+

a vast and stately medieval castle, which one modern siege-piece could easily destroy.

14. Last of all, I would end with one word. The Abbé Martin has spoken truly in saying that the lack of enthusiasm and of the heroic and apostolic spirit has been the most crying defect of the Church of England. He has generously said that Ritualists have got just this very apostolic spirit. There is no doubt at this moment that Roman Catholics in England, and especially Roman Catholic clergymen, are much safer from hostility and molestation than the Ritualist ecclesiastic, who is the one exception made to the equal protection and incidence of the law. For a Ritualist to become a Roman Catholic, is to pass from the van of battle to the rear, to exchange the cross for the olive-branch. On any theory of Christian conflict, of self-sacrifice and devotion, his nobler and truer post is where the blows are falling thickest, for in that part of the battle is the King.

RICHARD F. LITTLEDALE.

PRINCIPAL TULLOCH'S "DOGMATISM OF

DISSENT."

I

I.

HAVE been asked to point out what I find mistaken in Principal Tulloch's paper on the "Dogmatism of Dissent "in the last number of this REVIEW. And, though I doubt if much good ever comes of discussion where people differ on first principles so utterly as Principal Tulloch and myself, I will try to place my point of view a little clearer before the readers of the CONTEMPORARY.

Now, if Principal Tulloch wishes to make a really statesmanlike appeal for the existence of a State Church, why does he narrow his argument to the "Dogmatism of Dissent?" A large body of politicians, of social and religious reformers, are convinced that one of the worst and most disturbing influences of modern society is the State patronage of a religion which is believed in only by a portion of its citizens, and that one of the worst enemies of true religious life is the State control of a spiritual community. This is a principle which, in a hundred instances, they see to be injurious to the State which is thus trammelled, as well as to the religious community which thus gains the ascendency. This conviction of theirs has ripened in them to the force of a cardinal principle which gives their whole political activity consistency and earnestness. In the same way Liberal politicians believe, as a principle, that taxation should ever be controlled by a free representative body, and that protection to native industry is a mischievous and suicidal system.

What is there of "Dogmatism" in the persistent assertion of this principle? Those who believe that State Churches are an anachronism and a cause of strife certainly hold that opinion of theirs with intense conviction, and assert it loudly and earnestly; just as Free Traders are perfectly sure that protection is a fallacy, or Liberals are quite sure that personal autocracy is mischievous under all conditions. It is a

mean

mere misnomer, a confusion of thought in Principal Tulloch's mind, to call this conviction of ours "Dogmatism." Uncultivated people, when they meet a man who has thought out and holds unshakingly a conviction which they very much dislike, and the grounds of which they are too impatient to understand, are sometimes given to say, "Oh! I cannot argue with you, you are so dogmatic." What they really is that they find themselves in presence of a deeply rooted principle which they know they are powerless to shake. So a man, even of such high culture as Principal Tulloch, when he gets heated in defence of a favourite thesis, can see nothing in our fixed political principles but "Dogmatism." Pray why is it "dogmatic" to believe, from the study of facts, that a State Church is no longer a useful institution in England or in Ireland, and yet it is not "dogmatic" at all to believe, as Principle Tulloch so ardently does, that nothing but a State Church can be good or free? And surely Principal Tulloch, though he declares himself to be full of meekness and goodness, is far from wanting in vehemence himself. His own fiery assertion of the merits of State Churches one and all, of State Churches as such, he will assure us, is true Christian liberty and light. But the opposition of modern politicians to the State Church privilege is nothing but the "Dogmatism of Dissent."

And, again, why "Dissent?" The condemnation of privileged Churches is a principle far deeper than any matter of sectarian irritation or rivalry. And it is the utter blindness to this fact which makes Principal Tulloch's defence so narrow and so thoroughly partisan. It is the tu quoque of an ecclesiastic, not the argument of a politician. What in reality has Dissent to do with this great question of the State interference in Churches? The Established Church in Ireland was abolished by a zealous Churchman with the support of men of all religious sects, as a matter of national justice between citizens, and a secular act of political wisdom. A great many politicians think the time has come to pursue a similar policy in Scotland, and many think the time has come for it in England. And yet Principal Tulloch can see nothing in this vast political movement but the "Dogmatism of Dissent."

Some of those most prominent in this movement are Churchmen, and many more are in no way whatever connected with Protestant Dissent. As the Times said the other day, "A considerable body of clergymen, and laymen yet more ecclesiastical, have commenced a formidable agitation for disestablishment." Some of the most active speakers at meetings arranged by the Liberation Society are far from being Dissenters. And the politicians, in and out of Parliament, who incline to the Disestablishment of the Churches of Scotland and England, are no more Dissenters than was the majority which carried the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. The October number of the Nineteenth Century contained a scheme of Disestablishment and a Bill to effect it,

by a very prominent High Church clergyman, and we all know that he is supported by an organized party in his Church.

