“In secular matters, therefore, the Church will be wholly on the side of liberty.  Ecclesiastical authorities, for example, would be the first to welcome a repeal of legislation as regards heresy; but, on the other hand, we fully recognize the right of a secular State to protect itself, even by the death penalty, against those who threaten the existence of the sanctions on which a secular State takes its stand.  We recognize her right, I say; but I do not mean by that that you will not find a majority of ecclesiastics who hold that it is, to put it mildly, a deplorable policy and very imperfectly Christian.

“However, I have said all this before, both in public and now again in answer to your questions; and I think that, at any rate so far as I am concerned, I shall not be to blame if the nation accepts the proposed change under a misapprehension.

“You see, gentlemen, the attempt that ended fifty years ago—­the attempt that was called in its day Protestantism—­to establish a religion which was to be secondary in any sense to the State, failed and failed lamentably, in spite of the noble lives that were spent in labouring for such a compromise.  For it is the whole essence of a Supernatural Religion to be supreme in it own province—­the very adjective asserts it; and any endeavour to compromise on this entirely vital point is in itself a denial of the principle, For a while this was not perceived.  Men regarded the Christian Church—­or rather, that which they took to be the Christian Church—­merely, on its earthly side, as an organization comparable to a State.  They did not seem to see that Religion must always have a wider basis than any secular body, since it deals with eternity as well as with time, while the State, professedly, treats only of temporal things.  The consequence was either conflict, whenever supernatural elements clashed with natural; or else the subservience of Religion, and its consequent loss of prestige, as well as of its supernatural character.  A National Church, therefore, is a contradiction in terms, since it asserts that that which is in its very nature larger than this world must yet be confined within the limits not only of this world, but even of a part of it. . . .  Well, I need not labour that point.  You grasped it, gentlemen, even before you were good enough to ask me to give evidence before this Commission.  I felt it, however, only right that such conditions should be reiterated and recorded before matters went any farther.

“The Church, therefore, is perfectly content to remain as she has always remained in this country for the last four centuries—­a free society governing the consciences of her children.  Or she is content to take outwardly and officially that position which she has always, at least tacitly, claimed, and to reassume her civil dignity and her civil responsibilities.  But she is not content to waive any of those Divine Rights with which her Founder endowed her, even in return for the greatest privileges; still less is she content to receive those privileges under false pretences. . . .”