DEFENCE, NOT DEFIANCE

453

all Roman Catholics of English birth who should take an oath disclaiming certain civil tenets which were imputed to them. It was strenuously opposed, and ultimately withdrawn by Lord Howick, who had introduced it.* And the happy withdrawal of civil disabilities from this body at a yet later date has not in any way lessened the necessity that we should protect ourselves against its inroads.

It is the existence of this hostile body which above all compels the English Church to be on her guard. Otherwise our attitude is one of friendship and amity towards all Christendom. As regards those who differ from us, we can wait confidently; ready to learn ourselves, and trusting that others may. As regards a body which aims at annihilating us, we are bound to be circumspect. Even here, however, our position is not one of active hostility. We have no hostile propaganda, and the motto of the English Church might well be "Defence, not Defiance." The former is necessary because we have to deal with a system which attracts superficial observers by its apparent simplicity. It is this which constitutes its appeal to men in times of difficulty; and "That religion," as Mr. Gladstone once said, "has the most extraordinary fascination for men and women in their hours of weakness." It behoves us therefore to be on our guard. But "defiance" is unnecessary because, strong in the consciousness of what God has done for us in the past, we are able with all confidence to trust ourselves to His protection for the future.

HANSARD, Debates, vol. viii. col. 1073, and vol. ix. cols. 2, 150, etc. See also Dr. JOHN LINGARD, Remarks on a Charge... by Shute, Bishop of Durham, p. 16 n. (Dublin, 1828).

+ To the present Lord Northbourne, from whom I heard it.

XV.

Uniformity.

By W. E. COLLINS, M.A.

W1

ITHIN comparatively recent times a great change has come over our conception of the universe of which we form a part. It is not so very long since, as it has been said, uniformity had come to be the dominant category of thought. Logic was conceived of as being based upon the law of uniformity; and an argument in favour of certain a priori views of nature was derived from the so-called "uniformity of nature." But

"that phrase, of shallow meaning and questionable value (seeing that no two things in nature were ever exactly alike), has now, to a great extent, lost its vogue. There was an undue simplicity about it, which has been considerably modified by the subsequent progress of science. For our increase of scientific knowledge has also increased our scientific agnosticism, by widening the horizon of what remains to be known; and men are becoming far more ready to recognise that 'there are far more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy.' And we now think less of the uniformity than of the unity of nature, that unity which the very word 'universe' implies; the ultimate correlation between the whole and its parts, between the parts and their whole."*

A change not altogether dissimilar in kind has gradually

* ILLINGWORTH, Divine Immanence, pp. 102-3.

UNIFORMITY NOT UNITY

455

been passing over our spiritual conceptions. We are learning to think less of uniformity and more of unity; or rather, to put it more accurately, we are learning to realise that unity and uniformity are different in kind, and that the former is far greater than the latter. Uniformity may have a purpose of its own, but no amount of uniformity can ever secure unity. The difference between the two has been well stated by one of our greatest teachers :

"Uniformity is the natural consequence of a limited design: unity is the outward expression of one great principle embodied in many ways. The one comes from without, the other from within: the one is the sign of constraint, the other of freedom : the one answers, in its highest shape, to organisation, the other to growth."*

And thus we have all begun to recognise that any unity which is worthy of the name must go far deeper than many of the theories and much of the practice of the past was willing to allow. For it cannot be denied that much of the zeal of former days on behalf of unity was really directed towards the attainment of a merely outward unity, and that in effect it often only accentuated the differences which already existed.

It is surely unnecessary to multiply examples in illustration of this fact; human history is full of them, and the history of the Church is by no means an exception. Differentiation is the usual line of development in spiritual as in natural things; and differentiation, as it increases, is always apt to obscure the underlying harmony. Moreover, a marred or imperfect development produces friction within the body, and must sooner or later lead to actual disunion. And when men have become conscious of disunion, or fancied that it exists, they have frequently resorted to force to put an end to it: thus endeavouring to bring about outward agreement by means which could Bishop WESTCOTT, The Bible in the Church, p. 12.

never produce conviction. The Church on earth, which runs its course subject to the infirmities and the passions which compass human nature, has often been drawn into adopting the same method of action; and this in spite of the fact that such compulsion is contrary to the whole spirit of Christianity, which demands conviction and not. only outward agreement. The case has been well stated thus:

"It is natural for any human society to wish for order, and to find order in uniformity. The massive organisation of the Roman State had tried to crush Christianity, because it claimed an independent existence; when Christianity could not be crushed it was adopted. It is ever so: the State must accept any power that exists, and must use it for its own purposes. Uniformity of religious belief was ruled by the State to be necessary, and was enforced accordingly. This was contradictory to the spirit of the Church, and was long felt to be so. Yet the Church gave way to the supposed necessities of its new position. Paganism was forbidden; heretics were reduced to obedience by the strong arm of the law."

Nor was this temper, which laid all stress upon outward unity, directed only towards the attainment of uniformity of belief; it also aimed (more particularly, as we shall see, in and after the sixteenth century) at the attainment of what is with more strict accuracy described as uniformity, viz., uniformity of public worship. We may take an instance from our own history. To the age of Elizabeth, uniformity of public worship was an end in itself; and diversity was a positive evil, and a prolific source of other evils. In a well-known letter to Archbishop Parker, the Queen declares that "diversity, variety, contention, and vain love of singularity, either in our ministers or in the people, must needs provoke the displeasure of Almighty God, and be to us, having the burden of government,

Bishop CREIGHTON, Persecution and Tolerance, p. 73.

FORMERLY OVER-ESTIMATED

457

discomfortable, heavy, and troublesome; and finally must needs bring danger of ruin to our people and country." This being so, Elizabeth goes on to say:

"We, considering the authority given to us of Almighty God for defence of the public peace, concord, and truth of this His Church, and how we are answerable for the same to the seat of His high justice, mean not to endure or suffer any longer these evils to proceed, spread, and increase in our realm, but have certainly determined to have all such diversities, varieties, and novelties amongst them of the clergy and our people as breed nothing but contention, offence, and breach of common charity, and are also against the laws, good usages, and ordinances of our realm, to be reformed and repressed and brought to one manner of uniformity through our whole realm and dominions, that our people may thereby quietly honour and serve Almighty God in truth, concord, peace, and quietness, and thereby also avoid the slanders that are spread abroad hereupon in foreign countries."*

Here diversity is spoken of as an evil in itself, and so displeasing to Almighty God; and uniformity, if not actually an end in itself, is so highly to be desired that it is a good thing to bring it about by whatever means.

It is true that this spirit is by no means a thing entirely of the past; but at any rate the dominant tendency of the present day runs in a contrary direction. We have come to see that in the spiritual relationships of men, as in nature, unity does not depend upon outward resemblance, or upon the doing of similar things, but upon the sharing of a common life; and that variety may be the natural way, indeed the only way, in which a many-sided life can find an adequate expression. This being so, outward conformity can have no value as a measure of unity unless it be the expression and the symbol of an inward temper: it may even be an obstacle to true unity, rather than a

Elizabeth to Parker, 25th January, 1564-5 (Parker Correspondence, p. 224 f.).