PATRONAGE IN THE CHURCH.
[To THE EDITOR Or THE " SPECTATOR.") Scs,—Will you allow me to make a few remarks, from a non. party point of view, on your excellent and suggestive article? There is, I think, little doubt that the Life and Liberty Move- ment is, and has all along been, heading for Disestablishment. As you say, not all its supporters desire this consummation. But few are opposed to it on grounds either of principle or policy, and the Movement, as movements generally do, follows the line of least resistance: "the violent bear it away." The increasing indifference of public opinion to the fortunes of the Church leaves them a prey to denominationalists. And Denominationalism is the English form of Ultramontanisin. Both are equally incompatible with a national Church. Qui dit Eglise nationale, dit Eglise amoindrie et donzestigu&, says a French clerical. Our English Ultramontanes share his senti- mente and echo his words.
The case for the Patronage of the Crown ie not that it excludes the possibility of unsuitable appointments—no conceivable system will do this—but that It represents the genuine lay voice better than any other which can be suggested. From thie point of view—which no doubt is not that of the Life and Liberty Movement—the recommendations of the pamphlet on Patronage, of which you speak, are purely mischievous. The real drawback to the Patronage of the Crown, as we have it at present, is that it is seldom, if ever, exercised either by the Crown or the Prime Minister on his own judgment and at first hand; but, directly or indirectly, on the advice of certain prominent ecclesiastice, or at the instigation of such laymen as Dean Stanley calls "clergymen under another form, rather than the real laity themselves." Under Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone the bishops were, no doubt, chosen too frequently from one school. But they were, in each case, the personal choice of a man whose knowledge of the Church of England was competent, and who attached importance to his ecclesiastical patronage. They were, therefore, as a rule men of a certain ability and distinction. In recent Administrations the Ministers concerned have known little, and cared less, about the Church of England; and their nominations have been made at second or third hand and at haphazard. The result is that the standard is in every respect lower than it was a generation or 60 ago. Dullness seems to be the quality insisted upon: and the Dull Ohurch, if it is a larger, is also a more mischievous party than the High, the Broad, or the Low. I cannot agree that "it is well that the Church should guide the choice of the Crown, for the Crown may sometimes make a bad appointment through insufficient knowledge of the facts." It may. But for once that it does so "the Church" will make a dozen ten times worse appointments from sheer stupidity, or under party pressure, or as a result of routine or intrigue. No. Let the State appoint the bishops a -without any dictation" and directly. Only SO will the unfortunate layman, who, after all, is the staple of the Church—" the Church minus the clergy "—come by his own.
The new Parochial Church Councils are an experiment. In some plates they promise well. But in country parishes they are as a rule a farce, and in the towns their tendency is te fall into the hands of what Canon Watson calls "the good Churchmen," who, however " good " they may or may not be, are not the Church. The weight which should be attached to the wishes of the parishioners—where those wishes are genuine and not (as is often the case) manufactured—is another matter. There are circumstances under which this should be great. It should not, e.g., be in the power of a patron, clerical or lay, to impose a Ritualist on a traditionally Evangelical, or an Evangelical on a traditionally Ritualistic congregation. Above all, it is intolerable that a foolish clergyman should be permitted to revolutionize the teaching and worship of a parish. Diocesan Boards of Patronage are, however, to be
distrusted; their appointments would be, like those of a bishop, drab, flat, and colourless. It is a mistake to think that lay patrons as a class, even where they cannot be described as "good Churchmen," are careless or indifferent in the exercise of their patronage. With few exceptions the re;eree is the owe. And they have two great advan- tages they ate not confined, as ecclesiastical patrons are apt to be, to one groove, and they can afford, as bishops seldom can, to act independently of party or personal considerations.,
Nor need they compromise. "Le ministre nomme tin /ripen," it was said of French ecclesiastical appointments Under the Concordat; "Rome tin cagot: on sacre un imbecile." All three are bad; but, in the long run, the third is the worst of the three.
Previous page
