those. Its faith is fixed upon One who "for us men and for our
salvation _came down from heaven_," and who is yet the eternal Word
through which all things were made, the indwelling principle of all
existence. Transcendence and immanence are here perfectly combined.
But because the former is the distinctively religious element, without
which the latter would have been in danger of relapsing into naturalism,
the deliberate emphasis was all laid on transcendence. We can see, as
we look back, that when once the Incarnation has actually taken place
upon the plane of history, it makes no jot of difference in logic,
provided only that the Life of the Incarnate is taken as the
starting-point and centre of thought, whether terms of transcendence or
of immanence are used. The life of Christ is at once the irruption of
the Divine into the world--(for the previous history of the world
certainly does not explain it)--and is also the manifestation of the
indwelling power which had all along sustained the world. In other
words, the God who redeems is the same God who creates and sustains.
But it is still true that the note of transcendence, of something given
to man by God as distinct from something emerging out of man in his
search of God, is the specifically religious note.
And the Church, as the divine creation and instrument, shares and must
express this character. It must be so constituted as to keep alive this
faith. That is the meaning of hierarchies and sacraments. Whether any
given order is the most adequate that can be designed, is of course a
perfectly legitimate question. But every order that aspires to be
catholic aims, at least, at expressing the truth that religion is a gift
of God, and not a discovery of man. And certainly it is only the gift
of God that can be truly catholic or universal. Man's discoveries are
indefinitely various; the European finds one thing, the Arab another,
the Hindu yet another, and none finds satisfaction in the other's
discovery, though in all of them God is operative. Only in His own gift
of Himself is it reasonable to expect that all men will find what they
need; only in a Church which is the vehicle of this gift, and is known
to be this, and not a mutual benefit society organised by its own
members for their several and collective advantage--only in a Church
expressive of Divine transcendence can all nations find a home.
Yet just because of a too one-sided emphasis on this truth, the Catholic
Church in the West has, as a rule, not tried to be a home for nations at
all. "Christianity separated religion from patriotism for every nation
which became, and which remained, Christian."[#] Patriotism is
particular; religion ought to be universal. The nation is a natural
growth; the Church is a divine creation. And so the primitive Church
was organised in complete independence of national life, except in so
far as its diocesan divisions followed national or provincial
boundaries. No doubt the conditions of its existence made this almost
necessary, for the organised secular life of the Roman Empire refused to
tolerate it. But it was its own principle, true indeed but not the
whole truth, which led to this line of development. The same principle
is apparent in the Middle Ages, when there was no external pressure. The
Church, as it was conceived in the sublime ideal of Hildebrand, was to
belong to no nation, because supreme over them all, binding them
together in the obedience and love of Christ, and imposing upon them His
holy will.
[#] "War and Religion" in _The Times Literary Supplement_, Dec. 31,
1914.
The inevitable result of this was that the instinct of nationality was
never christened at all. It remained a brute instinct, without either
the sanction or the restraint of religion. But it could not be crushed,
and so the Church let it alone; with the result that, though murder was
regarded as a sin, a war of dynastic or national ambition was not by
people generally considered sinful. No doubt theologians condemned such
war in general terms; St. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, seems to regard
as fully justified only such wars as are undertaken to protect others
from oppression, and some of the greatest Popes made heroic efforts to
govern national policy according to righteousness. But in the general
judgment of the Church, international action was not subjected to
Christian standards of judgment at all. This way of regarding the
Church sometimes leads people to speak of "alternative" loyalties so
that they ask, "Ought I to be loyal to my Church or to my nation?" And
while faith and reason will combine to answer "To my Church," an
imperious instinct will lead most men in actual fact to answer "To my
nation." The attempt to exalt the Church to an unconditional supremacy
has the actual result of making men ignore it when its guidance is most
needed.
Whatever truth there may be in the statement that the Reformation was in
part due to the growing sentiment of nationality, is evidence of the
failure of the old Catholic Church in this matter. In England at any
rate one main source of the popular Protestantism was the objection to
anything like a foreign domination. No doubt the political ambitions of
the Papacy were largely responsible for the feeling that the Catholic
Church brought with it a foreign yoke. But the whole principle of the
Church as non-national necessarily meant that the Church was regarded as
"imposing" Christian standards rather than permeating national life with
them. The Church tended to ignore the spiritual function of the State
altogether, claiming all spiritual activity for itself alone; and thus
it tended to make the State in actual fact unspiritual, and involved
itself in the necessity of attempting what only the State can do. It
thus not only tended to weaken the moral power of the State, but also
forsook its own supernatural function to exercise those of the
magistrate or judge, so that faith in the power of God was never put to
a full test. The Reformation was not only a moral and spiritual reform
of the Church, but the uprising of the nations, now growing fully
conscious of their national life, against the cosmopolitan rule of Rome.
