions on many 
 matters which are not really ripe for treatment, though in 
 any truly autonomous society they must have been made 
 the subject of legislation ? And ought we not to be very 
 slow to accept the vehement counsels of the zealots of 
 ecclesiastical theory when we see in our own experience 
 how considerable indirect advantages may be involved in 
 an ecclesiastical position which in theory is humiliating 
 and indefensible ? Now one of the first results of Dis- 
 ruption would be an outburst of legislative activity. The 
 several fragments of the dismembered Church will hasten 
 to realize their partisan conceptions. The Low Church 
 party released from the widening influence of Catholic 
 beliefs will shrivel into a narrow Protestantism ; the High 
 Church party, no longer held to evangelical connexions, 
 will degenerate into an equally narrow Ritualism. The 
 basal agreements which once had been kept in a salutary 
 prominence must inevitably fall into the background, and 
 the chief place be given henceforward to the doctrines and 
 practices which are not basal, but distinctive of party. 
 And this disaster will happen at a time when, throughout 
 Christendom, the rift between educated thought and 
 revealed religion is perceptibly widening. The broad 
 tolerance of the Established Church has, hitherto, in 
 England kept together in an exceptionally close union
 
 CUI BONO? 21 
 
 culture and the Christian profession ; but when that 
 honourable quality has vanished with the conditions 
 which made it possible, who can doubt that here also 
 the disastrous breach will become visible, and Faith 
 grow alienated from Science ? The process will be 
 hastened, and, possibly, determined by a factor which 
 cannot be ignored. The Roman Church is now strongly 
 planted in this country, not assuredly in the hearts of the 
 people, still less in their respect, but in their midst a 
 highly organized army of invasion, fed from abroad. 
 That Church has sacrificed every higher ideal to the 
 single project of earthly dominion : proselytizing, in the 
 bad sense which the word has come to bear, is the law of 
 modern Romanism. Is it excessive to believe that the 
 disruption of the Church of England would enormously 
 benefit her most relentless antagonist ? We know how 
 powerful an attraction is possessed by the Roman Church, 
 and how strongly the fascination of her fellowship is even 
 now felt by the " advanced " members of the High Church 
 party ; is it not certain that when political disaster had 
 been quickly followed by ecclesiastical disruption that 
 attraction would be still more powerful, and that 
 fascination still more alluring ? 
 
 You will say that these gloomy forebodings are, after 
 all, largely speculative : that the event may falsify them. 
 This may be allowed, but even so, I submit that they are 
 extremely probable, and that in forming a judgment on a 
 course of action reasonable men must reckon with those 
 results as certain which are, on good grounds, seen to be 
 probable. Two results of Disestablishment, however, are 
 assured, and they alone might decide a reflective Church- 
 man to oppose that project to the uttermost — on the one 
 hand, an enormous financial strain would be brought to 
 bear on all religious work ; on the other, a Marah stream 
 of social bitterness would be set flowing in every parish.
 
 22 CUI BONO? 
 
 The alienation of the ancient endowments, involving the 
 loss of an annual income, which on the lowest estimate 
 cannot be reckoned as less than ;r3, 000,000, is no slight 
 matter. The debasement of spiritual work by the financial 
 straits of the clergy is even now a formidable and a grow- 
 ing evil. I can speak with the authority of personal 
 experience on this matter. The Church in the districts 
 where it has been my fortune to labour is largely without 
 endowment, living *' from hand to mouth," after the ideal 
 of " Voluntaryism." I do not hesitate to affirm that the 
 moral and spiritual " cost of collection " is appalling. 
 Does anyone who observes the current methods of obtain- 
 ing money for religious and charitable objects doubt this ? 
 Are not ** bazaars " a proverb of spiritual degradation ? Is 
 not philanthropic advertisement an organized system of 
 sensationalism, not to say mendacity? Are not " statistics" 
 of religious progress a by- word ? These things are ruinous 
 to religion, however indispensable they may be to the 
 maintenance of religious work. Can any reflective 
 Churchman contemplate without alarm so vast an 
 increase of all these evil things ? I confess I sometimes 
 reckon the despiritualizing of the Church as one of the 
 worst of the many evil promises of Disendowment. But 
 even this is not the worst. Society will be cloven asunder 
 by fierce resentments, which will not be assuaged for 
 generations. In every parish there will be the bitterness 
 of a great injury on one side, the arrogance of a baleful 
 triumph on the other. The character of local politics, not 
 very high at any time, will be irrecoverably ruined by the 
 influx of the distracting animosities of a great religious 
 feud. The best friends of local government have many 
 reasons for regarding its future with apprehension : Dis- 
 endowment will more than fulfil their gloomiest forecasts. 
 My Lord, I have written so largely on this matter 
 because it is vital to my argument that the bearings of
 
 CUI BONO? 23 
 
 Disestablishment on the rehgious interest of the EngHsh 
 people should be clearly apprehended. In view of these 
 grave probabilities I submit that it is our imperative duty 
 as good Churchmen and (though the two characters 
 cannot really be distinguished) as good citizens to exert 
 ourselves by all legitimate methods to preserve inviolate 
 the National Status and Heritage of the Church of 
 England. I proceed to discuss the broad conditions on 
 which, as I see the facts, on which alone that end can be 
 secured. 
 
 I. If the Church of England is to remain an Established 
 Church, her members must accept a large measure of 
 Denominational Self-suppression. It is not sufficiently 
 remembered that the denominational strength of the 
 Church is enormously inferior to what her public services 
 seem to require. Indeed, as a denomination, the Church 
 is painfull}^, almost ridiculously insignificant, when com- 
 pared not with the Nonconformist bodies, none of which can 
 vie with her in numbers, but with the Nation itself which 
 accepts and commissions her as its Spiritual Organ. 
 Probably not one in thirteen of the Electors is a Com- 
 municant at her altars : certainly one-third, possibly one- 
 half, of the professed Christians in the country, definitely 
 repudiate her membership. The vast majority of the 
 people live habitually in neglect of her ordinances. It is 
 evident that she is in no position to adopt the masterful 
 tone of those earlier times when she exercised spiritual 
 authority over all, or nearly all the nation. She must 
 found her claim to State Recognition not on her over- 
 whelming denominational strength, but on her manifest 
 services to the community. Her claim, thus founded, is 
 a very strong one. For her denominational weakness 
 gives no truthful indication of her general influence. The 
 National Church bears on the national life in a thousand 
 unsuspected ways. Her power is felt, and always felt for
 
