of the high works of art; assuredly, your strongest ground lies in the superiority of your moral position. If the Sabbatarians could prove that their restrictions promote the public morality, then, though their pretended "Scripturalism" is a mere fanatical blunder, they still would have a practical advantage over you. If indeed they began by shutting up the beer-shops and ginpalaces, before shutting the Crystal Palace, it would give at least some new plausibility to their case. But now the whole moral argument rests on your side, and indeed is stronger, the more closely it is examined. Endless experience proves, that, on the great scale, intellectual and moral debasement promote one another; so do intellectual and moral advancement. Wherever the clergy cannot or do not elevate the intellect, they assuredly will not raise the moral state of a neglected population: and as they have no power to force men into the churches, they can do nothing but harm by forbidding the opening of places which stimulate pure and elevating thought. On the other hand, those who are jaded by toil in a close atmosphere, derive from the air and scenes of the country, as well as from other beautiful or striking sights, a healthier tone both of body and of mind. From the day that you make it manifest that your law of freedom is purer and loftier than their law of slavery, your triumph becomes assured: for the people of England, though often unduly prejudiced, are no mere bigots, and every Parliament is sure to be freer-minded than the people. The time is in many respects propitious. Statesmen are alarmed at "the dangerous classes," and are disgusted by the endless contests of rival churches; and in these churches the younger men are learning, that vice and ignorance are our common enemies, worse than what is called heresy. I do believe that the best men in every different phase of opinion concerning religion are learning to think better of one another, and to see that the energies of all are needed for the common work. Do not plead for Sunday freedom as though personal indulgence were wanted (vicious indulgence alas! is too easily had): but hold up, first to your own mind, and to that of others, the great cause of national virtue, to be promoted by intellectual expansion and pure recreations. If you are honest in this desire, it will overpower superstitious scruples; and, what is more, it will tend to break down that form of religious intolerance which the law cannot hinder-the social persecution which springs out of inveterate prejudice. But if our moral aim is high and pure, we shall gradually overcome. Being in this matter acceptable to God, we shall be approved of men.

JOWETT AND THE BROAD CHURCH.

[1859.]

ABRIDGED FROM

THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW."

The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans: with Critical Notes and Dissertations. By Benjamin Jowett, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford. In two volumes. London. 1855.

IT T is very convenient for statesmen who want to carry some measure, and for reasoners who dislike complications and puzzles, when the characters of men distribute themselves naturally into a very few types. To classify them, to predict or recount their doings, to marshal the forces of a party, to pass sentence on sects, is then a comparatively easy task. Such is the state of ruder and emphatically of barbarous times; such, in comparison to the present, was the state of the Anglican Church in the last century.

In the old Tory days, although then as at every time individual clergymen existed whose character was too rich and varied to be sketched by one rude outline, yet the great majority of ecclesiastics were easily to be recognized as either of the High, else of the Low Church; and the High might be described as the worldly and the learned, except that the same man was often both.

The Broad Church includes, as its very name may suggest, types of character largely distinct, the lowest of which was obvious enough in a past day. We mean that of the clergyman, in whom other accomplishments not properly theological so predominate, that his clerical character seems but an accident, and his large toleration of dissentients savours more of the strong-minded man of the world than of the tender-hearted spiritualist. But what is practically new in the Broad Church is the union of learning, science, comprehensive charity, devotional character, and sufficient orthodoxy to remain in the Anglican ministry. In a stage of knowledge which cannot recur, men like Cudworth or Hooker might combine these qualities; but since the development of modern physics, nothing of the sort seemed possible; and probably the English public was incredulous of it, until the reve

Since Regius Professor of Greek.

lation of Dr. Arnold's character took them by surprise. Arnold
had great simplicity and force of moral sense. Intellectually, he
was first-rate in nothing; but he had what Bacon defines as great
"capacity "-the quality most needed by a statesman. He had
enough learning to estimate learning and borrow it; sufficient
idea of the need of a theological philosophy to be a respectful
listener to all philosophies, while modestly attaching himself
to one.
To a superficial observer he might seem not to be a de-
votedly religious man, because he was an ardent politician: but
his religion embraced politics as a part of duty, and aspired to
Christianize all worldly action. To compare him, as to the depth
of his devotional principles, with this or that Evangelical, is no
problem for us. Suffice it here to say, that he clearly had enough
of inward religion to understand and appreciate that of other men
of every school, and that while he lived he was vilified by those
Evangelical organs which would now gladly claim him as one of
their worthies.

