THE Epilogue was written during the year 1658, when Cromwell's power was undisputed, and the tentative measures of toleration introduced by him two years earlier offered some promise of enlargement. A restoration of the old order of things, ecclesiastical or political, seemed beyond hope; the Protectorate' was apparently as well established as the Stadholderate had been in Holland, and it was soon to appear, on the unexpected death of Oliver, no less dynastic. The army, now become entirely professional, would see to it, for the two institutions were linked together by origin and by interest. The utter confusion of the following year, the rivalries of generals, and the amiable weakness of Richard Cromwell could not be foreseen. There was a settled government. Thorndike had been working with men like Ussher and others who went far beyond him in acquiescence; with Sanderson who had lectured at Oxford during the civil war on the obedience due to an established usurper, and now conformed to the Directory by constructing an order of service out of liturgical fragments borne in memory; with Ralph Brownrigg, the extruded Bishop of Exeter, who privately ordained priests and publicly held the post of Reader at the Temple; with Jeremy Taylor, who was making himself the prophet rather of liberty than of conformity. He condemned Sanderson's practice for its smack of Independency, but would allow the accommodation of men who should read just so much of the liturgy as could be used without extreme danger in the present distress. [Letter II, Haddan, vol. vi, p. 116. 110] In the future the same settled government might allow a greater freedom, and all that was essential in the system of the Church might then be reconstructed under a general toleration.
That was unquestionably the hope of the Epilogue. The book was not well received. Thorndike does not seem to have consulted anyone about it, not even Bancroft with whom he was in correspondence while writing it. Jeremy Taylor heard of it from Evelyn, and told him that he disliked the title, perhaps because it suggested the end of an irremediable tragedy. Others were angry with better reason, seeing in it a danger to their own reviving hopes. The confusion of the year following Cromwell's death held out the first faint prospect of a restoration of the monarchy. The restoration of the ecclesiastical establishment was another matter. There was at least a possibility that the King in exile might once more swallow the covenant and secure his throne upon Presbyterianism; if the old House of Commons were to meet again and achieve real power, hardly any other course would be open to him. He had political advisers who urged this. Others were bent on nothing less than a complete restoration of the old order in Church and State. Hyde was one of these, and steered with consummate skill a course to that apparently unapproachable goal. He could play with Presbyterians for an advantage, but he probably meant from the first to play them false. He was of the type of old Liberals who in disappointment become reactionary; Thorndike's proposed reforms would in any case be unwelcome as complicating the policy of restoration, and they were useless in the game to be played with Presbyterianism because of their author's known detestation of that system. The Epilogue seemed to him madness. "Pray tell me," he wrote in the May of that year, "what melancholy hath possessed poor Mr. Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his book? And is it possible that he would publish it, without even imparting it, or communicating with them? His name and reputation in learning is too much made use of, to the discountenance of the poor Church: and though it might not be in his power to be without some doubts and scruples, I do not know what impulse of conscience there could be to publish those doubts to the world, in a time when he might reasonably believe the worst use would be made, and the greatest proceed from them." [Haddan, vi. 219, and reff.] Doubts and scruples were not the stuff of the Epilogue, but so it might seem to the veteran intriguer, who had no interest in Thorndike's hope that tribulation would prove the opportunity for perfecting the reformation of the Church.
Within a year the game was won by the intriguer, and rewards or pains were at his disposal for helpers and hinderers. The Presbyterians called in the King to deliver them from the army, and to crush those whom they called sectaries; they found to their dismay that with the King the bishops also returned. It was inevitable, for on recognition of the royal authority, even the most limited, all the ordinances of the last eighteen years, enacted by Parliament without the King's consent, automatically became void. The old machinery of ecclesiastical administration, however rusty for want of use, came into action. No lawyer could say otherwise. The King and his ministers could put some check on its operation, but intended to use it for their own ends. The old abuses noted by Thorndike before the troubles began, and destroyed with the system of which they were parasites, came back in full flood; only one was restrained, the inquisition by process ex officio in the spiritual courts which had both irritated profligates in high places and goaded puritans to fury. This was forbidden, and the spiritual discipline which Thorndike would have revived was thus rendered impossible, precisely because it had been perverted from penitential use to become a method of police. Nothing was put in its place. Penitential discipline now savoured of Puritanism, and was not to be endured. Some observance of Sunday was to be secured by an Act of Parliament and the arts of the common informer; the most sacred act of communion in the Church was soon to be prostituted in the service of parliamentary politics and made a passport to office; the worship of God was to be kept more rigidly confined than ever before in shackles of conformity; in other respects the pious and the licentious were to go their own way undisciplined. [See Pepys, Sept. 14th and Nov. 9th, 1662.] The morals of the Restoration were perhaps not worse than those of many earlier periods, but they were certainly more unrestrained.