But the Reformation did not fully realise its task. It expressed itself
indeed in national Churches, but in actual doctrine tended to
individualism; whereas Catholicism laid emphasis on religion as the gift
of God, Protestantism, at least in its later development, laid stress on
the individual's apprehension of the gift. But not only the
individual--everything that is human, family, school, guild, trade
union, nation, needs to apprehend and appropriate the gift of God. The
nation, too, must be christened and submit to transforming grace.
The uprising of the national spirit has had the deplorable result of
contributing to the break-up of Christendom, but it is not in itself
deplorable at all. All civilisation has in fact progressed by the
development of different nationalities, each with its own type. If we
believe in a Divine Providence, if we believe that the life of Christ is
not only the irruption of the Divine into human history but is also and
therein the manifestation of the governing principle of all history, we
shall confess that the nation as well as the Church is a divine
Creation. The Church is here to witness to the ideal and to guide the
world towards it, but the world is by divine appointment a world of
nations, and it is such a world that is to become the Kingdom of God.
Moreover, if it is by God's appointment that nations exist, their
existence must itself be an instrument of that divine purpose which the
Church also serves.
The whole course of Biblical revelation supports this view. It is quite
true that if we were to read the New Testament for the first time,
knowing nothing whatever about the Old, we should come to the conclusion
that it almost entirely ignored nationality and everything which goes
with it. But then the Church has always maintained that the New
Testament grows by an organic life out of the Old, and presupposes it;
and when we go back to that, there can be no doubt whatever about its
view of nationality. The whole of the early books of the Old Testament
are concerned with this, and almost nothing else. The task of Moses in
the wilderness, of Joshua, of the Judges and the early Kings, is
precisely to fashion Israel into a nation. So much is all attention
concentrated upon this that we find a contentment with that contraction
of the moral outlook which presents to many modern readers the chief
stumbling block about the Old Testament. Almost everything that was
serviceable to Israel is approved. Rahab is guilty of sheer treason to
her own city of Jericho, but it is serviceable to Israel, and there is
no word of condemnation. Jael is guilty of a very treacherous murder,
but it was serviceable to Israel, so "Blessed shall she be above women
in the tent."
Everything is concentrated upon this primary object of fashioning Israel
into a nation and persuading individual Israelites to put the welfare of
the whole before the interest and ambition of their own clique or
faction; and when the time came for an advance to a wider view, it came
precisely not by way of saying that national divisions do not matter and
that national life itself is unimportant, but by insisting that
nationality is equally precious in these other nations all around Israel
as it is within Israel itself.
The turning point here as in so much else in the Old Testament is the
Book of Amos, the first of the written prophecies. It is worth while to
try to imagine the effect of those opening clauses. The prophet begins
by securing a willing hearing from those to whom he writes: in other
words he begins by abusing their neighbours.
"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Damascus, yea
for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof...."
"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Gaza, yea for
four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....
"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Tyre, yea for
four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....
"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom, yea for
four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....
"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of the children
of Ammon, yea for four, I will not turn away the punishment
thereof....
"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, yea for
four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof...."
And then, without a change of phrase, without even the compliment of a
heightened denunciation--
"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Judah, yea for
four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof....
"Thus saith the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, yea
for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof...."[#]
[#] Amos i, 3-ii, 6.
It would be impossible more emphatically to insist that all nations,
Israel and the rest, stand on an equal footing before the Judgment Seat
of God, and are to be regarded as real entities, and real moral agents;
but that is not enough for the prophet.
"Are ye not as Children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of
Israel?--saith the Lord."
I have no more care for you than the Ethiopians--who then, as now, were
black folk.
"Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt, _and_
the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?"[#]
[#] Amos ix, 7.
It is the God who had guided the history of Israel who has equally
guided the history of the despised Philistine and the hated Syrian. And
this line of thought reaches its culmination where we should expect to
find it, in the works of the statesman-prophet Isaiah. His little
country of Judah was likely to be destroyed by the hostilities of
Assyria and Egypt, and in the middle of that peril, when these nations
were at each other's throats, he looks forward and says:--
"In that day there shall be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria
and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian to
Assyria; and the Egyptians shall worship with the Assyrians."
There shall be free intercourse between them, and worship of the one God
shall be the link between them.
"In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with
Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, for that the Lord
of hosts hath blessed them, saying, 'Blessed be Egypt my people,
and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine
inheritance?'"[#]
[#] Isaiah xix, 23-25.
Just picture the pallid frenzy of the orthodox Jew at the words--"Egypt
my people."
The teaching of the Bible is plain enough; and as we come to the New
Testament, with all this in our minds, knowing the emphasis that has
already been laid upon nationality, we find that there, too, is the note
of patriotism.