Another good man, lately deceased, may be here named for honour as still more characteristic of the Broad Church than Arnold, because he was neither schoolmaster nor politician, but long devoted his great accomplishments and peculiar genius exclusively to theological action; we mean Archdeacon Julius Hare. His defects as an observer of life were more than compensated by a certain passionate inwardness. In doctrinal theory he perhaps approached the Evangelicals more nearly than did Arnold, of which indeed his fervent admiration of Luther may seem to be an indication. But his theoretical and practical estimate of learning, his efforts for scientific treatment, his Platonic and historical erudition, as well as his wide sympathies for good men of every creed, separate him from the Evangelical school, and award him to the Broad Church. Such a man was a singular phenomenon forty and thirty years ago. We dare not sit as judges to say who or how many remain with us as his equals; but without presumption we may express the belief that clergymen now abound who are popularly referred to the High Church, or perhaps even to the Puseyites, but really are of too noble and rich a character for any of the current appellations; who esteem and pursue learning and science as essential to religion, who disdain and grieve over the narrowness of the Evangelicals and their devotion to systems of words, who nevertheless have as much fervour of religion as would set their credit high for sanctity if they would adopt the Evangelical exclusiveness.

The vast improvement which the High Church (in laity as well as clergy) has undergone since the days of Wesley and Romaine, of itself makes the position of the old Low Church absurd and mischievous, and marks it to belong to a bygone system as much as that of Romanism. The perpetual assumption that they were peculiarly and solely "the people of God," the true Israel, the regenerate, and that all who did not hold their formulas and enter their freemasonry were "the world that lieth in wickedness," has tainted them with unreality, with foppery, and with absurdity. To pay this homage to their superiority is the passport to their sympathies, to refuse it is to ensure that one shall be looked at as but "almost a Christian." We do not mean wholly to deny that the general increase of research and knowledge has reached this part of the clergy; nevertheless, that other primitive error of their founders-contempt of learning and of all profound inquiry-has entailed on the school collectively (alike in Church and in Dissent) a peculiar weakness of mind, which is felt through every page of their writing. They never even attempt to sound a moral question to the bottom. They reason incessantly, yet they would not have other men reason; they claim a right to despise both the argumentative and the perceptive powers of others. They profess that they possess the Spirit of God, but are amazed and moralize if others make the same profession. They imagine that the tones of prophecy which the first Evangelicals adopted against drunkenness and other sensualities, against low worldliness, against grasping covetousness, against slave-dealing or election bribery, can have weight in their mouths against men who are ostensibly their equals in noble aims and pure morals, and possibly their superiors in knowledge, talents, and age. So long as they imbibe with their first strong religious emotions the dogma that thenceforward they are to confine thought and analysis to the process of justifying the Scripture and harmonizing it with itself, they must continue, we suppose, to degenerate.

Clergymen may indeed be named who, on the whole, would popularly be referred to the Evangelicals, and nevertheless show more zeal for the public virtue than for notions. We should be sorry to think that so numerous a body is surrendered to unfruitful mysticism; yet we cannot mistake in judging that it is the "Broad Church" to which alone a thoughtful and reasonable Anglican can look with pride. Many of this class have achieved the task of being able to understand their opponents, which is at

E

once the token and cause of superiority. So long as two parties are deaf to one another or incapable of sympathy, each loses a precious advantage. The Broad Church now not only has its ear open to the voice of antiquity, as the Puseyites and as their predecessors the learned clergy, but is bold enough to read German theology, German philosophy, and, boldest of all, the writings of English heresy. Their principal men are aware that they speak and write, not to an artificial audience, but to the nation, and that as the nation hears every side of a question, so must its instructors, if they are to be respected by the classes which have the highest accomplishment. It is in this openness to listen with candour, far more than by any definite doctrine, that the Broad Church is contrasted at once to the High Church and to the Evangelicals, and claims, as of course, such men as Arnold, Hampden, and Julius Hare. The contrast is seen at its maximum in actual controversy. When we consider the evil eminence which divines have attained for disingenuousness, we become aware how high a virtue the Broad Church has here achieved, under circumstances peculiarly trying. It is not by accident that in the popular writings of Romanist divines, equally as in those of the Evangelicals, misrepresentation assumes proportions so startling and odious. In each case it results from the limited reading of those who are to be taught; in each the bigotry which has been instilled into the pupils reacts upon the teachers. The Evangelical preacher or writer is well aware that his hearers and readers will not examine for themselves the heretical work which he is criticising and condemning: there is no more danger of this than in the case of the Romanist. He is then safe in almost any amount of misrepresentation. It may be complained of, it may be exposed, but it will not be believed by the docile flock, who will always be rather sure that a heretic is absurd and profane than that its venerated teacher is calumnious. On the other hand, if the Evangelical critic desires to be candid, or even to be drily just, he finds it hard to act this part without danger to his own reputation. All kind or admiring words from him must be neutralized by censure or contempt, else he will seem to be recommending parley with the foe. What is worse, when he quotes in order to seem just, it is offensive in him to quote so fairly and fully as to allow the adversary to speak for himself. In fact, to do this, is to put "persuasive error" before those who could not, without presumption, encounter the danger and defilement of listening. So urgent is this difficulty, that it seems to overpower alike all