LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
LIBERAL RELIGIOUS POLICY.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE EPEOTATOR."] SIR,—Mr. Davies has carried the controversy between us into a "Larger region, ampler air," than the field where we first crossed swords, and I heartily thank him for doing so.
Let us assume that the unhappy " Ornaments Rubric" is accepted in its amended form,—" as they were in this Church of England, by authority of Royal Advertisements, in the ninth year of Queen Elizabeth." Let us take it for granted that the whole-
of a great party will accept the construction of a rubric which obliges them either to invent a new rite, or to lie under the open imputation of the Court on their "good faith." I do not want to say any more about it, but I do care greatly to know what my friend, Mr. Davies, really desires in the immediate future.
I cannot go into his charge against "Ritualists " of appealing to "senses and nerves" more than to "conscience," nor say how -far I agree with and differ from him in the matter of the present -scandalous and not too candid agitation against them, without saying things which are perhaps best unsaid, even if you have space to spare for them. But I should like to be allowed, in my turn, to ask Mr. Davies one or two questions :- L How does he expect and wish the present strife to be com- posed? Does he look forward to the beating-down in detail of all individual resistance, to the enforcement of the late judicial decisions? If not, by what other path does he propose to avoid the " rending of the Church for a chasuble," as he is pleased to put the issue ?
2. Is he quite content with the existing method of regulating -Church affairs, or if he prefers the phrase, the religious interests of the nation? Is he prepared to accept, without safeguard, the -ordering of the national faith, and of its expression, by the votes of the national Legislature, with no further representation of the 'Christian Society, as such, than by the Bishops in the House of Lords? H he is, we understand one another ; if not,-
3. I think I may fairly ask him for plain reasons for refusing all concert and co-operation with those who, seeing much risk as well as strain in the present machinery, are working for some went for the voice of Churchmen as Churchmen.
No one has a better right to guess at what Mr. Maurice would have said or done, or can discriminate with so much authority between his " intense horror " and his " extreme dislike." But there is really something more required than to avow apprehen- sion of problematical consequences. The responsibility for such -consequences, if they came, would surely be in great part with those who might have moulded them, but preferred to hold -aloof. I quite admit, at whatever cost of misconstruction, that there is great risk lest the outcome of the imminent recasting of the relations of Church and State should be to induce, or at least to foster, a narrowness and exclusiveness which I dread as much as Mr. Davies. But the risk of this is largely increased by the threatened opposition of Broad Churchmen to any reconstruc- tion at all, to the serious injury of their legitimate influence. They will certainly not be able to laugh, or chaff, or sneer, or scoff, or smile, or scold down the demand for some form of repre- =sentation and autonomy.
That their demand may mean in some mouths "the principle of the separation of the spiritual and the civil spheres of life " is too probable. It does not mean this in all The chief risk of this "preposterous," "unsound," and "mischievous" principle being -blindly acted on really lies in the seemingly scornful unwilling- ness of some, who most clearly see through it, evert to argue with those who are driven towards it, as Mr. Maurice said, mainly by those " Erastian doctrines which create a reaction in 'favour of it."—I am, Sir, &c., St. Saviour's Vicarage, Horton, June 27. Joss OAKLEY.
Previous page
