21 AUGUST 1964, Page 17

UPHOLDING THE ESTABLISHMENT

SIR,—As one who has worked for the greater part of his ordained life in parts of the Anglican Com- munion where it is not the established Church, I should like to underline one or two points in the Bishop of Southwark's recent article, notably his contention that the freedom gained by disestablish- ment would be illusory.

The Bishop suggests that the Church of England should be allowed the freedom in ordering its worship that the Church of Scotland enjoys. Is such a suggestion feasible? The late Bishop Hensley Hen- son, in a work on disestablishment published soon after the rejection by Parliament of. the 1928 Prayer Book, maintained that the position in England was basically different from that in Scotland, and that the 1929 legislation which determines the relations between Church and State in Scotland merely ratified a happily existing state of affairs resulting from the fact that the Reformation in Scotland had been a popular movement, whereas that in England had been imposed by authority. This was an over-simplification of history, for Bishop Henson failed to note the unhappy' relation between.Church and State in Scotland signalised by the Secession and Relief movements of the eighteenth century and the better-known Free Church Disruption of 1843. If, by the grace of God, these Church and State relations in Scotland had so improved by 1929, is it too much to hope that something of the same sort could happen here?

And disestablishment would not mean such freedom as many of its advocates imagine. In 1900 the United Presbyterian Church and the Free Church, both 'Free' Churches, united, but a dissentient minority of the Free Church, popularly known as the Wee Frees, successfully claimed the property of the Free Church which had entered the union. The Wee Frees were unable to administer the property, and a Royal Commission was appointed which handed back the greater part, of the property to the larger body, but not before much bitterness had been infused into Scottish Church life. The significance of this is not generally realised by Anglican advocates of dis- establishment, but it was appreciated elsewhere, for the Methodists in their reunions of 1907 and 1931 secured themselves by parliamentary legislation, 'Free' Churches though they were.

The Bishop of Southwark calls attention to the greater freedom of theological thought in the Establishment. Evidence for this is provided by the unhappy heresy hunts of the past, most of which occurred in non-established Churches, e.g., the Bishop Forbes case in the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Colenso case in South Africa, and the Robert- son Smith case in the Free Church of Scotland. Each of these did much to mar the image of the Church.

The State appointment of bishops in the Estab- lishment comes in for a good deal of criticism as favouring safe men rather than saints, but I greatly doubt whether the ratio of saintliness in the Welsh and Scottish episcopates is significantly different from that in the English hierarchy. Both in Scotland and in Wales the more democratic methods' of appoint- ing bishops lead to unedifying lobbying before the election and sheer irresponsibility at the election itself. Private patronage in the appointment of in- cumbents to parishes is also frequently criticised. This is not, of course, an essential element of the Establishment, but here is a small point worth noting. 1 observe that in clerical gatherings, such as ruri-

decanal chapters and the like, in England there is a refreshing absence of the preferment gossip one meets in similar assemblies in Scotland and

Wales. J. S. MaCARTHUR

Huntspill Rectory, High bridge, Somerset