In such a state of things there was not much use to be made of Thorndike. While Presbyterians with accommodating consciences were being shepherded into bishoprics, and slippery timeservers like Gauden were loaded with preferment, he was almost overlooked. I do not know how Arthur Haddan could say that he received "his fair share both of trust and of preferment." [Haddan, vol. vi, p. 226.] To his rectory of Barley, from which he had been unlawfully extruded, he returned as a matter of course. Haddan could not find that he ever returned to residence there, but the parish books contain a record in his own hand of alms collected on October 20th, 1661, "for the Protestant Churches in Lithuania." [Dictionary of National Biography, vol. lvi, p. 291.] Shortly afterwards he was reinstated in his fellowship at Trinity College. It was not until eighteen months after the Restoration that he was made a prebendary of Westminster, and that was his last preferment. Some show was made of using his services. He was appointed an assistant in the Savoy Conference, but that meant only that he could take the place of one of the bishops if absent. He was nominated by the clergy of the Archdeaconry of St. Albans as proctor in Convocation, and his friend Sheldon, now Bishop of London, selected him to serve. In Convocation he had something to do with the summary and rapid revision of the Prayer-book, prepared in private by Cosin and Bancroft, but hurried through both Houses in less than a month; a revision which did not introduce even one of the improvements which he had been urging as needed for recovery of the tradition of the ancient Catholic Church. Reluctantly, we may be sure, but in strict accordance with his principle of not rejecting anything done by authority on the ground of defect in non-essentials, he signed the revised book, and accepted the empty compliment of appointment to the commission charged with the examination and certification of the Sealed Books.
He must have been bitterly disappointed. Some of the bitterness was spilled into the tractate Just Weights and Measures, completed during the sessions of Convocation and published early in the following year. In this there was little new matter, it being for the most part a more popular rendering of the argument of the Epilogue. Immediately after the Restoration he had rushed into print with a brief pamphlet setting out The Due Way of Composing the Differences on Foot, which was spoilt by a rather fantastic commendation of the Bohemian Unitas Fratrum, perhaps intended to conciliate the Presbyterians. The Savoy Conference ended that, and the new tractate was begun. It is a strange mixture of hopefulness and dismay. There was now no talk of winning Presbyterians or "Fanatics." Thorndike was more concerned to show that concessions in their direction might rather increase than diminish the divisions of the Church. The breach with the Church of Rome was to be deplored, and the guilt of it placed on those who disallowed our reasonable Reformation, but if further changes were made in deference to a crazy desire for as much difference from Rome as possible, the incidence of guilt might shift. "If the laws of our Church be changed for peace' sake, without regard to that truth which made it reformation to change the laws of the Church of Rome, may it not become questionable whether the Church of England remains the Church of England or not? "Restoration of union with Rome was exceeding difficult, but at least the possibility of it should be kept always before our eyes. Positive faults also in the English Reformation were not to be forgotten. The loss of the ancient discipline of Penance was deplored every Ash Wednesday, but nothing was being done for its recovery. The Church of Rome was not altogether sound on this matter, but the Lateran Council requiring all to submit to penance once a year "goes not beyond the bounds of justice."
