non-essentials which up till now have masqueraded and misled so
many religious and non-religious men--drop off in the light of
great realities; and I have seen in the eyes of all true lovers of
our LORD, chaplains and laity, a wistful longing to unite, and
mobilize our spiritual forces now dissipated and ineffective
through disunion. What we look for more and more is a man, so
filled with the SPIRIT of GOD--so free from ambition, covetousness,
denominationalism, with a big heart and deep love, to make a plunge
and start. We may be able to start out here, if we have the
good-will of our leaders at home.
I think I may safely assure my correspondent that he has the good-will
of all the living leaders of all our denominations? May I write and tell
him so from this present meeting? [Yes....] I think I shall remind him
further of those words of the Angel of the Lord to Gideon when he
threshed his wheat in the wine-press with a vigour suggestive of his
wish to have the Midianites beneath his flail--"Go in this thy might,
and thou shalt save Israel" from their marauding hands.
At home, then, as well as at the Front, the will is present with us; and
where there is "the will" there is pretty sure to be "the way."
"The way" (I believe for my part) is substantially that laid down by the
Pan-Anglican Conference of 1866, in the "Lambeth Quadrilateral." Its
four points were:
I. The Holy Scriptures.
II. The Nicene Creed.
III. The Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper ministered with the
unfailing use of the Words of Institution.
IV. The Historic Episcopate.
It is fifty-two years since these terms were put forth. Have they ever
been formally brought before the "denominations" for whom presumably
they were intended? Were they even once commended to the nearest of
these Churches by a deputation urging their consideration? I doubt it.
Yet the first three of these four conditions are already accepted by
nearly all the English Nonconformists; and certainly by all the
Presbyterian Churches, as fully as they are in the Church of England.
The Presbyterian Church of England has set the Nicene Creed on the
fore-front of its new Confession. Every word of the Nicene Creed (as the
late Principal Denney pointed out) is in the Confession of Faith of all
the Scottish Presbyterians. The Church of Scotland repeats it at its
solemn "Assembly Communion" in St Giles'. Its crucial term, the
Homoousion, is in the Articles now sent down to Presbyteries with the
view of their transmission next May to the United Free Church.
In regard to the Sacramental services our _Directory_ is quite express
in ordering the use in Baptism and the Eucharist of the Words of
Institution. I never heard of a case in Scotland where they were not
used: we should condemn their omission should it anywhere occur.
Undoubtedly the Fourth Article would have, till lately, presented
difficulties; but, then, those difficulties were in great measure
cleared away by the admission of the Lambeth Conference of 1908 that in
the case of proposals for union, say of the Church of Scotland with the
Anglican Church, reaching the stage of official action, an approach
might be made along the line of the "Precedents of 1610." I had a recent
opportunity of stating, in an Address[17] I gave at King's College,
London, what these Precedents of 1610 were; how they included the
unanimous vote of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in
favour of the restoration of diocesan bishops acting in conjunction with
her graduated series of Church Courts; how we thereupon received from
the Church of England an Episcopate which then, and ever since, she has
accounted valid, though neither the Scots bishops she then consecrated,
nor the clergy of Scotland as a body, were required to be re-ordained;
and how the combined system thus introduced among us gave us by far the
most brilliant and fruitful period in our ecclesiastical annals; and how
Learning, Piety, Art and Church extension flourished among us, as they
have never done since. The system would in all probability have endured
to the present day but for the arbitrary interferences--often with very
good intentions, and for ends in themselves desirable--of our Stuart
kings. A later restoration of Episcopal Church government under Charles
II lacked the ecclesiastical authority which that of 1610 possessed, and
was still more hopelessly discredited by its association with the
persecution of the Covenanting remnant; but even under these
disadvantages it was yielding not inconsiderable benefits to the
religious life of Scotland. Under it our Gaelic-speaking highlanders
first received the entire Bible in their native tongue; the Episcopate
was adorned by the piety of Leighton and the wisdom of Patrick Scougal;
while Henry Scougal in his _Life of God in the Soul of Man_ produced a
religious classic of enduring value.
The reference by the Lambeth Conference of 1908 was meant as the opening
of a door, and I understand there was some soreness among its supporters
that more notice of it was not taken in Scotland. But it was never sent
to Scotland: it was never communicated to the General Assembly. Our
Scottish newspapers tell us very little of what goes on in England; and
it must be admitted that too often, on both sides of the Tweed, things
have appeared in the press not calculated to heal differences or make
for peace. Sarcasm may be very clever: it is sometimes useful: it is
rarely helpful to good feeling, or to the amendment either of him who
utters it or of him against whom it is directed. The putting forth of
the finger and speaking vanity are among the things which Isaiah
declares they must put away who desire to be called the restorers of the
breach, the repairers of paths to dwell in.