 24 CUI BONO? 
 
 good, in many directions : perhaps her highest and most 
 beneficent achievements are not capable of tabulation in 
 the " Church Year Book." She lays restraining hand on 
 the eager selfishness of a mercantile community : she 
 mitigates by her untiring charity the inevitable hardships 
 of a luxurious civilization : she chastens the pride of 
 wealth, and cheers the desolation of poverty : across the 
 yawning chasms which open between classes and interests 
 she throws the holy connexions of her manifold and 
 ubiquitous philanthropy. In the great urban parishes 
 where not five per cent, of the population make any 
 regular profession of Christianity, the clergy, by their 
 pastoral labours, bring into the parochial life an element 
 of kindliness and morality and hope, which is, viewed 
 from the standpoint of the national interest, almost 
 infinitely valuable. As they move about the streets on 
 their accustomed duties, they are a perpetual protest 
 against the squalid and hungry materialism of popular 
 life, they incarnate before the roughest sections of our 
 people the Moral Law, not as a coercive force, but as a 
 general and ever-present Appeal to the Conscience, and 
 their presence is felt as a rebuke to every form of baseness. 
 In one populous and squalid parish which I know, the 
 police on one occasion, when the force had to be largely 
 withdrawn for concentration in another district, requested 
 the parochial clergy to show themselves in the streets, as 
 their mere presence would suffice to restrain serious dis- 
 order. Now these immense National Services do justify 
 to the conscience of the Democracy the continued Estab- 
 lishment of the Church, in spite of the fact that, as a 
 denomination, she is far too insignificant to claim a 
 National recognition. But manifestly her tenure of the 
 National Status involves a recognition on her side of the 
 actual circumstances under which it is granted to her. 
 The Church has had to learn by a series of sharp lessons
 
 CUI BONO? 25 
 
 that no privileges or exemptions can be implied in Estab- 
 lishment. In that sense Establishment has been finally 
 condemned by the national conscience. Establishment 
 remains to-day in an attenuated form, binding the Church 
 to wider duties, conferring on the people large religious 
 franchises, but conveying no privilege to the one, and 
 inflicting no hardship on the other. If any grievances yet 
 remain unredressed they need only be pointed out and 
 substantiated by adequate proof, and their removal will be 
 promptly effected. The State asks from the Church a 
 large sacrifice of denominational liberty : it offers in return 
 a splendid vantage-ground from which to wage her spiritual 
 warfare. The Church has to choose between her own 
 interest as a denomination, and the interest of her redemp- 
 tive work. My Lord, I cannot doubt what is her duty : 
 she carries the Name, and Commission, of Him Who in 
 His own Person gave example of Self-suppression. On a 
 memorable occasion the Evangelist relates that He checked 
 very solemnly the ambition of the sons of Zebedee ; His 
 Words seem to me eminently needed by us all at the 
 present time. "Jesus called them to Him, and saith unto 
 " them. Ye know that they which are accounted to rule 
 *' over the Gentiles lord it over them ; and their great 
 " ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among 
 " you : but whosoever would become great among you, shall 
 " be your minister : and whosoever would be first among 
 " you, shall be servant of all. For verily the Son of Man 
 " came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to 
 *'give His life a ransom for many" (S. Mark xi. 42-5). 
 
 My Lord, you will not do me the injustice of supposing 
 that I am unconscious that a point may be reached in the 
 State's demand upon the Church, at which a higher 
 interest than that of her immediate work would demand 
 an assertion of her latent denominational rights : nor am 
 I so arrogant as to assume that my own judgment ought
 
 26 CUI BONO? 
 
 to be accepted by anyone else as determining when that 
 point is reached. Yet, with all deference, I would submit 
 to your Lordship that, as things now stand in England, 
 no one can maintain without extravagance that the State 
 so limits the spiritual liberty of the Church as to make it 
 the duty of Churchmen to seek release from Establish- 
 ment. Let any thoughtful Churchman read the remark- 
 able and most timely declarations in which the honoured 
 Chief of the Church of England has recently set forth, in 
 words of characteristic lucidity and a certain stately sim- 
 plicity, the broad conditions of teaching and worship in 
 the National Church, and let him ask himself in all gravity 
 whether it be not monstrous to affirm that those conditions 
 are either iniquitous in principle or intolerable in practice. 
 For seven years I held a great parish, which the late Bishop 
 of S. Alban's was wont to describe as the most difficult in 
 his diocese, and which certainly did present an amazing 
 variety of difficult problems. I was unquestionably, as 
 Vicar of Barking, well placed for testing the working value 
 of the Establishment : and I can honestly say that, 
 though I ever loyally tried to obey the law, and have at 
 no time had the slightest sympathy with clerical illegality, 
 I did not find in the legal requirements of my position 
 any hindrance to my spiritual work. Hindrances enough 
 there were, and not least among them my own incapacity, 
 but certainly it would be monstrous to affirm that the 
 State hindered the Church. On the contrary, I found in 
 the National Status which I received from the fact of 
 Establishment a most valuable starting-point for spiritual 
 work. It opened the doors of the parishioners to my 
 visits ; it justified to their consciences my attempts to 
 reform the more glaring iniquities of the local life ; it 
 provided me with a common platform on which I could 
 approach pastorally persons with whom I had otherwise 
 no relation. I adduce my own experience, my Lord,
 
 CUI BONO? 27 
 
 because I am at least entitled to speak with authority on 
 that subject, and because I desire, even at the risk of 
 an imputation of egotism, to make plain the practical 
 bearings of those vehement denunciations of the Establish- 
 ment in which some Churchmen are but too ready to 
 indulge. 
 