Abuses of that law might be cured without taking it away. "It will appear a lamentable case, to consider how simple innocent Christians are led on till death in an opinion that they want nothing requisite for the obtaining and assuring of the pardon of their sins, when it is as manifest that they want the keys of the Church, as it is manifest that the keys of the Church are not in use for that purpose." The use of the sign of the cross in baptism was threatened by the protests of Puritans: there ought to be more use of it, as in the primitive Church. The ordinary worship of Christians should always include the Eucharist and Communion, and there ought to be two services every Sunday morning, so that all may attend. "Between the hours of eight and twelve there is time enough for two assemblies. For who would wish that either of them should last above an hour?" The Presbyterians at the Savoy positively demanded that godly ministers should not be required to celebrate the Eucharist oftener than thrice in the year. "It should rather be demanded how they come to be counted 'godly ministers' that demand this." The prayer for the Church at the Eucharist should always include petition for the souls of the departed. The prayers of the Church for the sick should be solemnized with anointing, "a thing fit enough to be done, may but the ground upon which, and the intent to which, it is done appear." The plea for tender consciences, put forward by Presbyterians, is sharply contrasted with their other contention that the rites objected to were actually unlawful, and he retorts on them, applying his rule to "weigh by your own weights and mete by your own measures "their treatment of the Quakers:" Why should not I believe that a quaker is really touched in conscience that he ought not to pay his tithes, though in obedience to the law of the land, as well as a presbyterian, that he ought not to receive the Communion kneeling? "One feels, however, that a tu quoque is not quite worthy of the occasion.
His hopes and his fears are undisguised. At the end of the tractate, when we may suppose the revision of the Prayer-book complete, we find his hopes dashed, and his fears set at rest. But his hope is inextinguishable. Further sessions of convocation are pending, in which canons of discipline will be considered, and there is a prospect of reviving penance. But reform, as well as revival, is needed, and he indicates what is required. "I see there is very good hope that an end will be put to all that abominable merchandise of public penance, which hath been so just a scandal in this Church." The pecuniary commutation of penance, an abuse outclassing the worst business of indulgences, had turned the penitential discipline of the Church into a mere police des moeurs. He had attacked it in his first treatise; now he was in the seat of authority, to effect a reform. He hoped also to revive the process ex officio, knowing what was required if the exercise of discipline was to be more than occasional and accidental. But he was only preparing for himself a still greater disappointment. Tender consciences were reinforced by brazen effrontery in vice to prevent disciplinary interference. The ecclesiastical courts were left in their unreformed condition to go on from abuse to abuse until they sank into merited contempt.
There still remained one ground of hope. What had been done or left undone in the hurry of those two years was not to have the significance of a permanent settlement. Not quite at the end of the tractate, as might be expected--but that he was never skilled in the arrangement of his materials--he penned an eloquent appeal against any thought of such finality. "Had I not proceeded thus far in setting forth what the justifying of the reformation which we profess will require, I had not set forth the ground of that most humble supplication which I advance upon it: together with a most earnest adjuration (if it be lawful for inferiors in any case possible to adjure their superiors) to and of all estates whom the forming of the laws of religion in this Kingdom may any way concern--by the bowels of God's mercies in Christ, by the bitter passion of his cross, by the merit of his sufferings, by that hope of salvation which they furnish all Christians with, and if the good of this world be of any consideration after so high concernments, by the hope of his Majesty's long and prosperous reign over us, by the blessing of his return, by the peace which we enjoy through the same--not to think the restoring of religion by the laws of this kingdom the work of one sitting of Parliament or Synod; not to think that a work of such consequence and difficulty can be concluded and made up by any laws that may presently be provided by any human wisdom; not to think the laws presently provided so fixed for eternity, that further endeavours for the perfecting of so great a work should be thought derogatory to the authority of law; in fine, according to that which I said in the beginning, to think the laws that may presently be provided ambulatory and provisional, till all possible means shall have been tried to put so great a work beyond all imputation of possible offence; not thinking any pains a burden, that may shew reasonable hope of a good issue to so high a purpose."
Before many years were elapsed, however, he had to change his standpoint and was no longer urging further reforms but calling a halt. In the year 1668 politicians were busy with schemes for the comprehension of dissenters within the established Church. The King, whose easygoing disposition made him honestly dislike anything savouring of persecution, was subject to influences from two sides; on the one hand he was pressed to relax the operation of the criminal laws against Papists, on the other hand he was urged to compose the differences among English Protestants so as to make the better head against popery. To the former course he was inclined until the mad excitement of the Popish Plot restrained him; to the latter he gave some rather contemptuous encouragement. The once dominant factions of Presbyterians and Independents were not indisposed to meet concessions half-way. The Independents, with whom Richard Baxter was now uncomfortably associated, demanded nothing but complete toleration for the formation and maintenance of their separate congregations. The Presbyterians, not yet reconciled to the principle of separation, demanded a place in the legally established order; they waived their insistence on the classic presbyteral system, and would be content with relaxations of liturgical order in their own favour. Both alike cried out on the pains and penalties of the Act of Uniformity. In his seclusion at Westminster Thorndike wrote two papers on these subjects, which were not printed until they appeared in Haddan's edition of his collected works, and also a Discourse of the Forbearance or the Penalties which a Due Reformation requires, which was published in the year 1670.