And why the "Dogmatism of Dissent" to me, if I may ask? If Principal Tulloch likes to call my political principles "Dogmatism," just as he is good enough to say that my religious faith is "ridiculous," I can see it is the sort of thing he would do, and I can see that he likes it; but how can any political doctrine of mine illustrate the Dogmatism of "Dissent?" I have not much knowledge of any form of Protestant Dissent, and, so far as I know, have no sort of affinity or connection with any, in things political or religious. The political question of State patronage apart, I do not know a single point on which I should place any one of these communities above the Church of England. As a matter of sympathy and taste, as also in matters of religious organization, my proclivities are all towards the episcopal and ceremonial system, and not to the democratic and spontaneous system. I should have thought few men had less in common with the Protestant Dissenters than I have. But since I have formed a conviction that the establishment by the State of a sectional Church is a fatal mischief in politics, as well as corrupting to all true religion (and this conviction of mine lies at the very root of the political and religious doctrines of Positivism), I have willingly worked with men of the same mind to make this great principle prevail: some of these men being politicians, some of them religious reformers, some of them Churchmen, and some of them Nonconformists. It is a mistake in a Churchman, when this great movement is committed to the political judgment of the nation, to try and represent it as a quarrel about precedence between competing sects. For my part, I have not the slightest desire to see the Church of England displaced by Nonconformists of any sort. Of all the Protestant bodies I should prefer to see it flourish. I have entered on this great social question in the most purely unbiassed spirit (for what bias I have is toward the Church in which I was bred) solely on political and social reasons. And it is simply idle to suggest that my opinions represent or have anything to do with the "Dogmatism," or any kind of "ism," of Protestant Dissent.

So I shall leave all defence of the Nonconformists to those whom it concerns, to those who understand them, their claims, and their position. I am rather amused when I hear Principal Tulloch asking them what more can they want, now that they are no longer worried by the Star Chamber, can keep their noses entire, and even can enjoy their own Bethels without interference from the police. Time was, he says, when Dissenters would have been quite content to be left in peace, when they never presumed to meddle with politics, when they gladly paid their tithe and their rate, and thought only of getting quietly to Heaven in their own queer way. But now, alas! he says, they talk of political principles, they are so resentful and sour-natured that they won't forget and forgive; they want to be buried like Christians in God's own

acre; they ask to be our equals; they are uneasy (envious people) when they see the Church in England possessed of £200,000,000 sterling and enormous political power. They still ask for more, cries Principal Tulloch, in sacred indignation; it is enough to make him swear that Christian charity is departing from the earth. And almost swear he does at least, he uses very strong language-at this presumption of his dissenting fellow-citizens. Well! all this is very droll to me; but it is so old, so grotesque, so like the language of the established priest now for centuries, that I shall say no more about it.

But there is one thing (and it lies at the root of this matter) about which I should like to say a word. Principal Tulloch cannot understand what is "official religion." In what respect, he asks, is the religion of the Established Church an official religion more than any other religion? what are the objections, he wishes to know, to an official religion? and he quotes, as from a lecture of mine, the phrase "official religions cannot be religion." What I said and wrote was (I do not know with whom the misprint lies), "official religions cannot be religious." Now I will try to make it a little clearer what I mean.

I have said, and I repeat, that with the Church of England as a merely religious society I have here nothing to do. I do not dispute that it has many spiritual tendencies; that on the side of moral beauty it has much to show; that it is full of devout and pure-minded men ; that it is not inferior to any of the religious bodies around it. But all this is perfectly beside the question. To rehearse the learning, or the gracefulness, or the piety of the Church of England is entirely irrelevant, just as it was to celebrate these qualities in the Church of Ireland. Many who carried out the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland sincerely thought that all these gifts were truly claimed for that Church. But the point for them as politicians was, whether the social and political evils of securing one out of many rival religions in legal privileges were not a paramount evil, and also whether this legal ascendency did anything to enhance these spiritual qualities. And that is the point for us now. It is simply to waste the time of serious men to represent a political movement directed against these effete privileges and hollow State expedients as a cynical attack on religion, learning, and virtue, and all the Christian graces. We want some better reason for maintaining these political anomalies and these aggressive privileges than that a few Ecclesiastics feel their freedom enlarged by the State chains.

By "official religion" I mean a form of faith the constitution and government of which is controlled by State officials, as an affair of State, and not by spiritual authorities, as a matter of religious belief. When the membership of a particular Church is not a thing of religious conviction, but a right of citizenship with which conviction has nothing to do; when the laws of that Church are made by laymen in virtue of their civic rights, whether they profess to be members of