 II. If the Church of England is to remain an established 
 Church the cler^^y must recover the popular confidence. 
 It is a sad assumption that underlies this proposition, but 
 it is undoubtedly true. The clergy have lirgely lost the 
 confidence of the people. Into the causes of this un- 
 fortunate fact I cannot here enter at length. It must 
 suffice to point out that they are long-standing, complex, 
 and largely impersonal. The circumstances of the English 
 Reformation were unparalleled elsewhere. Alone of the 
 Reformed Churches the Church of England retained the 
 ancient episcopal government unimpaired : but this ad- 
 vantage was not secured without a heavy sacrifice. Alone 
 of the Reformed Churches the Church of England has 
 never been popular, for she has never reflected the triumph 
 of any dominant popular party. In Scotland, for example, 
 the Presbyterian Church expressed and secured the 
 national aspirations of the Scottish people. The Cove- 
 nants symbolized not unworthily the actual fact. The 
 Church is the creation of Scottish national feeling, and 
 enshrines the patriotic traditions of a brave and high- 
 spirited race. In England the last influence that can be 
 recognized in the long and various process of '' the Re- 
 formation " is the popular will. The Tudor despotism 
 strove for the best part of a century to force an Anglican 
 system on the nation, and failed. The weaker Stuarts, 
 taking up the task under more difficult conditions and 
 with inferior resources, brought the whole ecclesiastical 
 constitution to violent disaster : and though, after the 
 Restoration, the Church seemed for awhile to be deeply
 
 28 CUI BONO? 
 
 rooted in the popular favour, the Nonconformists remained 
 a powerful factor. The Revolution of 1688 necessarily 
 involved a frank recognition of Nonconformity ; complete 
 religious equality has, indeed, only been secured within 
 the present century, but, in principle, the failure of 
 political Anglicanism was admitted by the Toleration Act 
 of 1689. The accession of the Hanoverian dynasty un- 
 doubtedly affected injuriously the interests of the National 
 Church. How strained the relations between the clergy 
 and the government became is sufBciently indicated by 
 the thoroughly unconstitutional silencing of the Convoca- 
 tions for more than a century (1717-1852). The effect of 
 all this was to impress the popular mind with a settled 
 suspicion of the ecclesiastical character. I need hardly 
 point out how potent an influence in the same direction 
 has been exercised by the " Oxford Movement." What- 
 ever opinion may be held as to the general character of 
 the Tractarian agitation, no instructed and candid Church- 
 man any longer questions the lofty ideals and the high 
 personal sincerity of the authors and leaders, and few will 
 deny that large benefits have, from that source, come to 
 the Church and the Nation. There has, however, been 
 this fatal defect in the whole movement. It was academic 
 and clerical in its origin : in 1845 it ceased to be academic, 
 and became more than ever clerical : and that is its 
 character to this day. The laity have, in the main, been 
 but little affected by the Tractarian movement. No doubt 
 individuals here and there, and congregations in London 
 and some of the greater provincial cities, have accepted 
 Tractarian principles, but in the main it has not been so. 
 The English Church Union, over which your Lordship 
 presides, is pardonably proud of its numbers, and they are, 
 from some points of view, impressive enough. I take 
 them to illustrate my present contention. The total 
 membership of the Union is stated to be 33,000, of whom
 
 CUI BONO? 29 
 
 b 
 
 4,200 are clergymen (including 31 Bishops), and nearly 
 29,000 are lay communicants. I do not quite understand 
 whether the 10,000 women associates are included in the 
 membership, but, leaving them out of reckoning, what do 
 the figures really prove, but this — that while one clergy- 
 man in every six is a High Churchman, only one layman 
 in twenty can be so described ? This, however, though 
 not without significance, enormously overstates the strength 
 of the High Church party : for the English Church Union 
 only includes communicants, and the enormous majority 
 of Englishmen are not included in that category. Melan- 
 choly though this must be by every good Churchman 
 considered, yet it is not necessary to make it worse than 
 experience proves it to be. For many reasons, the average 
 law-abiding, clean-living Englishman, who attends the 
 Parish Church Services, and readily supports any good 
 work, is not easily persuaded to come to Holy Com- 
 munion, but he is not an unbeliever, and must n9t be so 
 reckoned. Such men, numbered by many hundreds of 
 thousands, have no sympathy with the principles of 
 Tractarianism. In any case 29,000 laymen above the 
 age of sixteen form rather a petty force in a nation of 
 which the Parliamentary electors alone exceed five millions. 
 The effect of the Oxford movement has been to drive a 
 wedge between the clergy and the people. The clergy 
 are working and teaching on one conception of Christianity, 
 the people are living and listening on another. The very 
 phraseology of the two has become distinct. The Vicar 
 speaks of the Holy Eucharist, the Altar, the priest, Catho- 
 licism, and so forth ; the Churchwarden of the Lord's 
 Supper, the Table, the parson or minister. Protestantism, 
 and the like. The relations of clergymen and parishioners 
 become as "non-natural" as the exegesis of Tract 90. 
 The development from *' non-natural " to artificial and 
 unreal is facile and swift. It is very clear that all the
 
 30 CUI BONO? 
 
 conditions of mutual suspicion are here provided. But 
 this is by no means all. The High Church clergy have 
 ambitions which may be, and commonly are, in themselves 
 innocent and laudable, but which they dare not avow. 
 They believe in the spiritual value of Confession, for 
 instance, and they desire to promote that discipline among 
 their people : but they are afraid to openly say as much : 
 they seek their object quietly as occasion offers. Is it any 
 marvel that they are the objects of parochial suspicion ? 
 nay, do they not in part, at least, deserve the obloquy 
 they undoubtedly receive ? 
 
 Two facts in particular have damaged the reputation of 
 the clergy for honesty. The first is the secessions to 
 Rome. In 1845 and in 1851 on a great scale, commonly 
 on a very small one, High Church clergymen have seceded 
 to the communion which the English laity as a whole 
 regard with unreasoning abhorrence. Hardly a year passes 
 without some clerical secession. The fact is easily enough 
 explained, and the explanation is neither honourable to 
 Rome nor discreditable to the Church of England, but 
 one, and one only explanation suggests itself to " the man 
 in the street." He concludes that the seceding parson was 
 all along a Romanizing " conspirator." The other fact 
 is the ostentatious contempt of Law and Rubric which 
 many High Church clergymen seem to exhibit. I am not 
 ignorant, of course, that the most anarchic of the Ritualists 
 has explanations which at least in his own opinion ex- 
 onerate him from the guilt of disobeying the Law, but, it 
 must be allowed, that those explanations are not capable 
 of such simple statement as to reach the general under- 
 standing. It is far from my intention to prefer an indict- 
 ment against the Ritualist clergy : their apology may for 
 all I know be convincing and sufficient. I am only con- 
 cerned to point out that it is unintelligible to the average 
 layman. He knows that the clergyman has solemnly
 
 CUI BONO? 
 