The first paper, preserved in the Chapter Library at Westminster, considers "the true principle of comprehension." An unfinished fragment, the beginning also being lost, it is written in reply to a tract by Richard Baxter's friend John Corbet urging the establishment of "Reformed Christianity settled in its due latitude." This latitude was what Baxter had in mind when he wrote of "meer Catholicks," and it is fair to say that in principle he differed but little from Thorndike. They were equally opposed to any pressing of non-essentials to the point of schism, but unhappily the discernment of essentials was now the main point in dispute. I have elsewhere remarked that Thorndike's plea for the synodical association of presbyters with bishops in ecclesiastical administration, the bishop having always a negative voice, brought him very near to Baxter's position, and they agreed in condemning the commission of laymen learned in the civil law to act as judges in spiritual courts; but at one point they could not come together. Thorndike maintained the duty of obedience to any command of an established authority, which did not contravene fundamental Christianity; Baxter insisted that nothing should be enforced by such command unless it were expressly drawn from the supreme authority of Scripture, and that other tolerable or even admirable practices must be left to the discretion of each man's conscience. He was here the true Puritan, and at this point the battle was joined.
The opening of Thorndike's paper, as I have said, is lost. Where the fragment begins he is ridiculing on good historical grounds, it must be allowed, the pretence that Calvinists were normally more loyal subjects than Papists. It was good polemic at the time, but not very interesting to-day. Then, after briefly showing how far the comprehension of Presbyterians would be from procuring religious peace within the Kingdom, he propounds his invariable thesis: "There is no cure for so many and diverse distempers but authorizing the whole faith and laws of the primitive Catholic Church, enacting the same with competent penalties." He fixes this primitive Catholic Church by the limit of the first six general councils commonly acknowledged, and not only the four expressly recognized by the first statute of Elizabeth; the seventh he dismisses as exclusively Eastern, and rejected by the transalpine Western Church at the Council of Frankfort, though afterwards "come into force by the pope's irregular power." His plea is "that whatsoever hath been judged and received for heresy within that time be so accepted here, and made liable to the penalties the law allotteth heresy." This, and nothing else. He shrewdly observes that by this standard transubstantiation must be allowed as a lawful opinion.
This, he contends, is the only true principle of comprehension. "Let no man so abuse himself as to imagine that the way to peace in this Church is to authorize both parties, but to oblige both parties to stand to that which it may appear that the ancient Church is agreed upon." He is aware that this will seem to some readers "the idea of a Church to be planted in Utopia, when Plato's commonwealth shall be settled there," and labours to rebut that objection; he admits that "fanatics" could not be included, sharply hinting that they may expect the treatment that was being meted out to Quakers by the Independents of New England. To-day the idea that religious unity and peace can be secured by any repressive penalties seems even more remote than Utopia, but it was generally accepted in his day, and he was anxious to set reasonable limits to the exercise of such repression by the secular power. "I know," he writes, "that which even sovereign power may do for the establishment of religion within the dominion of it is not without bounds." He thought he was setting them reasonably, and indeed his reference to the primitive Church was not unreasonably archaic. "It is manifest," he says, "by reason and common experience, that the laws of the primitive Church are neither fit nor sufficient for these times: by reason of that great difference which hath succeeded in the state of the Church, between the endeavour of introducing Christianity and the settling of it by Christian states. But that will not hinder the original laws of the Church to remain inviolated, though not fit nor sufficient for the present turn; the present laws being bounded within the compass of them." It is his constant teaching; variations of practice, and even of doctrine, are inevitable; but, the Catholic Church being one, no section of it may contradict what has been determined by the agreement of the whole. The function of the State he here describes by one of his rare touches of epigram: the commonwealth is "the harbour of the Church, the inn which it is to lodge in for the time of this pilgrimage." The host is master in his own house, but he must respect the rights and study the comfort of his guests. I cannot refrain from observing once more how great an advance Thorndike has made on Richard Hooker's conception of the Commonwealth-church.