No man has ever loved his nation more than the Lord loved Israel, and in
the bitterness of disappointment in the lament over Jerusalem we have
the measure of His patriotic love for the holy places of His people.
St. Paul, the author of those great ejaculations--"That there can be
neither Jew nor Gentile, Greek nor Scythian, bond nor free, but one man
in Christ Jesus"[#]--is also the author of the most ardent expression of
patriotism in all literature.
[#] Gal. iii, 28; Col. iii, 11.
"I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing
witness with me in the Holy Ghost, that I have great sorrow and
unceasing pain in my heart. For I could wish that myself were
accursed from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen
according to the flesh; who are Israelites, whose is the
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of
the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the
patriarchs, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh."[#]
[#] Rom. ix, 1-5.
One can almost hear him panting as he dictates the words.
The Bible, then, strongly insists upon the nation as existing by divine
appointment, and it looks forward, not to the abolition of national
distinctions, but to the inclusion of all nations in the family of
nations. So it was well that nationality should insist upon itself
within the sphere of religion in the movement that we call the
Reformation. But it left us with a broken Christendom, and with what
are called national Churches. The old Church endeavoured to tyrannise
over the State; under the influence of the Reformation the State tended
to tyrannise over the Church. Then comes a movement towards a free
Church in a free State; but we shall only find satisfaction when we have
a free State in a free Church.
The nation is a natural growth with a spiritual significance. It
emerges as a product of various elementary needs of man; but having
emerged it is found to possess a value far beyond the satisfaction of
these needs. The Church is a spiritual creation working through a
natural medium. Its informing principle is the Holy Spirit of God in
Christ, but its members are men and women who are partly animal in
nature as well as children of God. The nation as organised for action
is the State; and the State, being "natural," appeals to men on that
side of their nature which is lower but is not in itself bad. Justice
is its highest aim and force its typical instrument, though force is
progressively less employed as the moral sense of the community
develops: mercy can find an entrance only on strict conditions. The
Church, on the other hand, is primarily spiritual; holiness is its
primary quality; mercy will be the chief characteristic of its
judgments, but it may fall back on justice and even, in the last resort,
on force.[#] Both State and Church are instruments of God for
establishing His Kingdom; both have the same goal; but they have
different functions in relation to that goal.
[#] See Appendix II.: _On Moral Authority_.
The State's action for the most part takes the form of restraint; the
Church's mainly that of appeal. The State is concerned to maintain the
highest standard of life that can be generally realised by its citizens;
the Church is concerned with upholding an ideal to which not even the
best will fully attain. When a man reaches a certain pitch of
development, he scarcely realises the pressure of the State, though he
is still unconsciously upheld by the moral judgment of society; but he
can never outgrow the demand of the Church. On the other hand, if a man
is below a certain standard, the appeal of the Church will not hold him
and he needs the support of the State's coercion.
Neither State nor Church is itself the Kingdom of God, though the
specific life of the Church is the very spirit and power of that
Kingdom. Each plays its part in building the Kingdom, in which, when it
comes, force will have disappeared, while justice and mercy will
coalesce in the perfect love which will treat every individual according
to his need.
The Church which, officially at least, ignored nationality has failed.
The Church which allowed itself to become little more than the organ of
national religion has failed. The hope of the future lies in a truly
international Church, which shall fully respect the rights of nations
and recognise the spiritual function of the State, thereby obtaining the
right to direct the national States along the path which leads to the
Kingdom of God. We are all clear by now that the Christian Church
cannot be made the servant of one nation; we must become equally clear
that it cannot be regarded as standing apart from them, so that in
becoming a Churchman a man is withdrawn in some degree from national
loyalty. We must get rid of the idea of "alternative" loyalties. The
Church is indeed the herald and the earnest of that Kingdom of God which
includes all mankind; but unless all history is a mere aberration, that
Kingdom will have nations for its provinces, and nations like
individuals will realise their destiny by becoming members of it.
We shall, then, conceive the relation of the nation to the Church on the
analogy of that between the family and the nation. There is in principle
no conflict of interest or loyalty here. The family is a part of the
nation, owing allegiance to it; but the nation consists of families and
can reach its welfare only through theirs. So the nation (in proportion
as it is Christian) must learn to regard itself as a member of the
family of nations in the Catholic Church. No doubt in this imperfect
world there is often a conflict of supposed interests, and sometimes
even of real interests. Moreover, there is often room for doubt as to
where the true interest lies. But the family finds its own true welfare
in the service of the nation, and the nation finds its own welfare in
the service of the Kingdom of God.