 31 
 
 pledged himself at his Ordination to use the Prayer-book 
 and obey the Bishop, and he sees him manifestly altering 
 the familiar services almost beyond recognition, and quite 
 brazenly setting at naught the '' fatherly admonitions " of 
 his Bishop. He neither knows, nor cares about the *' First 
 Prayer-book," or the " Sarum use," or the subtle distinction 
 between *' canonical " and other obedience, or the mys- 
 terious transmutation of the Court of Arches into a lay 
 court, or the spiritual insufficiency of the Judicial Com- 
 mittee, or a thousand other formulas and contentions 
 which fill the atmosphere of clerical assemblies. He has 
 the Prayer-book in his hand, and cannot find his way 
 about the service in many Churches by its once-sufficient 
 guidance. He respects the Law, and is really shocked that 
 his clergyman does not. Again, I ask, is it any marvel 
 that he grows restless and suspicious ? Is it right or 
 charitable to provoke his almost inevitable indignation ? 
 Ought we not rather to follow the Apostolic counsel and 
 '' take thought for things honourable in the sight of all 
 men " ? My Lord, it would ill reflect the honesty I am 
 advocating if I stopped here. Your Lordship knows, and 
 I know, that there are some clergy who are in this sense 
 dishonourable men, that they are consciously and deliber- 
 ately pursuing aims which they know to be contrary to 
 the whole drift and intention of the English Church. The 
 Bishops, with few exceptions, assure us that only a small 
 section of the clergy are positively disloyal. Their Lord- 
 ships unquestionably have access to information which 
 other men cannot obtain : they speak with the double 
 authority of knowledge and responsibility. I cheerfully 
 accept their assurance, but I point out that the public 
 offence caused by disloyalty of this manifest and guilty 
 character is out of all proportion to the number of clergy- 
 men concerned. A general uneasiness is created which 
 spreads and deepens into that praeternatural suspicion
 
 32 CUI BONO? 
 
 which is the condition of every kind of injustice. The 
 reception accorded to Mr. Walsh's '' Secret History of 
 the Oxford Movement " is full of ominous suggestion. 
 The mingled credulity and craft of the Author are infinitely 
 discreditable to himself — and the work is everywhere dis- 
 figured by insinuations of dishonourable conduct against 
 men, about whose nobility of character the Nation has 
 long since made up its mind : it is a bad book, and it has 
 a bad effect on the mind, but, in spite of all, it does 
 succeed in fastening on the High Church clergy the hateful 
 accusation of religious duplicity, and so raising against 
 them the ignorant but essentially righteous manliness of 
 average Englishmen. It is often asserted by way of 
 apology for the lawlessness of Ritualists that as a matter of 
 fact the Church owes her present ritual liberty to nothing 
 else. Even allowing this to be true, it is but too often 
 forgotten that the success of lawlessness is always very 
 dearly purchased. Ritual liberty is a poor exchange for 
 the confidence of the English people, and yet, nothing less 
 has been forfeited during the process of defying and dis- 
 crediting the law-courts. The reflective Churchman will 
 not regard with unmingled satisfaction any advantages 
 won at the cost of weakening in the general mind respect 
 for authority. Personally, I think the Church has lost 
 far more than she has gained by the policy of the 
 Ritualists. It is not sufficiently remembered that under 
 the conditions of modern life the vagaries of individuals 
 rapidly attract notice, and in exact proportion to their 
 extravagance is their notoriety. The constant movements 
 of population bring under the public view the extraordinary 
 variety of ritual in the National Church. There is some- 
 thing almost pathetic about the professed purpose which 
 the Prayer-book was designed to serve when read as part 
 of the preface to a volume which has become the excuse 
 of a wider diversity than it superseded. The startling
 
 CUI BONO? 
 
 33 
 
 differences in the conduct of public worship perplex and 
 distress the people, and wonderfully facilitate the task of 
 the emissaries of the Church of Rome. My Lord, I sub- 
 mit that the recovery of the public confidence is a matter 
 of extreme and urgent importance ; and I suggest that 
 this must necessitate more frankness and less individualism 
 on the part of the clergy. The disloyal section, whatever 
 be its numbers or importance, seems to me wholly out 
 of place within the National Church, which would be 
 strengthened by its secession. 
 
 III. If the Church of England is to remain an Estab- 
 Hshed Church it can only be on condition that the clergy 
 respect the National Conscience. 
 
 A witty Frenchman called the Bible and the Sunday 
 the two English Sacraments, and there is this amount of 
 truth in the dictum, that English Religion has fastened 
 with extraordinary tenacity on the Supremacy of Scripture 
 and the Sanctity of the Lord's Day. Now ^ these are 
 certainly not the whole of Christianity, but so far as they 
 go they are true and valuable. It would seem the wisdom 
 of the Church to jealously guard every sound element in 
 the national life, and so to fashion her own teaching as to 
 fit it on to whatever religious convictions, not actually 
 false, the people possess. This would be the course of 
 wisdom, and not less that of charity : unhappily it is not 
 the course adopted by many of the English clergy. The 
 Sabbatarian tradition, which is the abiding legacy of 
 Calvinism and indicates with unerring decision the actual 
 extent of its influence, has undoubtedly run into intoler- 
 able excesses of narrowness and absurdity. I remember 
 some years ago when I opened my Vicarage garden for 
 the use of the parishioners on Sunday afternoons, and, 
 through the ready helpfulness of some of them, was able 
 to provide a very creditable brass band, I received some 
 amazing protests. One anonymous correspondent writing 
 
 c
 
 34 CUI BONO? 
 
 from a sea-side town, which I will refrain from naming, 
 assured me with Apocalyptic wealth of imagery that I 
 ** was dancing to hell with my people at my heels " ! I 
 am the last person in the world to assume the champion- 
 ship of Sabbatarian fanaticism : nevertheless, I cannot 
 shut my eyes to the fact that a section of the High Church 
 clergy is provoking a genuine moral revolt among many 
 godly Churchmen by its ostentatious indifference to the 
 sanctity of the " Lord's Day." Still more serious is the 
 practical contempt of the Bible which prevails in the same 
 quarters. I say practical contempt, for theoretically there 
 are no signs of any such temper. Again, I admit frankly 
 that respect for the Bible has very generally taken 
 grotesque and fanatical forms, which not unnaturally 
 provoke resentment and even scorn. Yet, in the main, 
 who can deny that the veneration for the Scriptures is a 
 sound and genuinely Catholic sentiment ? It is too plain 
 to be denied that the place once held in personal religion 
 by the regular reading of the Bible is no longer maintained. 
 The High Church system of replacing Mattins by Choral 
 Celebrations tends in the same direction. The execrable 
 habit of gabbhng or monotoning the Lessons goes far to 
 neutralize their value : and the great multiplication of 
 devotional books, some pernicious, many mawkish, most 
 superfluous, tends to crowd out the sacred volume. The 
 practical neglect of the Bible is the historic condition of 
 ecclesiastical corruption, and I cannot conceal the real 
 anxiety I feel at the possible reaction on our whole Church 
 life of the rapidly increasing ignorance of Scripture which 
 I observe. Professor Beyschlag, in the American Journal 
 of Theology (July, i8g8), relates that in the Vatican 
 Council ecclesiastical indifference to the Scriptures had 
 reached the length of discussing the proposed doctrine 
 without reference to the sacred text. " A Bible by which 
 *' to test the new dogma seems not to have been at hand,
 
