be so little applied that no appreciable difference could be made by it in the religious aspect of the nation.

It is scarcely worth while to discuss the third, or compulsory, form of enactment, whereby the State would revive the Tudor and Bourbon policy under new conditions, as no one can suppose it feasible. But it is necessary to mention it, because, in truth, it is the only method by which so much as an external union of the kind proposed could be imaginably effected. And that for this reason, amongst others, that the suggested policy is so exceedingly distasteful to a vast proportion of those most concerned, particularly in the Church of England, that its enactment as a binding statute would be promptly followed by an exodus equalling, and far more probably inuch exceeding, the numbers attracted in by the advantages it offers to those outside, and this exodus could be checked in no possible way except by prohibition under severe penalties, for the details of the scheme are such as directly to excite the hostility of all those who are strongly attached to the traditions and usages of their several communions, and reluctant to see them either set aside or treated as subordinate and unimportant. For, not least among the many proofs which the scheme exhibits of insufficient thought, may be placed the theory upon which its framers have acted, that their own lax grasp and dislike of dogma and positive ordinances is common to the majority of mankind. Such an unmistakable and conspicuous fact as the vast area of the Latin Church, the most dogmatic, and nearly the most uniform, of all Christian bodies, which singly all but equals in bulk the whole remainder of Christendom, might alone have led them to doubt the soundness of their premises on this head, were it not for the atmosphere of mutual admiration by which they are habitually environed. The truth is that antidogmatism is the trade-mark of an exceedingly small clique, for even active unbelievers prefer their unbelief dogmatically stated, and the Agnostics themselves, illogical as it doubtless is, have formulated what is virtually a creed, and always act and speak as though they had scientifically ascertained that the negative answer is the true one for those propositions on which they profess to hold their judgment in suspense.

Perhaps it is even more singular that the advocates of the proposed changes should have altogether overlooked the internal flaws of their scheme than those external ones which effectually dispose of its political feasibility. For if the method by which they seek to achieve their purpose be considered attentively, it will appear that they do not bring

us even one step on the road towards that national unity which is held forth as the reward of acquiescence in their programme. For its essential principle being the abolition of distinctions within the Church, while they are to be continued, maintained, and fostered outside the Church, it is plain that every parish would become a battle-field where the still. rival bodies would try their strength against each other more emulously than they do even now. Under existing conditions, each body is practically confined to its own premises, and ministers to its own adherents only, so that there is little or no collision. But with free warren for all alike in the parish church, and the prospect of being able to address hearers actually unattached, but capable of being attracted, to any one Nonconformist society, the competition for sole or preferable use of such opportunities would lead to incessant faction and caballing. Enact that every sect is to have indefeasibly equal rights in the parish churches, and then the question of arrangement and precedence becomes a burning one, to decide which shall occupy the one indivisible area at given hours on Sunday. Without taking populous places with many rival bodies into account, where no adjustment to meet all claims could be made, since the available hours are too few to allow a fair turn to each claimant, it is plain that those who were put off with an early morning occupancy, or a late afternoon one, would have a grievance which would exacerbate existing jealousies and dissensions. And if, on the other hand, the only other plausible method were followed, of letting the parishioners themselves decide by the majority, in a general meeting or upon an elective board, what societies only shall be permitted to use the Church, the excluded claimants would have a yet sorer grievance, and be more moved than before to the loud ventilation of their wrongs, and to the polemical assertion of their superior title to respect and attention. By the terms of the proposed concordat, the Church is barred from prescribing any conditions which might tend to restrict the area of strife, or even from acting as moderator between the contending parties; while it is imbecile to suggest that merely calling the various sects by a new name, and leaving them unchanged in all other respects, would bring them one inch nearer to each other, or to national unity, than they are now. The conceivable analogy of separate regiments in the army cannot be adduced, for regiments of the same army are not at liberty to counteract and oppose each other, but are subject to the like general rules of military service, and must work together, when called upon, for a common end

under due subordination. Indeed, the impossibility of discovering any analogy whatever which will apply to and illustrate the position is itself no light argument against its rational character, for an attempt to apply the like programme to any other institution than the Church-say the legislature, the executive, the judicature, or the universities— will prove either unthinkable or ludicrous.

Nor are we even yet at the end of the external objections to the scheme. There is a serious ambiguity about the word 'Christian,' which has to be taken into account. Its use at all in the present connexion implies some choice, some limitation, some exclusion of certain factors in the religious life and thought of the nation from the programme of the Church Reform Union. Sir George Cox's language, and the co-operation of Dr. Martineau, settle one point, that they understand the term to include Unitarians. But the definition of the end and essence of a Christian Church which Dr. Martineau offers is highly indeterminate. It runs thus:-'The sanctification of human life by conscious communion with the infinitely Perfect Spirit; and the consequent enthusiasm of all pure and uniting affections.' It is in no way impugning the element of truth in these words to say that they might readily be accepted by persons who are avowedly nonChristians, such as Jews, Buddhists, and the higher Pantheists, who collectively form an appreciable, though small, factor in the nation. It is thus not easy to assign any logical reason for excluding them from the operation of the new scheme, and also those Theists, Positivists, and Agnostics who acknowledge their indebtedness to the moral and emotional side of Christianity, even making no difficulty about occasional attendance at the services of the Church. If they are excluded, national unity in the public expression of religion is left thus further unsecured by the programme; if they are to be included, then the word 'Christian' may as well be struck out frankly, and a new basis found for the scheme.

