THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S DECISION.
THERE will be a general agreement that the Arch- bishop of Canterbury has acted the part of a statesman in his decision in regard to the Kikuyu case. To begin with, he has politely, but also, we are glad to say, very firmly, refused to have anything to do with the fantastic notion of trying the Bishop of Uganda and the Bishop of Mombasa on the charge of heresy and schism originally preferred by the Bishop of Zanzibar. He finds, in effect, nothing illegal, nothing which could possibly form the subject of a trial for schism and heresy, either in the " federal " scheme (not adopted, remember, but rather tentatively put forward as a draft for discussion), or in the Communion Service to which persons not members of the Church of England were admitted. If we may be allowed to say so, this was an act not only not illegal, but sanctioned by the unbroken usage of the Church of England, if not indeed, as we shall endeavour to show later, actually enjoined in certain conditions by the law of the realm. But though the Archbishop of Oanterbury could clearly not hold a trial where no illegal act had been com- mitted, he has, we think, very wisely determined to refer the matter in debate to the Consultative Committee of Bishops set up by the Lambeth Conference in 1897, a Committee fully representative of the whole of the Anglican Communion. That body will meet at Lambeth this summer. It consists of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Arch- bishop of York, the Archbishop of Armagh, the Bishop of Exeter, Bishop kyle (Dean of Westminster), the Primus of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and representatives of all the Bishops of the oversee Dominions and dioceses.
The form in which the problem will be submitted to the Committee is as follows :-
(l) "Do the provisions of the proposed scheme [i.e., the Kikuyu scheme] contravene any principles of Church Order, the observ- ance of which is obligatory upon the Bishops, the Clergy, and the lay-workers of the Church of England at home and abroad? If so, in what particulars ? "
(2) "Due consideration being given to precedent and to all the circumstances of the case, was the action of the Bishops who arranged and conducted the admittedly abnormal Service in
question [i.e., the administration of the Communion to uncon- firmed mix rmed persons], in the opinion of the Consultative Body, con-
sistent or inconsistent with principles accepted by the Church of England ?"
If the two questions are closely considered, objection will possibly be raised as to their vagueness. What, it may be asked, are the "principles of Church Order, the observance of which is obligatory " ? Does this mean: Did the proposed scheme violate the law, and if it had been put into operation could it have been condemned in the properly constituted tribunals of the realm, lay and ecclesiastical ? or does it mean something wider and vaguer, and refer to some of those rules and forms which the High Church Party call obligatory, although they have no true legal sanction —in fact, something which is not obligatory, but which they would like to see obligatory? In the second interro- gatory this point clearly becomes a matter of vital concern. Here the question in the last resort must be one of law. Is it illegal for a Bishop or a clergyman of the Church of England to administer the Communion to persons who are not members of the Church of England and have not been episcopally confirmed 1 That is the point at issue. That is the matter on which the Consultative Committee must not avoid, and will, we are sure, not wish to avoid, giving a plain answer.
On their answer, it is not too much to say, depends the whole future of the Church of England. If the Bishops were to declare, as of course they must if in their opinion it is the fact, that it is illegal for a clergyman of the Church of England to give the Communion to a person not episcopally confirmed, a condi- tion of things which could only be described as utterly disastrous to the Church of England would have arisen. Let us take certain salient instances to illustrate the meaning of such a decision, not because they have any special religious importance in themselves, but merely because they afford definite and very vivid examples. The Bishops and clergy who gave and give the Communion to the late Prince Albert and to Queen Alexandra, since those Royal persons originally belonged to non-episcopal Churches and were not episcopally confirmed, would stand condemned, as would also all the Anglican clergy who in the past, like Archbishop Tait .himself, have given the Communion to members of the Scotch Presbyterian Churches, or to persons who, though they belonged to no other Church, had never been confirmed or expressed themselves as ready and desirous to be confirmed. Such a result would be deeply to be regretted in itself, but infinitely worse would be the destruction of the comprehensiveness of the Church of England. A shattering blow would have been delivered at the national character of the Establish- ment. At present it is possible to say, as we have always said in these columns, that the Church of England can claim a moral right to Establishment because she is the Church not of any sect but of the whole nation. Those who do not regularly take part in her services, or who have formed other Christian Churches, are still in law and in fact only " non-conformists," persona who do not happen as a rule to conform, but who at any time may claim to take part in her services, and especially in the Sacrament— provided only they are not barred by the one bar placed by the Communion Order, the bar of open and notorious evil living. If this view were overthrown on sound legal grounds by the Consultative Committee, and the doors were to be banged, bolted, and barred in the face of all persons not episcopally confirmed, then indeed the Church of England would be what we have always contended she is not, a mere episcopal sect, and by her nature totally unable to claim the position of a National Church. To those who, like ourselves, hold that there could be no national disaster greater than the secularization of the State, and the admis- sion that the nation in its corporate capacity has nothing to do with religion but must confine itself to material affairs, that would be a disaster unspeakable, For ourselves, we would rather see any Christian Church established than none. To us the Church of England has always seemed by her nature, her traditions, and her principles the Church fitted above all others, since only one can be chosen, to represent the State on the spiritual side. But if the gates that we thought to stand so divinely open were held to be closed, than clearly, instead of being the best fitted, she would be the Church least fitted to perform the function of a National Church.