 CUI BONO? 35 
 
 '' for Bishop Dupanloup borrowed one of the Protestant 
 " chaplain of the German legation." Clerical contempt of 
 the Bible has been very prominent and aggressive in the 
 recent controversies about religious teaching in elementary 
 schools. I have always held and urged the insufficiency of 
 mere Bible reading, and I do not wish to be understood as 
 in any way receding from that belief: but to think that 
 Bible reading is insufficient is one thing, to deride and 
 denounce it is quite another ; and that the latter has but 
 too often been the course adopted by the clergy is, I 
 think, unquestionable. The general conscience, I believe, 
 is very hostile to merely '' secular " education ; and the 
 clergy might be really supported by the moral conviction 
 of the nation as a whole when they fight for definite 
 Christian teaching in the schools. It is a sad misfortune 
 that they should forfeit the political advantages of their 
 position by provoking, often quite unpardonably, the 
 Bible-venerating sentiment of the people. 
 
 My Lord, I cannot describe under any less severe 
 description than that of gratuitous offence to the 
 average conscience of Englishmen the practice, but 
 too common, of selecting the most irritating and mis- 
 leading language in which to discuss religious questions. 
 I will confine myself to two examples which are ready to 
 my hand. What excuse is there for flaunting in the face 
 of an apprehensive public the long-discarded Roman term 
 for Holy Communion ? Your Lordship at Bradford was 
 careful to explain that the members of the English Church 
 Union " believe the Holy Eucharist, whether it be more 
 " commonly called 'the Divine Liturgy,' as in the East, 
 " or 'the Mass,' as in the West, or 'the Holy Communion' 
 " as amongst ourselves, to be one and the same service." 
 I confess, my Lord, that this does not seem to me a very 
 serviceable declaration. No sane man disputes what you 
 say. The " Mass " claims to be the Sacrament which
 
 36 CUI BONO? 
 
 Christ instituted, and so does the English Communion, 
 and so does the sectarian '' bread-breaking." All claim 
 the same character ; but, none the less, they are not the 
 same. When the average Englishman repudiates the 
 " Mass " and the " bread-breaking," he is not denying 
 that both, equally with the " Holy Communion," are 
 representative of the original institution ; he is only 
 repudiating the specific and distinguishing character of 
 those particular representations ; in the one case, the 
 transubstantiation-dogma and the materialized conception 
 of sacrifice which it involves ; in the other case, the absence 
 of the ordained Minister, and even of the traditional 
 formula of consecration, and the disbelief in sacramental 
 grace. Is it reasonable to expect that English people 
 should take kindly to a term which is never used in the 
 public services of the Church, which is only once men- 
 tioned in the Prayer-book, and then contemptuously, 
 which is repudiated by most of the venerated '' Fathers " 
 of the Reformed Church, which has been totally disused 
 in England for centuries, w^hich is characteristic of the 
 Roman Church, and, finally, which is, apart from its 
 associations, wholly unmeaning ? What conceivable 
 advantage to religion can be set against the certain 
 irritation and mistake ? English clergy do not want, 
 or ought not to want, to make their congregations 
 suppose that the Roman Mass and the English Com- 
 munion are in this sense one, that the characteristic 
 sacramental doctrine of the one Church is identical 
 with that of the other. The abolition of the term 
 from the formularies of the Reformed Church declared 
 a fact that certainly needs assertion to-day, as much as 
 ever, and it is really reckless on the part of any clergyman 
 to provoke resentment or misunderstanding, or both, by 
 borrowing the Roman name for the Holy Sacrament. 
 Again, what good purpose is served by continually
 
 CUI BONO? 
 
 37 
 
 speaking of " Protestantism " and *' Anglicanism " with 
 a contempt which at once perplexes and exasperates 
 the minds of average Englishmen ? I adduce as an 
 example the language used at Bradford in your Lord- 
 ship's presence by the well-known vicar of S. Augustine's, 
 Stepney, on which Sir William Harcourt naturally fastened 
 when he sought to sustain the charge of intractable dis- 
 loyalty against the High Church party. I retain the notes 
 of applause, because they indicate how completely the 
 numerous assembly of members of E. C. U. identified 
 itself with the speaker's views : — 
 
 " Sometimes, you know, we hear of the distinctive 
 ' doctrines of the Church of England. (Laughter.) 
 ' Has the Church of England got any distinctive 
 ' doctrines ? If she had any distinctive doctrines she 
 'would be a sect, and not a portion of the Holy 
 ' Catholic Church. (Loud cheers.) I am not the least 
 ' surprised the Protestants are getting exceedingly anxious. 
 
 * I have been in East London about fifteen years, and can 
 ' say that there has been a very marked change in the 
 ' aspect of the Churches there in that time. ... A few 
 ' words to our friends who call themselves Anglicans. 
 
 * I was an Anglican once myself. (Laughter.) Indeed 
 ' I was a Protestant once myself. (Renewed laughter.) 
 ' Why, Catholics are fighting your battle ; that is what I 
 ' have to say to Anglicans. The Protestants hate your 
 ' ways as much as ours, only it is much easier to fight us 
 ' than you. You have got your choral services, coloured 
 ' stoles and vestments, and the like, and, observe this, all 
 ' that these things mean. How is it you have got them ? 
 ' Because Father Mackonochie stood firm at S. Alban's, 
 ' Holborn. (Tremendous cheering.)" 
 
 My Lord, I read this indecent and inflammatory language 
 with a feeling almost of despair. But a few hours elapsed 
 between your approving audience of Mr. Wilson's speech.
 