The Catholic Church, which is itself not yet a society of just men made
perfect, while upholding the ideal of brotherhood and the love which
kills hate by suffering at its hands, and while calling both men and
nations to penitence and renewed aspiration in so far as they fail to
reach that ideal, will none the less recognise the divinity of the
nation in spite of all its failures. It will not call upon men to come
out from their nation or separate themselves from its action, unless it
believes that then and there the nation itself is capable of something
better, or unless the nation requires of them a repudiation of the very
spirit of Christ, or an action intrinsically immoral. If it is doing
the best that at the moment it is capable of doing, the Church will bid
its citizens support it in that act, lest the nation be weakened in its
defence of the right or its control handed over to those who have no
care for the right.
The Church then must recognise the nation having a certain function in
the divine providence with reference to man's spiritual life. It must
not try to usurp the State's functions, for if it does it will perform
them badly, and it will also--which is far more serious--be deserting
the work for which it alone is competent; and the State must, in its
turn, recognise the Church as the Society of Nations, of which it with
all others is a member.
Nothing but such a spiritual society can secure fellowship among
nations. Schemes of arbitration, conciliation, international police and
the like, presuppose, if they are to be effective, an admitted community
of interest between the nations. But this must be not only admitted but
believed in sufficiently to prompt a nation which has no interest in a
particular dispute to make sacrifices for the general good, by spending
blood and treasure in upholding the authority of the international court
or council. What will secure this, except the realisation of common
membership in the Kingdom of God, and in the Christian Church, its
herald and earnest?
And yet the Church we know is not only divided but at war within itself.
This, the Creation of God in Christ, is not more free from strife and
faction than the nations, which are natural growths. If grace fails,
how can nature succeed? Why should we expect the nations of the world
to be at peace, when the sections of the Church are at war?
Because the Church is so far from what we hope it may become, we can
only sketch that future Church in outline. Its building will be the
work of years, perhaps of centuries. And probably enough our attempt
will fail as Hildebrand's failed; probably enough there will be scores
of failures; but each time we must begin again in order that for Christ
and His Spirit a Body may be prepared, through which His purpose may in
the end of the ages find its accomplishment, and the nations of the
earth bring their glory--each its own--into His Holy City.
There is the goal; dimly enough seen; but the method is perfectly plain.
"Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; how know
we the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way." And when that way led
to the Cross, beside the innocent Sufferer there were two others. One
cried to Him, "Save Thyself and us"; the other recognised His royalty in
that utmost humiliation and prayed, "Jesus, remember me when Thou comest
in Thy Kingdom." He, and he alone in the four Gospels, is recorded to
have addressed the Lord by His personal name. Penitence creates
intimacy, whether it be offered to God or to man.
We have been made very conscious of the burden of the world's pain and
sin, though perhaps that burden, as God bears it, is no heavier now than
in our selfish and worldly peace. Will the Church pray to Him, "Save
Thyself and us"? or will it willingly suffer with Him, united with Him
in the intimacy of penitence, seeing His royalty in His crown of thorns?
Will it, while bidding men bravely do their duty as they see it, still
say that the real treasures are not of this world though they may in
part be possessed here, suffering whatever may be the penalty for this
unpopular testimony? For the kingdoms of this world will become the
Kingdom of our God and of His Christ only when the citizens of those
kingdoms lay up their treasure in heaven and not upon the earth, only
when, being risen with Christ, they set their affection on things
above--love, joy, peace, loyalty, beauty, knowledge--only when they
realise their fellowship in His Body so that their fellowship also in
His Holy Spirit may purge their selfishness away.
Here is field enough for heroism and the moral equivalent of war. The
Church is to be transformed and become a band of people united in their
indifference to personal success or national expansion, and caring only
that the individual is pure in heart and the nation honourable. In her
zeal for that purity and honour, and in her contempt for all else, she
may have to suffer crucifixion. It is a big risk that the Church must
run; for if she does not save the world she will have ruined it, besides
sacrificing herself. If there is no God nor Holy City of God, the
Church will have just spoilt life for all her faithful members, and in
some degree for every one else as well. But if her vision is true, then
everything is worth while--rather the greatness of the sacrifice is an
addition to the joy when the prize is so unimaginably great. Can we
bring this spirit into the Church? On our answer depends the course of
history in the next century, and a new stage in the Coming of the Lord.
_The Spirit and the Bride say, Come._
_And he that heareth, let him say, Come._
_Yea: I come quickly._
_Amen: come, Lord Jesus._
*LECTURE III*
*JUSTICE AND LIBERTY IN THE STATE*
"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to
destroy but to fulfil."--S. Matthew v., 17.
I.--In the last lecture I said that justice would seem to be the typical
virtue of the State, as holiness of the Church. Let us, then, first
consider this virtue of justice in the light of our Lord's teaching
concerning one of the most familiar aspects of justice--its penal
aspect.