many places a double staff of clergy, one for the Welshspeaking, and the other for the English-speaking, population.

But it is needless to follow further the history of the Church in Wales separately. The history of the Church of England is the history of the Church in Wales. They were one and the same Church, and had been so for more than six hundred years-ever since the Welsh bishops gave in their allegiance to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1172. No doubt there are special circumstances in connection with the Church in Wales, some of which have been noticed; but so there are in connection with the Church, say, in Cornwall, or in Lincolnshire, or in the Black Country; but to make these the subject of a separate chapter would only be to foster the notion that there is a difference between the Church on the one and on the other side of the "Marches," and thus to falsify history.

24

CHAPTER II.

THE ORTHODOX.

BEFORE entering upon the subjects of this and the two following chapters, it is necessary to explain why the titles. of them-"Orthodox," "Evangelicals," "Liberals"—have been chosen in preference to the more obvious ones- "High Churchmen," "Low Churchmen," "Broad Churchmen." The choice has not been made without much hesitation, much deliberation, and much consultation with those who appeared competent to give an opinion. The reasons of the decision. finally arrived at are as follows: To describe the parties treated of in Chapters III. and IV. simply as "Low Churchmen" and "Broad Churchmen" respectively would be utterly misleading. In the nomenclature of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries the Broad Churchman would be the Low Churchman. Burnet, Hoadly, Blackburn, and Paley would be called Low Churchmen; but they had very little in common with the typical Evangelical. As for the term "Broad Churchmen," it did not, so far as my reading enables me to judge, exist. "High Churchmen" was, of course, a wellknown title, and the party which is the subject of the present chapter would doubtless fall under that designation. But to term them "High Churchmen," in contradistinction to Evangelicals" and "Liberals," would be a cross-division, "low" and "broad" being the natural correlatives to "high." Moreover, there would be a danger of confounding them with the "Church and State" men, who were also called par excellence "High Churchmen." The adoption of the term "Orthodox," by which they were at least as frequently designated in their own day, obviates both those objections; and hence it is, with some misgivings, chosen.

་་

It is frequently said that the old Orthodox or High Church party was fast asleep, if it had not entirely died out, before it was revived by the Oxford Movement. But this mode of stating the case is far too strong. The High Church party had never ceased to exist or even to be active. It had suffered a grievous loss-far more grievous than the mere counting of heads would indicate-by the retirement of the Nonjurors in 1689 and 1714; but it was beginning to recover from that loss before the nineteenth century commenced. It suffered, perhaps, still more severely from being mixed up with another party, with which it really had only an accidental connection. There was no reason in the nature of things why the true High Churchmen should have been. specially identified with the maintenance of "our happy constitution in Church and State," to use a familiar phrase of the day. Indeed, their principles rendered them more independent of any connection with the State than any other party in the Church could be. If "our happy constitution" had been entirely broken up, it would not have made the slightest difference to the essential position of the High Churchman. This is so obvious to us now that it sounds like a truism, but it would have sounded strangely in the ears of our forefathers. To them a High Churchman meant one who was the strongest supporter of Church and State; and so indeed he was, as a matter of fact. None supported the established constitution more ably and consistently than the High Churchmen. They were better equipped for the task than any other party. Valuing deeply the science of theology, they studied it more thoroughly and systematically than any other class did. Indeed, strange as it may sound to some, I venture to think that the majority of competent divines in the early part of this century were what we should now call distinctly High Churchmen.

A few passages selected from writers of note, written in a way which shows that they did not regard their doctrines as innovations, but such as would command the assent of all who called themselves Churchmen, will serve to illustrate this. Bishop Horsley was, beyond all question, the ablest and most eminent prelate still living at the commencement of the nineteenth century; and this is the way in which he

expresses his Church principles: "To be a High Churchman in the only sense which the word can be allowed to bear as applicable to any in the present day-God forbid that this should ever cease to be my public pretension, my pride, my glory! . . . In the language of our modern sectaries, every one is a High Churchman who is not unwilling to recognize so much as the spiritual authority of the priesthood; every one who, denying what we ourselves disclaim, anything of a divine right to temporalities, acknowledges, however, in the sacred character, somewhat more divine than may belong to the mere hired servants of the State or of the laity; and regards the services which we are thought to perform for our pay as something more than a part to be gravely played in the drama of human politics. My reverend brethren, we must be content to be High Churchmen according to this usage of the word, or we cannot be Churchmen at all; for he who thinks of God's ministers as the mere servants of the State is out of the Church, severed from it by a kind of self-excommunication." 1 Next to Bishop Horsley, Bishop Van Mildert was perhaps the ablest theological writer during our period. In his Bampton Lectures (1814), when he was Regius Professor of Divinity, he dwells upon what he considers "the essential doctrines of the Church," among which he includes "the ordinances of the Christian Sacraments and the Priesthood;" and then he adds, "We are speaking now, it will be recollected, of what in ecclesiastical history is emphatically called THE CHURCH; that which has from age to age borne rule upon the ground of its pretensions to Apostolical Succession." Archdeacon Daubeny, again, was a man of considerable mark in his day, and his testimony is equally explicit. "If," he says, "the title of High Churchman conveys any meaning beyond that of a decided and principled attachment to the apostolic government of the Church, as originally established under the direction of the Holy Spirit by its Divine Founder (from whom alone a commission to minister in holy things can properly be derived), it is a meaning for which those must be answerable who understand and maintain it; the sense annexed to that title, in my mind, containing in it nothing 1 First Charge of the Bishop of St. David's, 1790.

but in what every sound minister of the Church of England ought to glory." And again, "I could have wished to see the Church described in its independence of every human establishment; vested with those spiritual powers which it possesses in itself; in the exercise of which every individual ought to be governed by the authority from which alone those powers are derived." "To God," writes Archdeacon Wrangham, in 1823, “and not to a patronizing Crown or to an electing people, we authoritatively refer our origin as a ministry. For Christ, we are expressly told in Scripture, sent His apostles with a power to send others, thus providing an unbroken succession for all coming ages, and promised to be with them always, even to the end of the world." 8

It would be easy to multiply instances to the same effect,* but enough, perhaps, has been quoted to show that the High Churchmen had not died out. How is it, then, that the idea that they had has so generally prevailed?

Perhaps one reason is that, so far from being too diffident, they were too confident in their cause. They took it for granted that their views would be understood and accepted, and that there was no need to do more than simply to state them. But, as a matter of fact, this was not so. Englishmen recognized, and were proud of, the Church of England as a great national institution; but, as Sir W. Palmer says most truly," the notion of the Church as a spiritual body possessing a faith and a conscience like other religious bodies, had died out." It had died out, that is, among the main body of the nation, upon the mind of which the High Churchmen had certainly failed to impress their own convictions. Indeed, they themselves laid too much stress upon the fact of their

1 Guide to the Church, i. introd. xliv., 2nd edit., 1804. (The first edition was published in 1798.)

2 Id., i. 307.

* Charge to the archdeaconry of Cleveland, 1823.

See, for instance, S. T. Coleridge, On the Constitution of the Church and State, according to the Idea of each, pp. 65, 126, 135, 136; H. J. Rose's sermon before the Suffolk Society, The Churchman's Duty and Comfort in the Present Time; Life of Bishop Jebb; A. Knox's Remains, passim; and, above all, the remarkable prophecy of Thomas Sikes, quoted in Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, 1842, pp. 33, 34.

A Narrative of Events connected with the Publication of the Tracts for the Times, introduction to the edition published in 1883, p. 39.