 3 8 CUI BONO? 
 
 and your proposal of a Conference to restore peace. My 
 Lord, can you seriously hope that any Conference can 
 exorcise from Enghsh minds the alarm and suspicion 
 which is provoked in them by Mr. Wilson's words ? I 
 have read them very carefully, and I think I can dimly 
 guess in them a meaning which is not so offensive as that 
 which they certainly convey ; but that is not now my 
 point. Whatever their meaning, and I will assume it to 
 be compatible with loyalty to the Anglican Church, is it 
 possible to exaggerate the reckless uncharity of the words ? 
 What wanton offence it must give to feelings and beliefs 
 which are legitimate, reasonable, and smcere ! 
 
 Of course I know, and up to a certain point I sympathize 
 with, the desire to bring back into the general usage of 
 English Churchmen that venerable and noble name 
 " Catholic," which the Prayer-book constantly adopts, 
 and which, to the educated and thoughtful Christian, 
 carries such a freight of Christian traditions. I know, and 
 I deprecate the obvious misconceptions which commonly 
 underlie the use of the word *' Protestant " ; and I entirely 
 approve all courteous and reasonable means for bringing 
 more accurate ideas into current religious language. But 
 how can I help repudiating with all my heart this reckless 
 and abusive denunciation of a name which is everywhere 
 in English literature a synonym for truth and freedom, 
 which stands for nothing less in the Archives of mankind, 
 which was habitually adopted by the honoured " Fathers " 
 of the English Church ? What a gulf parts Mr. Wilson's 
 rhetoric from Bishop Cosin's grave and religious language. 
 
 *' But in what part of the world soever any Churches are 
 " extant, bearing the Name of Christ, and professing the 
 " true Catholic Faith and religion, worshipping and calling 
 " upon God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
 " with one heart and voice, if any where I be now hindered 
 " actually to be joined with them, either by distance of
 
 CUI BONO? 39 
 
 " countries, or variance amongst men, or by any other let 
 " whatsoever, yet always in my mind and affection I join 
 " and unite with them ; which I desire to be chiefly understood 
 " of Protestants, and the best reformed Churches : for, 
 " where the foundations are safe, we may allow, and there- 
 " fore most friendly, quietly, and peaceably suffer, in those 
 *' Churches where we have not authority, a diversity, as 
 " of opinion, so of ceremonies, about things which do but 
 " adhere to the foundations, and are neither necessary or 
 ''repugnant to the practice of the universal Church" 
 (Works, vol. iv., p. 527). 
 
 My Lord, if Mr. Wilson's Bradford speech stood 
 alone, I should certainly not have adduced it in this 
 Letter, but I know but too well that it is representative of 
 a widely extended clerical habit. The conscience of the 
 ordinary Englishman revolts against these diatribes against 
 Protestantism, and justly. No Church can afford to 
 ignore the general conscience. I need not remind your 
 Lordship how opposed such an attitude is to the teaching 
 of Christianity. The supercilious, contemptuous tone in 
 which the ** Protestant " or the '' mere Anghcan " are 
 referred to in Ritualist circles seems the very counterpart 
 of that scornful " knowledge " which disregarded '' weaker 
 brethren," and earned the solemn censure of the great 
 Apostle. ''Let us not therefore judge one another any 
 "more : but judge ye this rather, that no man put a 
 " stumbling-block in his brother's way, or an occasion of 
 " falling. . . . Let not then your good be evil spoken of : 
 "for the kingdom of God is not eating or drinking, but 
 " righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. For 
 " he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and 
 " approved of men. So then let us follow after things which 
 " make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one 
 "another" (Romans xv. 13, 17-19). 
 
 My Lord, I am not unconscious of the risks to which
 
 40 CUI BONO? 
 
 my present argument is exposed. It is an easy task to 
 sweep aside as trivial, or exaggerated, or unfair, any of the 
 instances which I adduce as illustrating the clerical con- 
 tempt of the national conscience, which, I am. contending, 
 must be restrained if the present legal Establishment of 
 Religion is to be preserved. The cumulative effect of acts 
 in themselves trivial can be very great, and this is the case 
 before us. The attitude of mind revealed in Mr. Wilson's 
 speech at Bradford finds expression in a thousand forms, 
 the general result of which is to isolate the clergy from 
 the sympathy and confidence of good and religious people, 
 and to build up between the Church and the conscience 
 of the Nation a wall of partition. 
 
 The practical mischiefs, which flow from the deep and 
 (I at least cannot honestly deny) not unfounded suspicion 
 of the clergy which has been thus built up in the popular 
 mind are very great. The difficulties of reform in certain 
 directions are enormously increased. I will give but a 
 single example. Reservation for the Sick is, as your 
 Lordship is wont to insist, a primitive practice ; it is also 
 intrinsically reasonable, for the extreme weakness of very 
 ill or dying persons, makes even a shortened Service 
 extremely burdensome ; but, pace your Lordship, it is by 
 the Law of the English Church forbidden as we have been 
 again reminded by the Archbishop. What is the real 
 difficulty about getting the law altered ? What is the 
 real reason of the unanimous decision of the English 
 Bishops (for nothing less seems behind the impressive 
 unanimity of their Lordships' declarations on the subject), 
 to suppress the practice ? It is nothing else than the 
 profound distrust of the clergy which both the general 
 public and the Bishops feel ; the former, led by a vague 
 but strong instinct, the latter, guided by actual knowledge 
 of the dominant tendencies in the Church, unite in sus- 
 pecting that the liberty which is demanded in the interest
 
 CUI BONO? 41 
 
 of the sick, would certainly be used in the interest of 
 liturgical developments borrowed from contemporary 
 Romanism, which are not only grossly materialistic in 
 themselves, but are also plainly opposed to the spirit and 
 the letter of the Prayer-book. Who can say that in this 
 particular this suspicion is unjust, or unreasonable ? Per- 
 sonally, I applaud the practice of reservation, and, on 
 grounds of practical convenience, I desire its restoration, 
 but, if such restoration is to bring into the Churches the 
 Roman '* Benediction," and processions of the *^ Host," 
 and such developments of debased Sacramentalism, then 
 I prefer the existing prohibition. And my own knowledge 
 of the London Churches, which, of course, is necessarily 
 limited, makes me quite ready to believe that such results 
 are highly probable. 
 
 IV. If the Church of England is to remain an Estab- 
 lished Church, it can only be on condition that certain 
 evident and exasperating abuses are removed. 
 