One thing more in this paper calls for notice. The scheme of comprehension then on foot allowed episcopacy, provided it was "ballanced or managed by a due commixtion of presbyters therewith," in accordance with Baxter's invariable contention that he objects only to the existing "frame of diocesan episcopacy." This was heartily welcomed, as it had always been advocated, by Thorndike, provided "the due interest of the bishop in his negative vote" were safeguarded; "for who would not be glad to see the power of the keys managed by the priesthood, by whom only it can be managed without sacrilege? Who would not be glad to see deans and chapters act in their own sphere to the removing of scandals and the curing of sin?" But among the proposals actually put forward was a provision for giving ministers suspended by a bishop an appeal to the King's Courts, and this seemed to him fatal. There could be no true spiritual or synodical government "if the original right of the bishop in licensing and unlicensing all preachers within his diocese be liable to any judicatory but the synod, whereof all are members." The existing state of things was bad enough, with its appeals to ecclesiastical courts in which laymen could sit as judges; the proposed remedy would make matters worse.
I attach great importance to this memorandum, fragmentary as it is and unrevised for the press, because in writing it Thorndike was confronted with concrete proposals which kept him from that wandering in cloudland to which he was prone. Yet-here also he stuck close to first principles, and paid no attention to a provision, contained in the scheme before Parliament, giving Presbyterian ministers a legal right to minister in the Church without ordination by a bishop. On that subject he expressed his mind elsewhere, but here he passed it by, perhaps because he had not reached it, perhaps because he held it to be covered by his insistence on conforming to the rules of the Six Councils. Why the argument was not finished and published remains uncertain; it may be that the peremptory action of the House of Commons in refusing even to consider the Comprehension Bill recommended in the King's speech at the opening of Parliament removed the occasion.
The other paper preserved in the Chapter Library is concerned with the Indulgence prayed for on the plea of "weakness and tender consciences." It is brief and stern. He examines the text of the epistle to the Romans [Romans xv. i.] on which it was based, and finds it nothing to the purpose. Forbearance he would show, and deal gently with occasional conformists of Baxter's type, with a view to patient conference of the parties concerned, but only under proper control. "I am not of this opinion," he says, "unless my superiors in the Church, the synod of this province, authorize it. For I am fully satisfied that all the good which can be expected, by uniting those that now conform not to this Church, can never countervail the mischief that will be done in treading underfoot the authority of the Church vested in the synods of the provinces, by doing that by force which by right cannot be done but by their consent." Even so, he continues, "I utterly deny that the forbearance here ordered by St. Paul can possibly extend to entitle the 'weak' to the ministry of the Church." And now he speaks plainly of ordination. "This ministry is demanded for them that are no otherwise qualified than by a mere nullity of ordination by presbyters against the consent of their bishops." He objects to this on the ground, not only of Church-order, but also of the right of congregations to be assured of a true sacrament, "which no power on earth can warrant them from the hands of those that have not received power to consecrate it by the order of priesthood." The whole proposal, he declares, "is the manifest produce of that accursed doctrine, which makes the Church and the whole right of the Church to stand only by the law of the land, and not at all by God's law." It was unfair to say this, with an explicit reference to the Leviathan, for Baxter, at least, was as strenuously hostile to Hobbes as anyone could be; but it was not unjust to the logical outcome of the proposals.
The other side of the Indulgence, extending to Independents and other sectaries, raised only one theological issue, the right of the Church to excommunicate them. This was terribly complicated by the fact that a sentence of excommunication under the existing law made the offender liable to continuous imprisonment, and for Thorndike himself by the circumstance that he could not see his way to discharging a sovereign, professedly Christian, from the duty of thus sustaining the discipline of the Church. If that duty were abandoned by indulgence to sectaries, how should it stand elsewhere? I think he did not properly face the inevitable consequence that spiritual discipline was as much restrained as it was sustained. He sees its inefficacy, for example, against "the vanity of committing murder under the name of duel," against the scandal of Hobbes openly communicating in the parish churches of London, and--strange instance--against the sectarian tyranny of the Independents in New England. He was specially interested in this, for one of his own brothers had gone astray there, but it is hard to see by what courts Cotton Mather could have been either excommunicated or imprisoned for contumacy. This instance may serve to show that he was not quite sure of his ground when discussing the case of open and professed sectaries. The logical position was either to let them alone or to punish them on purely secular grounds as disturbers of the peace.