Now you have taken in England a further step. The _Second Interim
Report_ of the Archbishops' Sub-Committee in "Connexion with the
proposed World Conference on Faith and Order" is not, I presume, a
document of the "official" character of a Resolution of a Lambeth
Conference. It is nevertheless a paper of enormous significance and
hopefulness, not alone as attested by the signatures it bears, but also
on account of the exposition which it gives of the fourth point in the
Lambeth Quadrilateral--its own condition "that continuity with the
Historic Episcopate should be effectively preserved."
This _Report_ is, however, exclusively for England; while my concern
to-day is with the kindred question of union between the Anglican Church
and the Scottish Presbyterian Churches. The day I trust is not far
distant when we shall see a similar document issued over signatures from
both sides of the Tweed. Need I say that when this comes to be drawn up,
we of the North (like Bailie Nicol Jarvie with his business
correspondents in London) "will hold no communications with you but on
a footing of absolute equality." In none of the branches into which it
is now divided--Presbyterian or Episcopalian--does the Church of
Scotland forget that it is an ancient national Church which never
admitted subjection to its greater sister of the South. We may have too
good "a conceit of ourselves," but we shall at least, like the worthy
bailie, be true and friendly. And indeed we--or some of us--were already
moving towards something of the kind. The _Second Interim Report_--it
bears the title "Towards Christian Unity"--is dated, I observe, March
1918. In Scotland, so early as the 29th of January, there was held at
Aberdeen (historically the most natural place for such a purpose, for it
was the city of the "Aberdeen Doctors" and their eirenic efforts) a
conference--modest, unofficial, tentative--yet truly representative of
the Church of Scotland, of the United Free Church, and of the Scottish
Episcopal Church, which drew up, and has issued, a _Memorandum_[18]
suggesting a basis for reunion in Scotland, very much on the lines of
the Precedents of 1610, but suggesting such arrangements during a period
of transition as shall secure that respect is paid to the conscientious
convictions to be found on both sides. We shall not repeat the blunders
of 1637 which ruined the happy settlement of 1610.
We have in view a method which shall neither deprive Scottish Episcopal
congregations of the services they love, nor attempt to force a
Prayer-Book on Presbyterian congregations till they wish it for
themselves. We shall do nothing either to discredit or disparage our
existing Presbyterian orders; we shall be no less careful not to obtrude
on the Episcopal minority the services of a ministry they deem
defective; which shall arrange that in the course of a generation the
ministry of both communions shall be acceptable to all, while in the
meanwhile it will be possible for both to work together. Alike in
England and in Ireland this Memorandum, where it has been seen, has been
favourably received. In Scotland it--and doubtless other plans--will
probably be discussed in the coming winter by many a gathering similar
to that which drew it up; and thus we shall be ready, by the time our
union with the United Free Church is completed, to go on together to
this further task.
By that time you in England will have made some progress towards the
healing of your divisions. The wider settlement of ours would be greatly
facilitated by an overt encouragement from you. England is "the
predominant partner" in our happily united Empire: it is the Church of
England that should take the initiative in a scheme for a United Church
for the United Empire. She should take that initiative in Scotland.
Could there be a more appropriate occasion for proposing conference with
a view to it at Edinburgh, than the day which sees the happy
accomplishment of our present Scottish effort? Might not the Church of
England, the Church of Ireland, and the Scottish Episcopal Church (all
of which have given tokens of a sympathetic interest in our union
negotiations) unite to send deputations for the purpose to our first
reunited General Assembly? Such deputations would not go away empty. And
they would carry with them what would help not only the Cause of Christ
throughout the ever-widening Empire He has given to our hands, but the
fulfilment of His blessed will that all His people should be one.
Auspice Spiritu Sancto. Amen.
FOOTNOTES:
[17] This Address, along with another delivered in St Paul's, has been
published by Mr Robert Scott, of Paternoster Row, under the title
_Reunion, a Voice from Scotland_.
[18] Printed in _Reunion, a Voice from Scotland_, pp. 101-107.
UNITY BETWEEN CLASSES
I
By the Right Rev. F. T. WOODS, D.D.
INTRODUCTION
He would be a dull man who did not respond to such a theme as the one
with which I have been entrusted.