 No observer of the recent course of ecclesiastical politics 
 can fail to be impressed by the rapid advance of the agi- 
 tation inaugurated and maintained by the Church Reform 
 League. Into the merits of the particular proposals 
 advanced by the League I shall not here enter. It must 
 suffice to say that, though I cordially sympathize with 
 the idea of Reform, and hold very strongly that the 
 EstabHshment itself is endangered by the continuance of 
 certain abuses which weigh heavily on the popular con- 
 science and do plainly run counter to the popular interest, 
 yet that I cannot so far reconcile myself to the avowed 
 ideals of the Church Reform League as to become a 
 member of that Association. Here I am only concerned 
 to point out that the removal of abuses is a condition of 
 the Establishment which must be faced. Parliament acts 
 slowly, and with obvious difficulty ; but it is the only 
 adequate instrument of Church Reform which we possess,
 
 42 CUI BONO? 
 
 and, therefore, we should not be too ready to denounce its 
 defects. ParHament, on the whole, has not deserved ill of 
 the Church of England. Even the ill-starred Public 
 Worship Regulation Act was mitigated by an Episcopal 
 veto, which in the sequel has deprived it of all effect ; 
 and in justice to the State it must always be remembered 
 that that Act was passed in deference to the avowed wishes 
 of the vast majority of English Churchmen. Parliament 
 conferred an immense benefit on the Church when, in the 
 teeth of clerical clamour, it constituted the Ecclesiastical 
 Commission for the better administration and distribution 
 of ecclesiastical property, and passed the Tithe Commu- 
 tation Act. The recent Discipline and Patronage Acts 
 have certainly been of great service, and I see no reason 
 why all necessary practical Reforms should not be obtained 
 from Parliament, if a reasonable temper of conciliation 
 and compromise replace in Churchmen the intractable 
 and contemptuous attitude which is now so common. 
 Surely it ought to be possible to discuss practical ques- 
 tions in a practical spirit. Why must everything be 
 treated in connection with irrelevant and exasperating 
 beliefs, which may be lawful enough for the guidance of 
 individuals, but cannot be usefully advanced in a practical 
 discussion ? 
 
 Here, my Lord, I may well bring my letter to a con- 
 clusion, for, if in what I have already said my meaning has 
 not been made clear, I cannot hope to remedy the fault 
 by protracting my argument. Your Lordship must not 
 resent a personal appeal ; it is the consequence of an 
 influence unique in character and in extent that you 
 should be held greatly responsible for the course of action 
 which the High Church Party elects to follow at this 
 juncture. I have tried without success to recall a parallel 
 in our Ecclesiastical History to the position which you 
 have won for yourself in the Church of England. That a
 
 CUI BONO? 43 
 
 layman should wield so ample an authority over thousands 
 of the Enghsh clergy must be allowed to constitute an 
 impressive evidence of the respect which your Lordship's 
 high and chivalrous character, transparent sincerity, and 
 obvious courage have inspired. With that respect, I beg 
 to associate myself unreservedly, in spite of the fact that 
 I have never acquiesced in the projects, or endorsed the 
 ideals which, under your Lordship's influence, the High 
 Church Party has of late years pursued and made its own. 
 
 It is with the High Church Party that the decision rests 
 on the great issue whether or not the Church of England 
 shall remain, in the historic sense of the phrase, the 
 National Church. The Low Church Party may be, and 
 I am honestly bound to say that I think it is, guilty of 
 larger and more fundamental departures from the spirit 
 and letter of the Prayer-book than its rival, but those 
 departures have little political effect because they coincide 
 with the general sentiment of the Nation, and command 
 the sympathy of the Nonconformist bodies. Moreover, 
 the Low Church Party is evidently yielding, slowly, 
 perhaps, but apparently, to the influence of the wider 
 culture of modern life, and the silent formative force of 
 the Formularies. The fanatical Anti-Popery sentiment 
 which swayed the Party a generation ago is now largely 
 extinct, and among the younger Evangelicals there is a 
 deep and growing appreciation of the Catholic tone and 
 teaching of the Prayer-book. I would without anxiety 
 leave the members of that Party to the education of their 
 circumstances as members of a Church which believes and 
 worships as the Prayer-book provides. This is my explana- 
 tion, and I hope also my sufficient excuse for leaving out 
 of count, when the question of Establishment is at stake, 
 that numerous, zealous, and powerful section of the National 
 Church. 
 
 My Lord, you have publicly avowed yourself on many
 
 44 CUI BONO? 
 
 occasions the opponent of the poHcy of the Liberation 
 Society ; I appeal to you very earnestly to consider 
 whether you are not indirectly and unintentionally con- 
 tributing to the very disaster you deprecate and denounce. 
 Your Lordship spoke with generous rhetoric of the pride 
 of Englishmen in ** the ancient Church of this land " : you 
 said, and not untruly, that '' they love her, and, far from 
 "wishing to degrade her, or to rob her, they desire 
 " nothing so much as to see her once more the joy and 
 *' praise of the whole earth." Yes, my Lord, that is true, 
 only do not make the fatal mistake of crediting the English 
 people with an antiquarian or transcendental conception of 
 the Church. They are the most practical people in the 
 world, the least governed by sentiment and emotion. 
 They see nothing glorious or worthy in a Church which 
 disowns its birthright, which proclaims that it has no dis- 
 tinctive principles, no rightful authority, which lives in the 
 shadowy past, or guides its hesitating course by a parasitic 
 imitation of foreign models. The Church which English- 
 men will rejoice in and exult to possess, which they will 
 rally to and champion against domestic treason and 
 external attack, is that which commands the homage of 
 their conscience, and wins, by self-sacrificing labour, the 
 affection of their hearts. Your Lordship is too fond of 
 the past, and, as is but too often the case with lovers, you 
 clothe the object of your affection with the qualities you 
 would yourself most desire to see in it. Even in the 
 ardent words I have quoted this note of imaginative 
 archaism is audible. The English Church is " once more " 
 to become *' the joy and praise of the whole earth." Pray 
 tell us, my Lord, when was that golden age ? You could 
 hardly refer to the primitive conversion in the sixth and 
 seventh centuries, or to the disastrous trials of the ninth, 
 or the degraded secularism of the tenth and eleventh, or 
 the brutal feudalism of the twelfth, or the extraordinary
 
