LOW
399
LOW
the moral virtues, a well-defined order. The wdo
caritcUis, as theologians term it, possibly from a wrong
rendering into Latin of Cant., li, 4 (ordinavit in me
eharUatem)^ takes into account these different factors:
(1) the persons who claim our love, (2) the advantages
which we desire to procure for them, and (3) the
necessity in which they are placed. The precedence is
plain enough when theise factors are viewed separately.
Regarding the persons alone, the order is somewhat as
follows: self, wife, children, parents, brothers and
sisters, friends, domestics, neighbours, fellow-country-
men, and all others. Considering the goods by them-
selves, there is a triple order: the most important
spiritual goods appertaining to the salvation of the
soul should first appeal to our solicitude; then the in-
trinsic and natural goods of the soul and body, like life,
health, knowledge, libertv, etc.; finally, the extrinsic
goods of reputation, wealth, etc. Viewing apart the
various kinds of necessity, the following order would
obtain: first, extreme necessity, wherein a man is in
danger of damnation, or of death, or of the loss of other
goods of nearly equal importance and can do nothing
to help himself; secodd, grave necessity, when one
E laced in similar danger can extricate himself only by eroic efforts; third, common necessity, such as af- fects ordinary sinners or beggars who can help them- selves without great difficulty.
When the three factors are combined, they give rise to compUcated rules, the principal of wnich are these: (1) The love of complacency and the love of benefac- tion do not follow the same standard, the former being guided by the worthiness, the latter by the near- ness and need, of the neighbour. (2) Our personal salvation is to be preferred to all else. We are never justified in committing the slightest sin for the love of any one or anything whatsoever, nor should we expose ourselves to spiritual danger except in such cases and with such precautions as would give us a moral right to, and guarantee of, God's protection. (;^) We arc bound to succour our neighbour in extreme spiritual necessity even at the cost of our own life, an oljligation which, however, supposes the certainty of the neigh- bour's need and of the effectiveness of our service to him. (4) Except in the very rare cases dc^cril)ed above, we are not bound to risk life or limb for our neighbour, but only to undergo that amount of incon- venience which is justified by the neighbour's n?ed and nearness. Casuists are not agreed as to the right to give one's life for another's life of equal importance.
TanquerisV, De virtuteairiiaHs in Sj/nopsUTheohgia Moralin, II (New York, 1906), 426; Slater, A Manual of Moral The- oloffUt I (New York, 1909), 179 eqq.; Batiffol, U Enseignement de Jiaua (Paris, 1905); Northcote, The Bond of Perfection (London. 1907); GArrRE, La Lot d' Amour (Paris, 1908); de Salxs, TraiiS de Vamour de Dieu: Pksch, Pralectionea Dogmor Ucm, VIII (Freiburg im Br., 1898), 226 aqq.; Dublanchy, in Diet, de Thiol. Cam., a. v. CharitS, with an exhaustive biblio- hy of the theologians and mystics who have dealt with this
gnwby
matter.
J. F. SOLUER.
Low Ohiirch, the name given to one of the three
parties or doctrinal tendencies that prevail in the
Established Church of England and its daughter
Churches, the correlatives being High Church and
Broad Church. The last of these names is not a cen-
tury old, but the other two came into use simulta-
neously at the beginning of the eighteenth century.
Their invention was due to the controversies stirred
up by William Ill's endeavour to undo the Act of
Uniformity of 1662 and concede to the Dissenters all
that they had demanded in the Savoy Conference,
(^uite a war of pamphlets was carried on at the time
in which the terms High Church and Low Church were
bandied to and fro. To cite one w^itness out of many,
Bishop Burnet, in his "History' of his o^ti Time"
(VII. 347), writes: "From these disputes in Convoca*
tion divisions ran through the whole body of the
dergy, and to fix. tliem new names were found out.
They were distinguished by the names of High and
Low Church. All that treated the Dissenters with
temper and moderation, and were for residing con-
stantly at their cures . . • were represented as secret
favourers of presbytery^ and as disaffected to the
Church, and were called Low Churchmen. It was said
that they were in the Church onlv while the law and
preferments were on its side, but tliat they were ready
to ^ve it up as soon as they saw'a proper time for de-
claring themselves."
^ Naturally the Low Churclimen resented an appella- tion with which this suggestion of unworthy motives was associated. Still the term has passed into general usage, nor, if we forget, as the world has forgotten, an implication which is by no means essential to it, can it be denied that it and its correlative indicate fairly well a root-difference which throughout their various stages has characterized the two parties. What is the nature of the visible Church? Is it a society whose or- ganization with its threefold ministry has been pre- ordained by Jesus Christ, and is therefore essential, or is it one in which tliis organization, though of Apos- tolic precedent, can be departed from without for- feiture of church status? The High Churchmen have alwiiys stood for the former of these alternatives, the Low Churchmen for the latter. Moreover, round these central positions more or less consequential con- victions have gathered. The High Churchmen, in theory at least, emphasize the principle of church au- thority as the final court of doctrinal appeal; whilst the Low Churchmen appeal rather to the Bible, privately interpreted, as the decisive judge. The High Church- men exalt ecclesiastical tradition as the voice of church authority, regard the Holy Eucharist as. in some sense a sacrifice and the sacraments as effica- cious channels of grace, and they insist on rites and ceremonies as the appropriate expression of external worship; whilst the Low Churchmen are distrustful of what they call human traditions, regard the Holy Eucharist as a s>'mbolic meal only, hold firmly that the grace of justification and sanctification is imparted to the soul independently of visible channels, and dis- like all rites and ceremonies, save those of the sim- plest kind, as tending to substitute an external form- alism for true inward devotion. In short, the one party attaches a hiRher, the other a lower degree of impor- tance to the visible Church and it^ ordinances; and this may suffice to justify the retention of the names — though it must always be borne in mind that they state extremes between which many intermediate grades of thought and feeling have always subsisted in the AngUcan Church.
Of the pre-Revolution period, although the two names were not as yet coined, it may be said that Low Church ideas were in the ascendant ail through the reign of Elizabeth, but that under James I religious opinion began to grow high, imtil, mainly through the action of ArchbiSop Laud, it obtained a firm footing in the national Church; and, the lapse of the Rebellion not- withstanding, retained it throughout the Caroline pe- riod, and even through the reigns of William and Anne — although William filled the episcopal sees with Low Church prelates. With the advent of the Hanoverian djTiasty a deep spiritual lethargy settled down on the country. The bishoprics were now openly given as rewards for political service, the lesser benefices were mostly filled by pluralist^ of good familv. The chief soUcitude of the clergy was to lead comfortable lives, their highest spiritual effort, if such it could be called, taking the form of sermons on the reasonableness of Christianity directed against the Deists, or vapid laudations of moral virtue. Then, in the forties of the eighteenth century, there broke on this season of tor- por an intense revival of religious fervour which stirred the country to its foundations, and gave a new and much improved complexion to the Vvikvel "mx^ ^'"^J^ of the liow CU\xt<iVv^\x\V^ . "Sv^^ ^\>^\^t^^>r^^v2^^-
