CHURCH PARTTRS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—May I be allowed to suggest that the late Dean Cony- beare did not confer a benefit on the English Church or the English language when, in his amusing article on "Church Parties," he acted on the principle of the German proverb, that "all good things are three," and divided the clergy into High Churchmen, Low Churchmen, and "Broad" Church- men P The analysis is absurdly inadequate, and reminds one of the "three R's" of elementary instruction. Nothing -could bring this out more clearly than the discussion whether the Bishop of Ripon or Mr. Llewelyn Davies is the more typical "Broad Churchman."
Any one who has been brought into contact with these two clergymen must entertain for them the very highest respect, mingled probably with feelings still more cordial ; but to think of them as representatives of the same " party " is simply ludicrous. When the term "Broad Churchman " was invented, there was an excuse for it which exists no longer. In those days, High Churchmen, if they had had the power, would iiro- bably have driven Low Churchmen out of the Church of Eng- land; Low Churchmen would certainly have driven out High Churchmen. There seemed then some reason to give to those who were content that the Church should contain both, the name of "Broad Churchmen." But in this sense most High Church and most Low Churchmen have become Broad Church- men also ; and the name "Broad Churchmen" is now used to describe in a slip-shod fashion any man whom you have a diffi- eulty in classifying. One need not go very far in theology to discover that a classification that would make Mansel, Stanley, and Maurice leaders of the same party had better be laid aside.
Previous page