 CUI BONO? 45 
 
 Oppression of the thirteenth, or the profound debasement 
 of the fourteenth and fifteenth, or the violent revolution of 
 the sixteenth. Your Lordship's words earher in the 
 speech preclude the later period. What is the historic 
 fact on which you rear the fabric of your ecclesiastical 
 ideal ? And by what right do you credit to the general 
 body of Englishmen your own imaginative devotion ? Do 
 not misunderstand me, my Lord, I yield to no man in my 
 love of the National Church : her history is my favourite 
 study ; her interest my constant anxiety : to bear her 
 ministry is my greatest honour. I believe in the National 
 Church as the most beneficent of the National Institutions; 
 every instinct of patriotism is outraged by the proposal to 
 degrade and pillage her : but this is not the deepest basis 
 of my loyalty. The National Church commends itself to 
 my conscience and reason as the most faithful representa- 
 tive now existing in the world of that Divine Society 
 which the Apostles planted, and which the primitive 
 martyrs watered with their blood. I look back with 
 reverent gratitude on her unexampled history : I look 
 round with solemn apprehension on her unique oppor- 
 tunities ; I look forward with exultation to her splendid 
 possibilities. I can see her defects. They are, indeed, 
 like the faults of the English people, very much on the 
 surface. She corresponds to no preconceived theory of 
 what a Church should be. Logic and symmetry are 
 singularly absent from her system. She does not strike 
 the imagination with the pomp of Rome, or the more 
 archaic magnificence of the East. But she appeals more 
 successfully than either to the conscience and the intellect 
 of a just and liberty-loving people. She reflects the 
 virtues and the faults of the English race, on which she 
 has stamped indelibly her own distinctive image. The 
 very aspect of the country certifies the modest, yet effec- 
 tual character of the National religion. Everywhere, in
 
 46 CUI BONO? 
 
 obscure and remote hamlets not less than in thriving 
 country towns and in populous cities, there rise parish 
 Churches, which amaze the visitor by their solidity, or 
 entrance him by their sober beauty : but our Cathedrals, 
 when compared with the magnificence of the Continental 
 Churches, are, with few exceptions, modest to the verge 
 of meanness. Abroad it is otherwise : the general aspect 
 of the Churches is cheap and tawdry, but nothing can 
 exceed the mingled splendour and solemnity of the 
 Cathedrals. 
 
 English Christianity eschews the striking effects of 
 which Continental religion is prodigal, but it is more 
 thorough and robust, and perhaps covers a larger area of 
 the national life. Even the failures of the National 
 Church are not wholly without redeeming features. She 
 has not bound up Christianity so closely with her own 
 dogmas and claims as to leave the outraged conscience 
 no choice between accepting the latter or abandoning the 
 former. Her rebels go forth from her fellowship with no 
 purpose of that profounder treason which on the Con- 
 tinent marks the revolting Catholic. The Nonconformist 
 communities have therefore been ministerial to that great 
 purpose of evangelizing the English race which, it might 
 have been supposed, their secession would have fatally 
 impeded. I confess that the modesty of the National 
 Church, her reluctance to press her claims, her willingness 
 to recognize the activities of the Eternal Spirit in other 
 communions, seems to me no mean evidence of her 
 genuinely Apostolic character. She might summarize her 
 experiences and confess her inmost mind in the words of 
 that great Apostle who, perhaps, more than any other 
 governs her thought. " Now I would have you know, 
 " brethren, that the things which happened unto me have 
 " fallen out rather unto the progress of the Gospel ; so 
 '' that my bonds became manifest in Christ throughout
 
 CUI BONO? 47 
 
 *' the whole Praetorian guard, and to all the rest ; and 
 " that most of the brethren in the Lord, being confident 
 *' through my bonds, are more abundantly bold to speak 
 '' the word of God without fear. Some indeed preach 
 '' Christ even of envy and strife ; and some also of good 
 " will ; the one do it of love, knowing that I am set for 
 " the defence of the Gospel ; but the other proclaim 
 " Christ of faction, not sincerely, thinking to raise up 
 ''affliction for me in my bonds. What then? only that 
 " in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is 
 '' proclaimed ; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice " 
 (Phil. i. 12-18). 
 
 My Lord, I appeal to you whether the points at issue 
 can justify destroying the National Church ; or (if you 
 resent that absolute and terrible phrase, which yet I 
 cannot think excessive) of depriving the Church of England 
 of the splendid vantage-ground for her spiritual work 
 which her legal Establishment provides ? It is with a 
 certain melancholy amazement that I observe men taking 
 up an intractable attitude on such triviahties as the ritual 
 use of incense and the legality of reservation. Oh, my 
 Lord, let us clear our minds of cant. What do these or 
 any similar ceremonies count for in the scales of reality ? 
 Even more considerable contentions therein weighed seem 
 petty enough. Your Lordship will brand as heretics those 
 (among whom I must count myself) who in the interest of 
 Trinitarian Belief would relegate the Athanasian Creed to 
 an Appendix of the Prayer-book, yet the effect of that 
 proposal is already secured wherever High Churchmen 
 have succeeded in substituting a Choral Celebration of 
 Holy Communion for Morning Prayer. Why fight for 
 the shadow, when you have already surrendered the 
 substance ? 
 
 English public opinion is very tolerant, and it grows 
 more tolerant daily. Erastianism in the old sense is no
 
 48 CUI BONO? 
 
 longer a spiritual danger, the real peril lies in the opposite 
 direction. There is a disposition among the average laity 
 to make large allowance for the practical difficulties of the 
 clergy. I am sure that the self-suppression of the High 
 Church party would not be misunderstood. I believe all 
 generous and religious men would receive with intense 
 satisfaction the prospect of an escape from the present 
 crisis. A declaration from your Lordship frankly accept- 
 ing the Archbishop's recent charge as broadly defining the 
 position of the National Church, and avowing your belief 
 that within the lines of that position so defined, the High 
 Church party can and ought to work, would be altogether 
 worthy of your Lordship's loyal and manly character, and 
 infinitely acceptable to the great mass of English Church- 
 men. Short of such acceptance by both contending parties 
 I can see no reasonable prospect of any escape from the 
 ruinous disaster to religion involved in the destruction of 
 the National Status of the Church of England, and her 
 impoverishment by the loss of the ancient ecclesiastical 
 endowments. 
 
 I have the honour to be. 
 
 My Lord, 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 H. HENSLEY HENSON. 
 
 The Right Honourable 
 
 The Viscount Halifax.