But though it is only right to set forth how momentous would be an unfavourable decision on the point of the open Communion, we are not in the least afraid of the Con- sultative Committee reaching so disastrous a conclusion. The view of the Bishop of Zanzibar and of the Bishop of Oxford, the view that persons unepiscopally confirmed must be excluded from the Sacraments of the Church of England, is absolutely untenable, or rather it is only tenable if by the Church of England is meant, not the Church of England as we now know it, and as the law knows it, and has known it for over three hundred years, i.e.," the Church of England as by law established," but a body existent only in the imaginations of the High Church Party—of persons like Lord Halifax or Mr. Atholstan Riley.—We mention these names, we can assure our readers, not to create pre- judice, but merely as a form of shorthand to which it is necessary to resort in the brief limits of space at our disposal.—The Church of England as by law established, and as regulated by the Prayer Book, by statute, and by the common law of England, is what we mean by the Church. If that be the view of the English Church accepted by the Consultative Committee, we need have no fears as to the result of their deliberations. It will be found that those who gave the Communion to Prince Albert, or to Queen Alexandra, or to the company of Revisers, or to hundreds of thousands of unconfirmed persons since the Reformation, did nothing illegal.
We will venture, however, to go a great deal further than that. If the legal position is probed to the bottom, it will, we are confident, be found that not only may Bishops and clergy of the Church of England give the Communion to unconfirmed persons, but that they must do so, if and when the person who desires to communicate is a parishioner and expresses his desire to receive the Communion in the manner laid down in the Communion rubric—provided, of course, that be does not come under the only valid dis- ability there recognized, the disability of being an open and notorious evil liver. (We brush aside for the moment as now quite obsolete the only other statutory disqualification. It is by the Canons and by statute law illegal for a clergyman, under pain of deprivation, to give the Communion to anyone who has " spoken against and depraved his Majesty's sovereign authority in causes ecclesiastical.") Briefly, a clergyman cannot make any inquisition as to the religious views of a parishioner who desires to receive the Communion. He cannot ask whether a man's views on theology or morals are consistent with Church doctrine. He cannot inquire whether he belongs to any other sect. All such points are at the would-be communicant's own risk. The clergy- man, again, cannot put him to the question whether he has received episcopal confirmation or accepts the doctrines of episcopacy. The Church of England as reconstituted at the Reformation and established by law will not permit the clergyman to take any responsibility in the matter. That rests solely upon the communicant's own head, provided always that he does not cause scandal by coming to the Lord's Table tainted by an infamous life. That is the sole and only bar. How wise was our Church to take up such a position, how Christian, how consistent with the spirit of her Founder, how full of the divine spirit that judges not, that calls none common and unclean !
But it will be said : How about the Confirmation rubric 7 We say boldly that on examination by com- petent legal authority it will be found that that rubric is not, as has sometimes been declared, "a footnote to the Anglican Communion Service," and has in reality nothing to do with the matter in hand. The only rubric which is relevant is that in the Communion Service. At the close of the Order for Holy Com- munion is the rubric which from the legal point of view determine tho cause. That rubric imposes on every ,adult parishioner the duty of communicating three times in the year. Mark that_ the duty is imposed absolutely, and is not stated to fall only upon parishioners who have been episcopally confirmed. The clergyman cannot interfere with this duty except on the one definite and narrow ground mentioned in the prefatory rubric—. open and notorious evil living.
It is, from the point of view we are considering, quite irrelevant to say that the obligation put upon the parishioners is obsolete and could never be enforced. The obligation is not quoted for that purpose, but merely as an illustration, or rather as a proof, that it could not have been the intention of the Prayer Book to bar the Com- munion of the Church of England to unconfirmed persons. The rubric at the close of the Order of Confirmation, which must be read along with the Catechism preceding it, is really perfectly consistent with the rubric attached to the Order for the Communion. The Confirmation rubric applies to children who have been taught the Catechism, and was intended to prevent such children from being brought to the Communion too early. It provided against the scandal of children of tender years taking part in the Communion Service, which was one of the abuses of the pre-Reformation and Roman days. It is inconceivable that any tribunal could hold that it abridged the statutory right, or rather obligation (the directions in the Prayer Book are of course statutory), of every layman who had reached years of discretion to receive the Communion.
What we have said here does not, of course, in any way exhaust the proof of our contention that clergymen not only may but must give the Communion to persons who have not received episcopal confirmation when they present themselves. Canons 21 and 22, in our opinion, fully bear out that contention. These Canons, it is true, cannot bind the laity, but they do bind the clergy so far as they are consistent with the law of the land, which in this case they are. This, however, is not the place to go deeper into the technicalities of the law. All that we are concerned with to-day is to point out the momentous character of the decision which the Consultative Committee will be called upon to give, and, further, to express our intense satisfaction that the matter has now come to a head and must be decided. We are convinced that it will be decided in a way which will fully vindicate the comprehensive, and there- fore the national, character of the Church of England. By proving that national character the decision will, we believe, enormously add to the strength of the Establishment in the battle against the forces of secularization which lies before it.
We have only one fear, and that is lest the Consultative Committee, out of a dread that if they spoke too plainly they might cause schism among the extremists, should refrain from boldly facing the problem of the open Communion and deciding what is the law of the land and of the Church, and shelter themselves behind irrelevant talk as to what should be the Church's policy, and as to whether open Communions are desirable, and so forth and so on. Such evasion, however well meant, would be an untold disaster. The Committee have a great opportunity and a great responsibility, and they must not shirk it. They must tell us iu plain terms what the law is, and not what they or somebody else would like it to be, or think in all the circumstances it is expedient it should be. Without fear or favour, and without any weak doubts as to the consequences, they must go forward and give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They must tell us whether a clergyman is acting legally or illegally when be administers the Communion to persons who are without episcopal confirmation. Here is a clear question and a clear issue. Let us have a clear answer, be the consequences what they may.
Previous page
