A SECULARIZED STATE.
IF the Establishment of the National Church is to be successfully defended, as we believe it can be defended, whether from attacks from inside like those of the Bishop of Oxford or from those outside such as that of the Welsh Nonconformists, it must be on broad, on national, and not on sectarian lines. To defend the Church as a sect in possession of a certain amount of property which it would be thieving to take from her, and in effect to say that she has a right to do what she will with her own, would be a capital error, and must fail in its effect. To think other- wise is to misunderstand the spirit of the English people. We believe that at heart the vast majority of them are against the policy of Disestablishment, and that the words which Burke used nearly a hundred and twenty years ago are as true now as they were then. We have often quoted those words, but we will quote them once more :
"The majority of the people of England, far from thinking a religious national establishment unlawful, hardly think it lawful to be without one. In France you are wholly mistaken if you do not believe us above all things attached to it, and beyond all other nations ; and when this people has acted unwisely and unjustifiably in its favour (as in some instances they have done, most certainly) in their very errors you will at least discover their zeal."
Burke had often an almost inspired power of political diagnosis. What was behind his thought may be ex- pressed in the language of to-day in the following terms : The people of England do not believe in and do not want a secularized State any more than they want secularized education. Though a large portion of them have been led by a series of accidents into assuming an opposite attitude, we do not believe that the mass of lay Nonconformists desire to secularize the State, to take up the position that religion and things spiritual are matters in which the State should have no interest, and that its business is to concern itself solely with the material things of national existence, with drains and roads, guns and drums, sheep and oxen, ships and cargoes. In a word the notion of a secularized nation is one from which they in reality shrink in horror, even though they may have upon their lips arguments that lead directly towards it. On the other hand, many strong supporters of the Establishment in the last resort are fighting its battles because they are determined not to yield to the seculariza- tion of the State. Here is the bottom rock of defence. Once get that principle accepted and once obtain the admission that secularization is not good for the State, and there is not much difficulty in leading unprejudiced minds to realize that if we are to recognize that it is part of the duty of the State not to cut itself adrift from the spiritual and religious side of life, the historic Church of England, which has never yet been lowered to the position of a sect, though men in their blindness, both inside:and out- side, have tried, and are still trying, to produce that result, is the Church best fitted to represent the spiritual side of the English people. Whatever her opponents may say and however much men of narrow views inside the Church may argue, the true Church of England—that is, the Church as established by law at the Reformation and as she has been maintained by the law of the land—is a comprehensive Church, and so capable of being the National Church. No man or woman can be driven from or deprived of the ministrations of the Church who honestly desires to remain in it and to receive such ministrations. Here is the mark of a National Church. The law of the land protects the people on the land in their rights in the Church. Therefore that Church is fitted as is none other to represent the State on its spiritual side. To put the matter in' another way : if an impartial outsider from some non- Christian community were asked to select one religious body in this country to represent the spiritual side of the nation, can we doubt that, after an examination of the facts, he would choose the Church of England as best fitted by the laws that govern her, by her history, and by hor traditions to undertake the duties of representation ? Many Noncon- formists, no doubt, would plead that she would do the work badly, or, again, that the work ought not to be done at all; but these arguments are beside the mark. What we contend for the moment is that, granted the work had to be done and granted that it must be committed to an exist- ing religious communion, it could appropriately be given to none other than the Church of England. It is indeed from this very comprehensiveness and peculiar ability to include all Christians who desire to be included, and from the capacity of the Legislature and the law to maintain the national character of the Church, that certain worthy and conscientious, though as we believe utterly mistaken, men inside the Church have become so anxious for Disestablish- ment. Those exclusive Churchmen who, like Bishop Gore, desire Disestablishment desire it in the last resort because they want an episcopal and non-comprehensive communion, and not a National Church. What renders the Churci national in the true sense makes them regard it as spiritually fettered, and therefore spiritually undone. The desire of the extremists and the High Church party for what they call freedom from State control is the best possible proof of the national character of the Church. We do not, however, desire to say more on this point just now. Our main object is to show that the defenders of the Church should appeal to the wide sentiment which exists in England against a secularized State, and should point out how that partial disestablishment of the Church which will be pro- posed to Parliament next February is the first step in secularization.
