vails, among the more devout members, especially amongst the "devout women" of other Christian Churches. Traces of this spirit may no doubt be found in our own Church, but they are exceptional. The priest in England has never been allowed qua priest to intrude into secular affairs, though in an unofficial capacity he has hitherto been socially a person of no little importance. Church people are not either intellectually or practically less active than are other people amongst us. It may be said that, as they belong usually to the better educated classes, this is not wonderful. But quite apart from that consideration, and looking merely at the spirit, or what is called the "note" of Anglican churchmanship, we do not think it can fairly be complained that the Church laity of the Church of England are, as a class, indifferent to secular interests; a result which is due negatively to their independence of priestly control.

Now, the Church laity are a single and homogeneous whole, though the classes from which they are derived, looked at from a social point of view, may be variously distinguished. Of course, we are aware that the form of churchmanship now most in the ascendant is not as yet universal in the Church of England, and that there are many carnest Churchmen amongst the laity who are not High Churchmen. Throughout, however, we have been treating of a tendency rather than of a state of things actually now in existence; we have been considering what the Church is coming to, not what at present she can be proved to be without any exception or abatement. Similarly, in the present case, we do not mean to assert that there is nothing to vary the ecclesiastical uniformity of the Church laity of the Church of England; we, of course, know that there are large classes of Churchmen who are opposed to the prevailing tendency in the Church, or who, at all events, cannot be quoted as instances of its operation. All that we maintain and insist upon is the growth of a spirit of

E

uniformity amongst a certain section of English Churchmen who claim to give the law to the rest, and who have to a great extent succeeded in getting this claim recognised, as shown by the spread of their ideas, principles, and practices amongst the Church laity. These latter are in consequence becoming more and more organised on a common basis of High Anglican churchmanship, sympathy with which unites them together in spite of their social differences (which, however, being for the most part merely differences of degree are not very serious) in one ecclesiastical class. This ecclesiastical class is, of course, affected by the social character of those who compose it, whilst contrariwise it makes itself felt socially and even politically by welding together the upper classes of English society.

Such then is the Church laity of the Church of England, the characteristic features of which we will endeavour, before proceeding further, briefly to recapitulate. In the first place, we saw that the Church laity have latterly had impressed on them a stronglymarked ecclesiastical type, which, whilst it has immensely increased their own strength, has alienated from them many of those who were formerly Churchmen and are so no longer.

Secondly, we saw that, though the Church laity have been thus ecclesiasticised, they have not been to any great extent clericalised, much less priest-ridden. They have, in fact, retained the chief ecclesiastical power in their own hands, and the anti-Romanism, liberalism, and secular character of the Church of England are mainly to be ascribed to this fact.

Thirdly and lastly, the Church laity form, when taken together, one ecclesiastical class which at once affects, and is affected by, the social character of those whom it includes.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND ANTICIPATIONS

LET us now briefly consider the strength and weakness of a Church constituted after the manner above described. For it may fairly be asked at the point we have now reached, How far is the efficiency of the Church of England as a working machine helped or hindered by its present internal economy?

The value of the Church of England then, regarded ecclesiastically and socially as the Church of a class, depends on the extent to which it (a) benefits the class, with which it is associated. (b) conveys its benefits through this class to the rest of the community. As regards the first of these tests, it cannot be doubted that the benefit derived by those classes of society which form together the single homogeneous ecclesiastical class, in other words the Church laity, is a very real one. A great part-we may perhaps say the greater part of the good which is done both to these classes and by them may ultimately be traced to their association with the Church. Similarly, though to a less extent, the application of the second test above mentioned exhibits the Church of England in a favourable light. Even those whose "ears are continually beaten with exclamations against abuses in the Church,"1 must recognise that the Church's influence tends to prevent the tone of religion from being debased, and 1 Hooker, Dedication.

to refine and purify the public taste. We have shown also that there is no want of organised activity on the part either of clergy or laity with a view to making the Church more popular and attractive. On the contrary, efforts in this direction have for some time past been the most characteristic part of the Church's work. Finally, the Church laity, in spite of their strong tendency towards intensive class association, are yet as we have seen-in many respects very liberal-minded, and keep in check the clericalism of the clergy. Hence, whatever faults there may be in this mode of Church government, it exercises many good effects primarily, of course, on those classes of society with which it is associated, but indirectly also through these on the rest of the community.

In truth it is when it is thus regarded as the government of a class that the Anglican mode of Church government most surprises us by its results. It has at all events as many good points about it as can fairly be reckoned to the credit of any other Church system. For if the governing class in our Church tends to become more of a class and therefore more exclusive, this exclusiveness is not likely even faintly to approximate to the exclusiveness of a clerical governing class. If again in our Church things are "done from above," as is often complained, they are at least not done condescendingly or from interested motives. In short, the Church of England in regard to these characteristics shares both the merits and the defects of other English institutions which, though in form and very largely also in substance, aristocratic, are yet remarkably free from the limitations which are usually associated with aristocratic government.

Of course, however, the class government of the Church laity has its weak side. This latter appears when the governing class endeavours to extend itself and to exercise an influence over other classes. It is then liable to fail not so much because it is the gov

ernment of a class as because it is the government of a class such as has been described. For, in this respect (we of course do not mean altogether) lay government is far inferior to clerical, and the Church of England therefore to the Church of Rome. A clerical class—though more jealous as regards its own privileges-is, socially considered, more equalising, since in relation to itself it places all classes of the community on the same footing. At any rate, the priesthood in a Church thus governed do not require the support of any ecclesiastical class amongst the laity.

Again, a governing clerical class is not shorn of its peculiar privileges by the Church laity, and hence is more able to adapt itself to the condition of persons whose backward state of development requires a religion without compromise. Its exclusively clerical privileges are the very means of its being able to do this. Thus the strength of the Church of Rome at the present time amongst the poorer classes, both urban and rural, is due very largely to the following institutions, the Mass—the priestly character of which has never been compromised; prayers and masses for the dead; the confessional; image worship (no matter in what sense understood, an essentially priestly device); the enforced celibacy of the clergy, which prevents them from forming social ties. Now, the Church of England has abolished all these institutions except the first, and even this it has divested (or until lately had done so) of much of its priestly character. In effecting these abolitions and modifications, the Church laity no doubt satisfied its own sense of propriety and brought itself more into harmony with the scientific spirit. But it did not thereby commend religion to the people. For it has not been found possible by a revival of mediævalism to awaken amongst these latter an enthusiasm for practices and ceremonies which, though less priestly than those above named, were intended to serve a similar purpose. Partly, these observances had been too long dropped