The attempt at comprehension and indulgence failed in the year 1667, to be revived and to fail again three years later. This time Thorndike appeared in the open, digesting the arguments of his two unpublished papers into a Discourse of the Forbearance or the Penalties which a Due Reformation requires. The title shows him harking back to his old contention that the English Reformation was incomplete. It was better, he was arguing about the same time, than that which is commonly called the Counter-Reformation, but it left much to be desired, and he was still convinced that the only way to religious peace lay in its completion. [The Reformation of the Church of England better than that of the Council of Trent, Haddan, vol. v, p. 489.] What was immediately in question was the part to be taken by the civil government, using its appropriate sanction of penalties, in bringing this to pass. Thorndike, who seldom suffered from illusions, knew that the Reformation of the sixteenth century, whether abortive under Henry VIII and Edward VI or successful under Elizabeth, was mainly the work of that civil government. He justified it on the ground that the sovereign, being by God's law the natural protector of the Church, is entitled to enforce the correction of abuses and the reduction of a local and present Church to the standard set by the practices of the Catholic Church of the first ages when it was conspicuously One. What was so begun must be continued in the same way, or it will come to naught. At the present day we have completely outgrown this contention. If Thorndike advanced from Hooker's position, we have advanced from his. It has historical interest, and some familiarity with it is needed if we are to understand the present conditions which have flowed from it in a process of gradual change. But the Reformation of the Church of England was not to be completed on the lines which he laid down. And yet the cardinal principles which he fixed as controlling the joint action of the hierarchy and the civil government are sound enough to serve for a hierarchy completely detached from such association. In a word, his doctrine of the Church is still of importance.
It was remarkably consistent from beginning to end. In this latest of his tractates I do not find anything of importance that is new, except an emphatic demand, afterwards applauded by Richard Baxter, for the free election of bishops. "It is to no purpose," he writes, "to talk of reformation in the Church unto regular government without restoring the liberty of choosing bishops, and the privilege of enjoying them, to the synods, clergy, and people of each diocese. I say not, depriving the crown of the due interest of a negative to any person to be promoted a bishop in any instance of his promotion. God forbid it should come into my thought. But, the supremacy being so provided for, so evident is the right of the synods, clergy and people in the making of those of whom they consist, and by whom they are to be governed, that I need mark no other reason for the neglect of episcopacy but the neglect of it; for the neglect of cathedral-churches but the neglect and alienation of their office under and with their bishops." This was indeed required for the completion of his scheme. The rest is all repetition, and there are in this treatise signs of weariness, of failing strength and failing temper, with other things even more regrettable. I cannot blame him for denying to Quakers the name of Christian, for it is clear that to him a Christian meant nothing else but an incorporated member of the Christian Church, and incorporation was by that baptism which the Quakers rejected; but it is hard to forgive a sour defence of the worst thing in Clarendon's laws against dissenters, the enacted punishment--whether ever inflicted or not--of transportation to slavery in the plantations. A sign of failing alertness may be seen in one remark made on the vexed question of excommunication: "Give me leave to demand whether the Church is under protection or under persecution, if the curate be not enabled by law to refuse Christian burial to those of whose salvation he can give no account, because they withdraw themselves from his cure." This was little short of a surrender to the Presbyterian conception of discipline to be exercised by the sole authority of the parochial ministry.
His work was done. The end coincided with that collapse of the policy of comprehension which may be said to mark the completion of the Restoration. A better way of peace was to be entered upon twenty years later by the Toleration Act. It is best to go back, and close this chapter on his appeal for the continuation of the work to which he had given twenty years of labour and suffering. It is strange to think of that "ambulatory and provisional "arrangement, which had been hurriedly patched up in a few crowded months, standing unaltered after two and a half centuries. The liturgy which he sorrowfully accepted with its many defects, the system of administration which he deplored as gravely corrupted, have served to carry on the tradition which he valued, and have been found available for securing many things that in his time he could see only as remote possibilities. But the irony of history has even greater surprises, and it has been our lot to see the inheritors of the Puritanism which he combated claiming as their own safeguard the liturgy which their fathers rejected as intolerable. It is possible that he would reckon this a proof of its inadequacy.