It may be thought that this view of Christianity, as naturally certifying its Divine authority by the moral excellence which it enabled its professors to exhibit, was reasonable at a time when the moral inferiority of non-Christian society was so manifest that it could be assumed by the advocates of Christianity without risk of contradiction; but that now, when it would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify that assumption, such a view has lost its reasonableness. Certainly, we must admit that between the professed and professional Christians of the present age and their avowedly non-Christian contemporaries there is, within the confines of Christendom, no such marked distinction in point of morality as was the case among the ancients. The fact is, perhaps, capable of explanation on grounds which do not properly imply any discredit to Christianity. We are permitted to maintain that the moral superiority of Christ's Religion has appealed so successfully to the general conscience, that no serious rival has been able to sustain itself in human regard where once the Morality of the Gospel has been effectively exhibited. It is not to be questioned that the principles of conduct, illustrated in the Life of Christ, and applied by apostolic wisdom to the control of social behaviour in the epistles, are

accepted and acted upon, more or less deliberately, by multitudes within modern Christendom, who would repudiate for themselves the name and character of believers; and we need not be surprised that this should be the case, for, at the beginning, the Divine Founder set in the forefront of His teaching this function of the Church as a nucleus or centre of salutary influence, having its effect on human society silently and, so to speak, indirectly, as "salt" and "leaven" may be conceived of as working. Therefore, the Pauline notion of Christianity as able to command, by natural right, the homage of the general conscience, seems to me unaffected by the fact that, thanks to its own historic successes, the claim of Christ's Religion no longer stands out in the same luminous prominence as heretofore. Whether under the description of Christianity, or under any other description, it remains the case that the morality historically originated by the Gospel, and carried to the acceptance of Christendom by the force of Christian examples, renewed continuously through the ages, and still apparent among us, satisfies, and alone satisfies, the general conscience to which it is proposed. The Christian Church can still face human society with the appeal of the great Apostle, can

still charter as its advocates before the reason and conscience of civilised men all the actions and aspirations which they themselves perforce acknowledge as most deeply and nobly humane. Be men, is still the Christian claim on us; live on the highest levels of manhood, and you will discover yourselves to be Christians. "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honourable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report: if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

But, perhaps, the thought may occur to some minds that, at this present time, the situation in which official Christianity stands is even worse than that which we have been discussing. St. Paul's exhortation, it may be said, must make the ears of every Anglican clergyman tingle, and send a blush into his face, as he recalls the discrepancies between his formal pledges and his actual convictions. "Take thought for things honourable in the sight of all men," says the Apostle, but he does not say that, even so, all men will admit the honourableness of the things we do. St. Paul himself, whom we can see to have been the perfect model of Christian honour, had to bear throughout his ministerial course

heavy and hurtful accusations; and we need not, therefore, be too much depressed if our contemporaries also (no whit juster, or more charitable, or less prejudiced than his) make similar imputations. We, like St. Paul, are living in a transitional time, and we cannot escape from its distinctive difficulties. We are not responsible for them, but for the manner in which we handle, and the spirit in which we face them. Behind us are the many ages of Christian history, bringing to our guidance a great accumulation of religious experience, and we can find there the sufficient justification of our resolute refusal to desert the Church of our Fathers at the bidding of the least thoughtful and sympathetic of its members. Our belief in Christianity is far too deeply rooted to permit of such hasty desertion. We know enough of the past not to despair of the present; we know enough of the present not to repudiate the past. We say, with that great teacher of our own time and race, Phillips Brooks, "that any dangers which the Church might have to encounter by making conscience and free inquiry her guides, even with the possibility of error, are alive and hopeful in comparison with the dead and hopeless dangers of a church which, under the strong power of authority,. commits itself to a half-developed, a half-recorded,

" 1

and a half-understood past." We make our appeal to reasonable and charitable men. "Changes have passed upon current belief": we grant it; "those changes ought to be recognised in current statements of belief": we grant it. "You who are the official teachers of Christianity are honourably bound to effect that recognition": again we grant it. So far we are all agreed; and I trust also that we are agreed that where belief and statements of belief are concerned, there is no essential distinction to be drawn between clergy and laity. When subscription to the Creeds is in debate, there is properly no question of the legal obligations of clerical office. The specific legal obligation with respect to doctrine imposed by Ordination concerns the Bible, not the Creeds; and with respect to the Bible the courts and the public conscience have effected what, with respect to the Articles, was effected by the Legislature more than a generation ago, viz. secured a liberal and sufficient latitude. The official obligation to accept the practical system of the National Church in fulfilling the pastoral function inflicts no burden on the conscience of any right-minded clergyman. Its reasonableness is self-evident. When, however, we come to the deeper matters of belief, not the clergy 1 Life, ii. 487.