Before the war, in spite of much enlightenment of the social conscience,
unity between classes was still far to seek. Indeed, the contemplation
of the state of English society in those early months of 1914 was
perhaps more calculated to drive the social reformer into pessimism than
anything which has happened since. The rich were hunting for fresh
pleasures, the poor were hunting for better conditions. The tendencies
which were dragging these classes apart seemed stronger than those which
were bringing them together. Then came the war, and it has done much to
convert a forlorn hope into a bright prospect. This has happened not
merely, or even mainly, owing to the fact that men of all classes are
fighting side by side in the trenches, but rather owing to the fact that
the war has cleared our minds, has exposed the real dangers of
civilisation, and has placarded before the world, in terms which cannot
be mistaken, the things which are most worth living for.
I propose to ask your attention to my subject under three heads. First I
shall say something of the basis of class distinction, then I shall put
before you some attempts which have been made at social unity, and in
closing I shall try to estimate the hope of the present situation.
I
THE BASIS OF CLASS DISTINCTION
Birth and Property have been during most of human history the chief
points on which class distinction has turned. Behind them both, I fear
it must be confessed, there is that which lies at the root of all
civilisation, namely force. I presume that the first class distinction
was between the group of people who could command and the group who had
to obey. The second group no doubt consisted in most cases of conquered
enemies who were turned into slaves. They were outsiders, the men of a
lower level.
But the master group, if I may so call it, would have its descendants,
who by virtue of family relationships would seek to keep their position.
This, I conclude, is the fountain head of that stream of blue blood
which has played so large a part in class distinction. It is not
difficult to make out a strong case for it from the point of view of
human evolution. The processes of primitive warfare may have led to the
survival of the fittest or the selection of the best. At a time when the
sense of social responsibility was limited in the extreme, it may have
been a good thing that the management of men should have rested mainly
in the hands of those who by natural endowments and force of character
came to the top. It is unnecessary to dwell at length on the immense
influence both in our own country and elsewhere which this blood
distinction of class has exercised. It is writ large in the history of
the word "gentleman," both in the English word and its Latin ancestor.
The Latin word "generosus," always the equivalent of "gentleman" in
English-Latin documents, signifies a person of good family. It was used
no doubt in this sense by the Rev. John Ball, the strike leader, as we
should call him in modern terms, of the 14th century, in the lines which
formed a kind of battlecry of the rebels:
When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?
A writer of a century later, William Harrison, says: "Gentlemen be those
whom their race and blood or at least their virtues do make noble and
known."
But the distinction is older than this. According to Professor Freeman
it goes back well nigh to the Conquest. Not indeed the distinction of
blood, for that is much older, but the formation of a separate class of
gentlemen. It has been maintained however by some writers that this is
rather antedating the process, and that the real distinction in English
life up to the 14th century was between the nobiles, the tenants in
chivalry, a very large class which included all between Earls and
Franklins; and the ignobiles, i.e. the villeins, the ordinary citizens
and burgesses. The widely prevalent notion that a gentleman was a person
who had a right to wear coat armour is apparently of recent growth, and
is possibly not unconnected with the not unnatural desire of the
herald's office to magnify its work.
It is evident that noble blood in those days was no more a guarantee of
good character than it is in this, for, according to one of the writers
on the subject, the premier gentleman of England in the early days of
the 15th century was one who had served at Agincourt, but whose
subsequent exploits were not perhaps the best advertisement for gentle
birth. According to the public records he was charged at the
Staffordshire Assizes with house-breaking, wounding with intent to kill,
and procuring the murder of one Thomas Page, who was cut to pieces while
on his knees begging for his life[19].
The first gentleman, commemorated by that name on an existing monument,
is John Daundelion who died in 1445.
In the 14th and 15th centuries the chief occupation of gentlemen was
fighting; but later on, when law and order were more firmly established,
the younger sons of good families began to enter industrial life as
apprentices in the towns, and there began to grow up a new aristocracy
of trade. To William Harrison, the writer to whom I have already
referred, merchants are still citizens, but he adds: "They often change
estate with gentlemen as gentlemen do with them by mutual conversion of
the one into the other."
Since those days the name has very properly come to be connected less
with blue blood than--if I may coin the phrase--with blue behaviour. In
1714, Steele lays it down in the _Tatler_ that the appellation of
gentleman is never to be fixed to a man's circumstances but to his
behaviour in them. And in this connexion we may recall the old story of
the Monarch, said by some to be James II, who replied to a lady
petitioning him to make her son a gentleman: "I could make him a noble,
but God Almighty could not make him a gentleman."