Another ground—and one closely allied to that we have just described on which the Establishment can and ought to be defended—is one which we are sure appeals very strongly to a great many Nonconformists. Put in the simplest form it runs as follows : The age is a material one, and the anti-spiritual forces at work are strong and numerous. In view of this fact can it be wise, can it make for national righteousness, to cripple any com- munity or institution which is engaged in spiritual work and in combating those anti-spiritual forces and influences of which we have spoken ? Even those who have persuaded themselves that justice and sound policy require that the Church of England and Wales should be pulled down from her present place and humbled and punished, not for present acts, but for omissions and misdeeds of the past, cannot but feel, if they will face the facts, that Dis- establishment in Wales will weaken the influences which at heart they desire strengthened, and strengthen influences which at heart they desire to see weakened. Not only will the tremendous blow administered to the National Church in Wales by itself weaken all spiritual effort in the Princi- pality, but still more will it be weakened through the bitter controversy which is now beginning, and which, if the disestablishers are successful, must in the sequel grow more and more exasperated. No doubt many Noncon- formists would meet this argument by saying that they are sorry for such a result, but that risks must be run and a certain amount of injury accepted in order to free Wales from the principle of Establishment—a principle which they, the Nonconformists, distrust and believe fraught not with spiritual blessings but with spiritual dangers. They would tell us, in fact, that they are not proposing to disestablish the Church in the interests of Non- conformity, but in the best interests of Churchmen. Their aim is to set the Church free to find the higher spiritual life. We would ask those who entertain this view whether they feel quite so sure of their ground as they appear to feel. Have they for- gotten that the Churches that have been determined to save. men's souls in their despite have been persecuting the Churches, and so have violated the true spirit of Chris- tianity ? Would it not be a sounder and nobler and more self-sacrificing attitude for those who believe in the volun- tary principle to say that, though they believe in it firmly and are sure that in the end it must be accepted by all true Christians, they are not going to attempt to impose it by force upon others ? Let them ask themselves : " Have we a moral right to take advantage of the fact that owing to a particular set of Parliamentary conditions, and by a combination with Roman Catholics and secularists, and again, by taking advantage of the voters' dislike of the fiscal views of one of the great parties in the State, we are able for the moment to hold the Church in Wales at our mercy ? We can no doubt demand the pound of flesh, but ought we to ask for it ?" The Nonconformist can safely say for himself that the voluntary principle is so dear to him that he could not take advantage of Anglican compre- hensiveness even if it were as wide in practice as it is in theory. But between this view and the determination to use the voluntary principle as a scourge with which to beat those who do not believe in it there is surely a vast gulf and one in regard to which it concerns Nonconformists to think wisely and well. This forcing people to be good in spite of themselves and of bringing them to what Noncon- formists think a better state of mind, not through conver- sion, but through coercion, is, we cannot help feeling, a strange attitude for men who claim to be in a special degree followers of the Gospel teaching. Our Lord tried to turn the Pharisee and the Scribe into the right way, but where is there the slightest indication in the Bible that lie would have invoked the power of Herod or of the Romans to impose on the rulers of the Hebrew Church a better understanding of the laws of the Kingdom of Heaven? He levied war neither political nor military to gain adherents to His cause. But in writing as we have written of the Nonconformists we are ourselves perhaps losing touch with the way in which the Establishment should be defended. We do not want it defended by any counter- attack upon the Nonconformists, but, as we have said, on two plain grounds. First, it would be a crime against the welfare of the nation to secularize the State. Next, and that in a materialistic age, those who weaken spiritual influences already too weak must bear a terrible responsi- bility.
We have been obliged to speak strongly, if rather by inference than directly, of those assailants of the Church who profess themselves, and no doubt at heart are, strong upholders of the spiritual life of the people. Let it not be supposed,however, because we do this that we imagine the rights are all on one side and that there is nothing to be said against the upholders of the Establishment, either in the past or in the present. Strongly as we believe that neither should the nation nor any man in it be un-Churched, we fully realize how unwise have often been the defenders of the National Church, how crude and material their arguments, how harsh and exclusive their action. Though we realize that two wrongs will never make a right, it would be unjust not to recognize and to admit what is unsound in the common form of opposition to Noncon- formity. That being so we cannot better end this article than by a quotation from the words of one who was a sincere defender of the Church, and who yet realized very strongly that there was a right way and a wrong way of supporting her : "Remember that there is required at our bands a zeal for the Established Church, but a zeal tempered by discretion, compatible with Christian charity, and tolerant of Christian freedom. All human establishments are liable to err and are capable of improve- ment; to act as if you denied this, to perpetuate any infringement upon the freedom of other sects, however vexatious that infringe- ment, and however safe its removal, is not to defend an establish- ment, but to expose it to unmerited obloquy and reproach. Never think it necessary to be weak and childish in the highest concerns of life.. . . But when you defend that Church, defend it with enlarged wisdom and with the spirit of magnanimity ; praise its great excellences, do not perpetuate its little defects ; be its liberal defender, be its wise patron, be its real friend. If you can be great and bold in human affairs, do not think it necessary to be narrow and timid in spiritual concerns ; bind yourself up with the real and important interests of the Church, and hold yourself accountable to God for its safety, but yield up trifles to the altered state of the world. Fear no change which lessens the enemies of that Establishment, fear no change which increases the activity of that Establishment, fear no change which draws down upon it the more abundant prayers and blessings of the human race."
These are noble words. If they are borne in mind in season and out of season by the opponents of Disestablish- meat we are certain that they will find that they have secured a sign in which to conquer.
Previous page
