fact that she has created and maintained a high average of practical Christianity. The national difficulties, which in the sixteenth century impressed somewhat limited aims upon her, have now passed away. Made wise by experience she has the promise of a great future. Without any change in her constitution, she has made her future more definite, has found room for higher aspirations, has shown that she can influence the masses, has developed great missionary activity, has spread her influence in every quarter of the globe. Only in later years has she begun to reap the full harvest of the Reformation.

(3) Intellectually, I see no losses to be set against the gain of a frank acceptance of Holy Scripture as the sole basis of doctrine and Church government, and a recognition that the sense of the Gospel has to be determined by strict adherence to "logic, grammar and natural science". The modest claim of the Anglican Church to be "a witness and keeper of Holy Writ" has been fully maintained. The greater pretension of the Roman Church to inherent powers of authoritative interpretation, has not proved so effective a barrier against unbelief. An extensive frontier affords weak places for attack. The process of slow retreat from untenable positions is hard to accomplish. The imposing appearance of strength vanishes on closer inspection. English theology has shown a capacity for facing the actual questions which perplex men's minds. It has been strong in its readiness to accept the historic method, and in its desire to obtain scientific results; it has done this in a careful and sober spirit which has made it powerful to mediate

between conflicting opinions. The English Church has been especially successful in retaining the allegiance and directing the thought of vigorous minds.

To sum up these fragmentary remarks. The teaching and the personality of Wyclif expressed and foreshadowed the great characteristics of the English Reformation. The influence of the Reformation in England was strong in directing our national history and moulding our national character. The reformed Church of England has kept alive the spirit of personal religion in a way which contrasts favourably with other religious organisations. Her defects are not irremediable, and she has shown a capacity to remedy them. In the region of thought she has held the strongest position, for she has elected to stand by the strength of her great central fort, the power of the Scriptures as the word of God, and the historical truth of the facts which they relate.

177

THE NATIONAL CHURCH: ITS CONTINUITY IN ORDER, DOCTRINE AND AUTONOMY.1

I MUST confess to considerable uncertainty about the exact meaning of the branch of this subject which has been assigned to me; but as I stand in place between Canon Jessopp and Professor Gwatkin, I propose to occupy, in time, the period which lies between their two papers. In so doing, I can only make a few remarks upon a few salient points in a simple way. You have already heard how the Church of Christ came into England from various quarters, with an organisation already formed. At first there were slight differences of local usage in points of administration and of worship; but with growing intercourse with the continent, these were abandoned for the sake of harmony. Then the unity of the Church led the way to a unity of the nation, in which Church and State were one. This simple condition of early times was altered by the Norman Conquest, which brought into England more highly developed ideas, and consequently more highly organised mechanism. No great outward changes were made, but things were looked at from a different point of view, and were interpreted differently. They were put into order; they were read

1A paper read at the Church Congress, Norwich, October, 1895.

into the terms of a system. A more developed organism implies differentiation of functions. So Church and State had their separate spheres assigned them for the first time. Civil business was separated from ecclesiastical business, civil courts from ecclesiastical courts, and common law from canon law. But the King was over all; and William the Conqueror made answer to Pope Gregory VII., "I will not do homage to you, because I do not find that my predecessors did so to your predecessors". Nothing was done to diminish the rights of the English State or of the English Church; nay, they, like everything else, were only made more definite and precise.

The general result of these changes was that the Crown was stronger than it had been before. William the Conqueror used his power wisely; but William Rufus discovered what a powerful engine his father had devised, and the land groaned under his oppression. He treated clerical fiefs as lay fiefs, and kept the See of Canterbury vacant for years. Believing himself to be at the point of death, he tried to make amends by appointing Anselm. He recovered from his illness, and tried to rid himself of an upright Archbishop, created by mistake. I need not tell you how he wore out Anselm's patience, till Anselm pleaded that he was ready to answer for his doings as Archbishop, "as he ought, and where he ought". The barons supported him in withstanding royal tyranny; they refused to support him in carrying his appeal to Rome. They said that it was contrary to the customs of the realm which he had sworn to observe.

Now this attitude of the barons is undoubtedly

marked by that inconsequence which plays so large a part in human affairs, especially in England. They wished Anselm to oppose the royal tyranny, and for that purpose to grasp any weapon which he could find ready to hand. But some weapons were only to be brandished, not to be used; and such was the threat of foreign intervention. Anselm might use it to prevent the King from oppressing him; but he and the King alike were bound to maintain the customs of the realm, and settle their disputes by reference to them alone. You will admit that this was an attitude very characteristic of the English mind; and it is remarkable how soon the atmosphere of their island home exercised its influence on the Norman intelligence. However, Anselm was a newcomer, and was not satisfied with this inconclusive result. He made his way to Rome, and laid his case before the Pope.

If we consider Anselm's motive, it may perhaps be stated thus. He turned from the oppression of power founded upon force, to power founded upon an idea of the nature of justice. The legal development of feudalism tended to materialise rights and duties. This tendency was to be counteracted by an ideal extension of feudalism into an all-embracing system, embodied in the theory of the Empire and the Papacy. Christendom was held to be a great confederation, united under two co-equal heads, who regulated affairs by applying those great principles of right and wrong which were sometimes obscured in a smaller sphere. This was an ideal conception which was never realised. Emperor and Pope were seldom in accord, and generally were at war. The Empire declined, and the