Before we leave the class distinctions based mainly on birth and blood,
it is well to remark that in England they have never counted for so much
as elsewhere. It is true of course that the nobility and gentry have
been a separate class, but they have been constantly recruited from
below. Distinction in war or capability in peace was the qualification
of scores of men upon whom the highest social rank was bestowed in reign
after reign in our English history. Moreover, birth distinction has
never been recognised in law, in spite of the fact that the manipulation
of laws has not always been free from bias. The well known words of
Macaulay are worth quoting in this connexion:
There was a strong hereditary aristocracy: but it was of all
hereditary aristocracies the least insolent and exclusive. It had
none of the invidious character of a caste. It was constantly
receiving members from the people, and constantly sending down
members to mingle with the people. Any gentleman might become a
peer, the younger son of a peer was but a gentleman. Grandsons of
peers yielded precedence to newly made knights.
The dignity of knighthood was not beyond the reach of any man who could
by diligence and thrift realise a good estate, or who could attract
notice by his valour in battle.
... Good blood was indeed held in high respect: but between good
blood and the privileges of peerage there was, most fortunately for
our country, no necessary connection.... There was therefore here
no line like that which in some other countries divides the
patrician from the plebeian. The yeoman was not inclined to murmur
at dignities to which his own children might rise. The grandee was
not inclined to insult a class into which his own children must
descend.... Thus our democracy was, from an early period, the most
aristocratic, and our aristocracy the most democratic in the world;
a peculiarity which has lasted down to the present day, and which
has produced many important moral and political effects[20].
If blood counted for much in distinctions of class, property counted for
more. The original distinction between the "haves" and the "have nots"
has persisted throughout history and is with us to-day.
In the ancient village, no doubt, the distinction was of the simplest.
On the one hand was the man who by force or by his own energy became
possessed of more cattle and more sheep than his fellows; on the other
hand was the man who, in default of such property, was ready and willing
to give his services to the bigger man, whether for wages, or as a
condition of living in the village and sharing in the rights of the
village fields and pastures. Here presumably we have the origin of that
institution of Landlordism which still looms so large in our social
life. In the early days it was probably more a matter of cattle than of
land. The possessor of cattle in the village would hire out a certain
number of them to a poorer neighbour, who would have the right to feed
them on the common land. Thus, even in primitive times, a class
distinction based on property began to grow up.
Early in history there was found in most villages a chief man who had
the largest share of the land. Below him there would be three or four
landowners of moderate importance and property. At the end of the scale
were the ordinary labourers and villagers, among whom the rest of the
village lands were divided as a rule on fairly equal terms.
Closely allied to this of course was the organisation of the village
from the point of view of military service. Parallel to this more
peaceful organisation of society was the elaborate Feudal System, by
which, from the King downwards, lands were held in virtue of an
obligation on the part of each class to the one above it to produce men
for the wars in due proportion of numbers and equipment.
From this point of view property in land meant also property in men,
labourers in peace and soldiers in war.
As time went on the class distinctions of birth and property began more
and more to coincide. It was Dr Johnson who made the remark that "the
English merchant is a new species of gentleman."
The form of property which was always held to be in closest connexion
with gentle blood was land. This has been so in a pre-eminent degree
since our English Revolution at the end of the 17th century. From that
time onwards the smaller landowners, yeomen and squires with small
holdings, begin to disappear and the landed gentry become practically
supreme. Political power in a large measure rested with them, and the
result was that numbers of men who had made money in trade were eager to
use it in the purchase of land, for this meant the purchase of social
and political influence.
It was no doubt this craze for the possession of land which led to the
process of enclosing the common lands of the village, a process on which
no true Englishman can look back in these days without shame and sorrow.
It is no doubt arguable that from an economic point of view the
productive power of the land was increased, that agriculture was more
efficiently and scientifically managed by the comparatively few big men
than it would have been by the many small men who were displaced. None
the less the price was too high, for it meant a still further
accentuation of class distinction. It meant the further enrichment of
the big man, and the further impoverishment of the small man. And
between the two there grew up a class of farmers, separate from the
labourers, whose outlook on the whole did not make for those relations
of neighbourliness and even kinship which had been among the fine
characteristics of the ancient village.
Nor is this the end of the story, for the distinction between the
"haves" and the "have nots" was still further accentuated, and the two
classes driven still further apart, by the far-reaching Industrial
Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th century.
The alienation between the farmer and the labourer was exactly
paralleled by the alienation which gradually crept in between the
manufacturer and the workers. The growth of the factory system was
indeed so rapid that only the keenest foresight could have provided
against these evils. The same may be said of the amazing development of
the towns, particularly in Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire,
which quickly gathered round the new hives of industry. Unfortunately
that foresight was lacking. On the one hand the science of town-planning
had hardly been born, on the other hand a lightning accumulation of
large fortunes turned the heads of the commercial magnates, dehumanised
industry, and broke up the fellowship which in older and simpler days
had obtained between the employer and his men.