But when blended into one, the power and knowledge become happily
united; the Church has become sovereign, and the State has become
Christian.[217] The Church has its living and redeemed members; it may
have those who are craving to be admitted within its shelter, being
convinced that God is in it of a truth; but beyond these, he who is not
with it is against it.[218]

In intimate connection with Arnold stands the name of his friend and
biographer, Arthur P. Stanley, Dean of Westminster, for some years a
writer of celebrity in England. Two late volumes on the _Eastern_ and
_Jewish Churches_ have given him a standing occupied by few theologians
in the old or the new world. His style is gorgeous and enchanting, and
his Rationalistic tendencies so subdued and covert that few would
suspect him of sympathy with the Broad Church theology of the last ten
years' growth. In his work on _Sinai and Palestine_ he aimed to
delineate the outward events of the Old and New Testament in such a way
that they should come home with a new power to those who, by long
familiarity, had almost ceased to regard them as historical truth; and
so to bring out their inward spirit that the more complete realization
of their outward form should not degrade but exalt the faith of which
they are the vehicle. But in subsequent works, Dean Stanley has clearly
departed from an evangelical position, and we now find him in open
sympathy with the Broad Church. This tendency was foreshadowed in his
_History of the Jewish Church_. He describes miracles as one who prefers
to omit, rather than state, his real objections to their reception. He
seems to believe in Israel as an inspired people, more than in the Old
Testament as a plenarily inspired book. He allows searching criticism
into the Hebrew text, and does not seem disturbed by evidences of
errors, contradictions, and phantasy. He does not know whether the
Israelites were in Egypt two hundred and fifteen, four hundred and
thirty, or one thousand years,--thus leaving an important question
unsettled. Neither does he decide, with or against Colenso, whether the
number of armed Israelites who left Egypt was six hundred or six hundred
thousand men. He implies that monotheism was unknown before Abraham, and
that the name Jehovah was not known to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. He
cannot tell how the Israelites were supported in their journeyings; and
ascribes the priesthood to an Egyptian origin. If we only admit the
a