XXVI.

THE STUDY OF CHURCH HISTORY.

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE TIMES OF HENRY VIII. AND EDWARD VI.

To the study of any subject it is necessary that the student should bring two qualities: (1) an intelligent curiosity; (2) a power of attentive observation. The main duty of a teacher is to stimulate the curiosity and develop the observing power of the student.

Now in applying these principles to the time-honoured subjects of study, languages and mathematics, we see that the lines of the student's curiosity, and the points which he must be taught to observe, are defined by the nature of the studies themselves. The laws of grammar and of mathematics are known certainly, and all that the teacher can do is to make them intelligible and interesting to the learner.

But when we advance from things which are abstract to things which concern human life and society, we get into a region which is necessarily indefinite, and does not admit of uniform treatment. To make up for this difficulty, a subject which is more closely connected with human life has a greater interest of its own, and the learner's curiosity about it is more easily roused. It is easier to learn, but it is harder to teach. The increased difficulty of teaching would not be

a matter of any consequence if there were not an examination to be found at the end of it all. This uncomfortable prospect prevents the learner from following the dictates of his curiosity unchecked, and picking up for himself such knowledge as interests him; it prevents the teacher from directing the observation of the pupil solely towards such points as seem to him most important. Pupil and teacher alike have to consider what is likely to be the prevailing view of the general aspect of the period on which they are engaged, and what are likely to be the subjects on which knowledge will be expected.

As regards Church History in particular, there is a very large field open for inquiry. The field has not yet been sufficiently explored for us to map it out with any great certainty. Opinions differ about what was good in the past, as they differ about what is good in the present; and the perspective of events in the past changes according to the point of view at present adopted. It is therefore most important that any examination in Church History should cover as wide a field as possible; that it should require knowledge rather than opinion; and that it should not omit points on which opinions differ, but should set questions in such a form that every difference of opinion may freely express itself without being trammelled by the nature of the question. I think that all students, teachers and examiners should alike recognise that examination is an evil-a necessary evil, it may be—and that all should strive together to minimise its bad results. The student should not allow the pressure of an examination to lead him to get up a text-book, instead of gratifying

his intelligent curiosity about details. The teacher should not aim at enforcing general views unsupported by sufficient illustrations. The examiner should not try to reduce the scope of the examination to the limits within which it is easy for him to find a common standard. Curiosity and observation should be shown by the pupil, encouraged by the teacher, and recognised and valued by the examiner.

The

The period of the history of the English Church covered by the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. is difficult, because many things were done, and we know a great deal about them, so much so that we have not yet sorted all our knowledge and come to an agreement about it. The student has to follow in the main a text-book, but he need not follow it blindly. After reading it, he should think over the picture which it presents to his mind, and consider if the picture as a whole seems to him to be probable. object of reading history is, after all, to get a notion how things happened in the past, and we have not learnt anything worth learning if we are content to know the fact that they happened, without finding out to some degree why and how they happened. It is not enough to say, "Henry VIII. did this or that". We ought to have some opinion why he did it; what he hoped to gain by doing it; whether his motive was bad or good, selfish or unselfish; who helped him to do it, and why they did so.

Of course it is impossible, even for the man who knows most, to answer all these questions beyond the possibility of dispute. But the politics of the past must be judged in the same sort of way as present

politics are judged, though with greater calmness and with greater knowledge. A student of history should be exhorted to use his independent judgment on the facts presented by the past, that he may learn greater sobriety and broader views about the questions of the present. It is an education in itself

to realise how much is to be said on both sides in politics, whether those of our own day or of a former time.

When the student finds that he has raised questions for himself which his text-book does not give him the materials to answer, he should ask his teacher either to give him the information which he needs, or to tell him where it may be found. Of course the clergy and others who are engaged in teaching Church History to classes cannot have all knowledge at their fingers' ends; but they ought not for that reason to discourage curiosity, and certainly ought not to be ashamed, but rather to rejoice, at having occasion to say, “I never thought of that point, and I know nothing about it". They have, however, a command of more books, and might either say, "I will look it up for you," or might lend the inquirer some books, and tell him to make it out for himself and bring the results of his inquiries to the next meeting of the class. No teaching could be more fruitful than that which had for its results to resolve a class into a co-operative society, of which the members were each engaged in looking out some point which had struck them. If they could be induced to do this, and bring their results together, there would be an immediate quickening of their interest. Their teacher would become the president of a conference,

would suggest new questions, and correct narrowness and prejudice when they arose.

I make this suggestion because I am sure that nothing is so destructive to any real study of history as the conversion of it into getting up a text-book. It is useless to read about a period of human activity, two pages at a time, learning dates and names of Acts of Parliament so as to answer detailed questions on these pages only. The text-book ought to be read straight through at once, as if it were a story book. The first lesson should be spent in seeing what the period as a whole is concerned with. Then it is possible to go back and take it bit by bit. If the teacher has not much time to spend in getting up details, at least he can now and then read aloud some passages from the contemporary writers in which the period is so rich. Hall's Chronicle may not be in his reach; but Cavendish's Life of Wolsey, More's Utopia, Latimer's Sermon on the Plough, can each of them be bought for a shilling. Some book may be within reach which contains the actual text of the Statute of Appeals, or the Submission of the Clergy. More would be learnt about the actual meaning of the Reformation under Henry VIII. by reading through these documents than by reading any amount of modern opinion on the subject. Again, most parts of England are within reach of some monastic ruins, and there is generally a local antiquary who knows their history. I believe that a teacher would find no difficulty in organising a visit to some monastic site, and in finding some one who would give a short account of the history of the monastery and the actual facts about its dissolution. There are many