Sir George Cox may, however, reply that he, at any rate, has laid down a clear limitation by citing the words of the Prayer Book as the test he would apply, restricting the new franchise to 'all who profess and call themselves Christians,' which he alleges to be the binding definition of the Catholic Church formulated by the Church of England. But, like Dr. Martineau when urging that the title Church of England' pledges the society which accepts it to recognition on equal terms of all varieties of Christian life and thought in the English nation, he entirely omits to say whether these words

are to be construed in the widest sense, and if not, how and by whom they are to be restricted. If they be taken at their widest, they will include, for example, the Mormons, a sect so immoral and anti-social that even a government so free from ecclesiastical prepossessions of any sort as is that of the United States has felt obliged in the public interest to suppress it, by methods which are logically indistinguishable from those employed by theological persecutors at various times in history. And even without dwelling on so extreme a case as this (though Mormons are active enough in England to be taken seriously into account), it is wholly irrational to treat all sects as being so much on a level that it does not matter which of them is temporarily in the ascendant, or in possession of the pulpit, anywhere under the new régime. Without raising directly theological issues of orthodoxy or heterodoxy (with which the present inquiry is not concerned), it is plain upon purely social grounds that some current forms of religious opinion do not merit encouragement, that this one dwarfs the understandings of its adherents; that another shrivels up their affections; that a third corrupts their morals; so that amongst the two hundred and more denominations in the Registrar-General's list there are to be found types which are not merely eccentric, but diseased and deformed. To decline facing this fact is indefensible and mischievous; to recognise and act on it is to abandon the specious programme of the Church Reform Union, because it necessitates the drawing of distinctions which must exclude some at least of the professedly Christian life and thought of the nation from the operation of the new franchise. And there is another important consideration which the innovators have failed to allow for that while the Church of England is a single corporate entity, much more homogeneous and united than is thought by those who look only to the surface variation and friction of its three main schools, and to the intolerant policy of one small section, or than is said by those who have a polemical interest in spreading the opinion (falsified by the contemporary history of the American Church) that it is held together only by the forcible pressure of civil enactments, whose repeal would set loose the centrifugal forces that make for disruption; contrariwise, English Dissent is multiform, heterogeneous, and incommensurable, with the widest range of qualitative difference between the more cultured and healthy societies and the inferior types already noticed. The problem of combination is therefore incomparably more difficult and unpromising than it would be if

only two entities had to be provided for, having sufficient common ground to admit of negotiations for union, because it becomes necessary to inquire into the character of each denomination singly, and to decide whether any union is possible in the circumstances, and, if possible, whether desirable. The thing cannot be settled offhand by virtue of an abstract resolution, or by professing unlimited confidence in the excellent motives of everybody. And then comes in the insoluble question, Who is to draw the line which the Church is forbidden to draw, and on what principles is the line itself to be drawn? As it would be no expansion to an army to reinforce it with a regiment vowed to non-resistance, or made up of ardent sympathisers with the cause of the opposing camp, so it would not expand the Church to affiliate to it sects at issue with it on almost every debateable proposition. One might more reasonably speak of expanding the stock of bullion by following the lead of James II., and coining gun-metal tokens with fictitious values stamped upon them, or of increasing the stock of champagne by putting small beer, sarsaparilla, and ginger ale into Pommery and Greno's empty bottles, still bearing their label.

Another insuperable difficulty attaching to the programme is the solution of the financial problem. This is passed over entirely by Sir George Cox, and Dr. Martineau confines himself to a brief protest against actual secularisation of Church endowments, which he appears to hold should be still devoted to exclusively religious objects.

But the question could not rest there in the event of any legislation on the lines of the programme; while the only disposition which would harmonise with the remainder of the scheme would be to allow all the sects to retain their separate temporalities and endowments as now, but to distribute those of the Church among them all in some hitherto undefined fashion. The injustice of stripping much the largest religious society of all its possessions, while securing the others in the legal enjoyment of their property, would be too glaring to be safe, since it is incredible that it should fail to arouse active resistance; and thus it would prove necessary to leave some fraction of their former assets in the hands of the original owners. But what this fraction should be, and what degree of control should be permitted over it, are questions which would imperatively demand some settlement, and it is impracticable to suggest any which would not break up the whole plan. For if a pro ratâ distribution were to be made, it must be preceded by a religious census, which is precisely