THE CHURCH UNION AND THE ELECTIONS.
WE cannot but think the letter of the President of the English Church Union upon the forthcoming Elections exceedingly ill-advised. In the first place, it is not wise at this stage of the discussion, when, as we all know, the new House of Commons will not be prepared even to discuss the subject, to place the question of Endowments so completely in the forefront. Not to mention that no Church is, or can be as a Church, dependent on endowments, and that an instinctive spiritual feeling is wounded by any undue prominence given to that side of the matter, Disestablishment and Disendowment are not yet thoroughly connected even in the popular mind. There are scores of candidates and thousands of electors who, though willing, if the nation desires it, to accept Disestablish- ment, are not willing to accept Disendowment at all, and would insist upon dissociating the two questions, just as they do in regard both to Roman Catholics and the great Noncon- formist bodies. Nobody proposes to disendow them, in the sense of secularising their property ; and a great many will insist upon treating all ecclesiastical corporations in exactly the same way. A still larger class will affirm that the tithe is the only source of Church revenue over which the nation at large can even claim a disposing right ; while the largest class of all will assent to compromises in the regular English fashion, which will reduce the question of Disendowtnent to comparatively small proportions. To compel candidates,
therefore, to pledge themselves about Disendowment, before the question has entered the region of practical politics, before the leaders have spoken, and before the electors really know anything about the means of the Church—a subject upon which their minds are as yet hopelessly in fog—is most im- prudent. The only result can be that in Nonconformist districts the best candidates for the Church will be compelled to retire, leaving their places to the root-and-branch men ; that in Church districts Nonconformists will grow bitter Liberationists ; and that in uncertain districts a proportion of candidates who dis- like Disendowment will nevertheless be induced, needlessly and prematurely, to pledge themselves to accept it. Every Church- man is not a strong Churchman. Lord Halifax does not want, we presume, to lose all those candidates who, though friendly to the Establishment, are politicians first and Churchmen afterwards. There is no moral duty compelling the Church to reject their help or anybody else's help ; and where is the sense of doing it I To compel every Liberal to " repudiate " Disendowment is simply to lose for the Church, without a reason and under no conscientious pressure, so many seats. Lord Halifax may say, "So much the better ; we shall then know our enemies." But that is not even a counsel of perfection. It is a counsel of unwisdoni, unwisdona as great as if an invader should force every citizen who did not join him to put on the uniform worn by his adversary's soldiers. Men soon feel for their uniform ; add if they did not, numbers in our modern world daunt even the bravest men.
'The case about Disestablishment, as apart from Disendow- ment, is even stronger. As regards that question, Liberal candidates who are Churchmen have, almost with one consent, hit upon a formula which prevents disunion, which leaves them free for this Parliament, and which, if interpreted by the strictest rule of conscience, is in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred absolutely true. They say that if their leaders pro- pose Disestablishment as a practical measure, they shall vote for it. It is quite certain that no Liberal leaders will propose such a measure until they are certain that it would be carried after a Dissolution, ad hoc, and if it would be carried—that is, if the nation has decided not to support the Church— where, is the use or even, except to a very few men, the obligation, of resistance ? To those few who hold that the EStablishraent should be maintained, if it were possible,
against the people, the will of the nation would, of course. rightfully matter nothing, or matter as little as it would if the nation decided to abrogate the moral law ; but the holders of this opinion are very few. The immense majority, even of convinced friends of the Establishment, hold that to keep it established in the teeth of the people is not only impossible, but would be injurious to the religion, which, after all, we must not forget is not only independent of Establishments, but entirely above them. We are not going to help to make people anti-Christian in order to keep up a special relation between Church and State, however beneficial to both we may hold that relation to be. To compel candidates who are in this attitude of mind to pledge themselves against Disestablishment, is to compel them to say they will never think it right, even though they know there is one contingency in which they Would think it right. They will take no such pledge, and the only con- sequence of demanding it will be that a certain propor- tion of men, who might in the great contest be on the side of Establishment, will have been paralysed for action by premature pledges. They will have been forced prematurely and needlessly to choose their side, and will have chosen that which will enable them to remain Liberal Mem'iers. As Dr. Vaughan has put it, in his most wise and thoughtful letter, "Liberals and Liberationists will be synonymous terms," and the battle would be ended before it is begun. It is useless to say, as it appears some people say, that if Liberals who are not Liberationists join the Tories the Establishment will be safe for ever. Grant that proposition, which is mere nonsense, —for a permanent Tory re'gime is impossible in England—and still nothing is gained. Liberals cannot make themselves Tories jest because they choose, any more than Protestants can make themselves Catholics just because they choose. The differences are too wide and too closely interwoven with the• very fibre of the intellectual and moral nature. Common- sense is required of religious people as much as of anybody else ; and just imagine the sense of telling Mr. Gladstone— certainly a good Churchman' if one ever lived—that he has only to be a Tory for the rest of his life, and the Establishment is safe ! As well tell him to be a Mussulman, for then we shall keep India. He wants to keep India, 'and he wants to keep the Establishment ; but he can -no more cease to be a Liberal than he can cease to be a Christian. If he did, he would not be MT. Gladstone, but another entity.
The true course for Liberal Churchmen to take in this Election is to state their convictions boldly out, and not let waverers think there are no Churchmen left who are not Tories ; to secure Church Liberals as candidates when they can ; and when they cannot, to put up with Liberals who look forward to Disestablishment without dismay, or even with favour, and influence those Liberals in action to the utmost of their power. They cannot become Tories, or at all events we are not writing for the few who can ; and the only effect of their stand- ing aside and refusing to vote will be that the Liberal majority, which is a certainty at all events within ten years, will be an active and resolute Liberationist majority, intent on doing with the roughest thoroughness precisely the things they most acutely, dislike to see them do. As Dr. Vaughan say* "the single check upon the terrible calamity of Disestablishment" will be withdrawn, and the calamity will, mainly by the fault of Liberal Churchmen, have arrived. Their business is not to withdraw, but to act,—to try, that is, to convince the electors that an Establishment is an institution perfectly consistent with Liberalism, as consistent as a scheme of national education, and that in destroying it they are throwing away their own control over a great, an ancient, and an effective religious organisation. Churchmen have still years in which to work, and, there is no impossibility whatever in the task to be performed. One-half the people hardly know the advantages of an Estab- lishment, and a large section of the other half confound its existence with abuses which the electors, if they only chose, could easily sweep away. That they will be swept away before the people have decided on reform is, we fear, a dream, because in the present state of opinion Parliament is powerless to deal with the Church ; but that if the people decide on reforming instead of abolishing the Establishment— on giving it, for instance, a Legislative Synod with et strong lay element—they can have their way, is a certainty. The appeal. lies to them ; and if they decide in ignorance, or hastily, the fault will lie. with. Liberal Churchmen, who will not acknewe ledge. that while Churches are spiritual bodies, and beyond plebiscites, Establishments are civil arrangements, and under their control.
Previous page
