CHURCH PROSPECTS.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Srn,—It is, no doubt, true, as you point out in your criticism of Mr. Llewelyn Davies's article on " Church Prospects," that the Public Worship Act of last Session was much more an illustration of "the reluctance and helplessness of Parliament" to deal with matters of that nature, than of any desire to venture boldly upon the policy of openly " reviewing and modernising the terms of the compact between Church and State." At the same time, although there was no doubt " reluctance " to undertake the wider policy, and some degree of " helplessness," perhaps, in carrying out the narrow one, there was, at least, no sus
rcion on the part of the Parliament that the right to initiate z radical Church policy, did not belong to her. It is this attitude of Parliament which more than anything else, as it appears to me, is suggestive of hopeful augury.for the future of the Church. Certainly nothing can be more antagonistic to the furthezance of those views of Church reform in the direction of comprehension of which the Spectator is the advo- cate, than the acceptance of those principles of Church government which lend countenance to the theory that the national Parlia- ment is not the ultimate seat of authority in the national Church. To my mind, by no means the least advantage of the Reformation consisted in the restoration of lay power to its legitimate position in the government of the Church. No doubt, exception may be taken to the method in which that lay power was asserted. The supremacy of the Crown, as exhibited in the person of Henry VIII., was perhaps not the mode in which the ideal Church reformer would seek to assert the ultimate subordination of sacerdotal to lay power in the ecclesiastical polity. It was, how- ever, at that time the only form in which it was possible to assert it. By the declaration of the King's supremacy, not only was the supremacy of the Pope abolished, but the government of the Church in England was brought under the same authority as the government of the State,—viz., the authority of English law.
It is this principle which requires to be reasserted at the present time. Had ecclesiastical legislation only kept pace with civil legislation, the Church at the present time would have no doubt been really as well as nominally national. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. In theory, the Church and the State were intended to grow together ; in practice, the State has outgrown the Church, and left it, as it were, centuries behind.
According to Mr. Froude (" Eliz.," Vol. I., p. 79), the principle of comprehension had been accepted at the time of the Reforma- tion. The endeavour had been " so to frame the constitution of the Church of England, that disloyalty alone should exclude a single English subject from its communion, who in any true sense could be called a Christian ; so to frame its formulas that they might be patient of a Catholic or Protestant interpretation, according to this or that sect of the people." The re-enforcement, however, of the " Articles " in 1571, which in the earlier years of Elizabeth's reign had remained in abeyance, marks the change from this policy of comprehension. The cumbrous regulations of the Act of Uni- formity completed the change. Since that time the National Church has existed in name, but its development harmoniously with the growth of the State was successfully checked, and no determined attempt has since been made to stimulate that growth, or to ensure by legislative measures that the Church should be- come as comprehensive in reality as she still no doubt is poten- tially. No wonder, therefore, that when last Session Parliament was forced " to do something," there should have been signs of " reluctance and helplessness." After 200 years of practical in- action, it would have been strange had there not been some reluctance to re-enter upon unaccustomed modes of legislation, and as a consequence, some appearance of stiffness and feebleness in the first effort to move.
If, however, in the ensuing Church reform there is to be a return to the Reformation policy of comprehension, the supreme authority of Parliament (for nowadays the supremacy of the Crown is virtually that of Parliament) must be upheld. For the same reason, I cannot but think that the appointment of a Royal Commission for the Revision of the Ecclesiastical Constitution would be much more likely to afford wise and reasonable advice to Parliament than any body organised by the Spiritualty alone, —such, for example, as a reformed and laicised, but nationally un- representative Convocation.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[We never heard of anyone doubting the authority of Parlia- ment so far as regards the determination of the terms on which Church and State shall remain united. The objection to a Royal Commission is that its effect is temporary and spasmodic, not organic. Convocation could never do anything of itself ; nor without the full assent of Parliament would any of its suggestions be of the least validity ; but it could advise and suggest with some authority if it really represented the wishes of the active members of the Church, laity and clergy alike. A Royal Commis- sion would always be charged with having misrepresented the real wishes of the Church.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
