AN EXPERIMENTAL SYNOD.
THEletter from Mr. Archer Gurney which we printed
last week is a manifesto—if anything so mild can be ealled a manifesto—from an "Association for the Promotion of the Reform of Convocation." We sympathise with Mr. Gurney's object, though we are not quite clear why the Association should think the present a specially favourable moment for making, or, more accurately, for suggesting that it would like to make, a fresh start. No doubt, what Mr. Gurney says about the present state of things is in a measure true. It is " abnormal " and " monstrous ' that "a great Church has no means of declaring what she will and what she will not tolerate, and is compelled to have recourse to legal tribunals to interpret the precise amount of liberty granted by
ancient Rubrics. Mr. Gurney seems, however, to misunder- stand where the pinch of the situation lies. It is not that the interpretation of Rubrics is vested in legal tribunals ; that, we take it, must be the ease, so long as there are Rubrics to interpret. Legislation and the determination of the meaning of laws already passed must always remain distinct processes. If Mr. Gurney's Free Council had met and passed a new Orna- ments Rubric, some legal tribunal or other would have to decide, in case of need, what were the ornaments which it permitted or directed the Clergy to wear. There is no differ- ence in this respect between ancient rubrics and rubrics
passed yesterday. What Mr. Gurney is probably vexed at is that when the amount of liberty granted by ancient Rubrics has been determined, there is no machinery for ascertaining whether the living Church would like that liberty to be increased. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has determined that vestments are not allowed by the Ornaments Rubric. A certain section of the Church wishes that vestments should be allowed ; and a Free Council is needed to determine whether the Church at large is of this opinion. Mr. Gurney is aware, of course, that the Church is not even now without a Council, however faulty it may be in its structure. In this particular matter, the two Convocations bad real and large powers vested in them. They had full leave given them to revise the Rubrics, with the view of clearing up obscurities, and making any changes that time might have rendered necessary. They did make a few unimportant changes of this latter kind, but when they came to the Ornaments Rubric, the rubric the uncer- tainty or alleged uncertainty of which has been the source of all the recent disputes, they would not so much as look at it. They were implored to say plainly what they wished it to mean for the future, but they maintained an impenetrable silence on this point. If they had wished vestments to be forbidden, or authorised, or permitted within certain restric- tions, they had only to frame the rubric accordingly. They preferred to leave the rubric just what it was, though they knew that the Courts of Law interpreted it in one sense and a considerable section of the Clergy in another, and that Con- vocation was the only quarter from which any project of concili- ation could come. In this case, therefore, it was not in the least true that the Church of England had no means of "declaring what she will and what she will not tolerate." She had such a means, though not in the form which Mr. Gurney wishes to see it wear, and she refused to make use of it. Mr. Gurney probably believes that the Free Council he is anxious to see set up would have more courage and more initiative than the two Convocations. We do not say that he is wrong,—we sincerely hope that he is right,—but we cannot profess to be very confident that it is so.
However, in principle we go with Mr. Gurney. A true Church Synod, "which should be able to instruct Parlia- ment and the Crown as to the present mind of the Church of England, and the amount of tolerance she considers desirable would have many advantages." Whether such a Synod would do much in the way of instruc- tion on these points, and whether Parliament really cares to be instructed on them, are matters upon which it is not necessary to express an opinion. A properly con- stituted Council could not do harm, even if it rivalled the two Convocations in its inability to do any good. Mr. Gurney has no suggestion to make, however, on the really practical difficulty which lies in the way of creating such a Council. He will probably say that, as all the Association asks for is the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the whole subject, we have no right to look to him for any suggestion. As a matter of fact, however, it is very doubtful whether a Royal Commission will ever be appointed, except to inquire into the merits of rival schemes already before the world. If the want of a Church Council were really felt, we suspect that it would have been constructed on paper a hundred times over. A Royal Commission would then have some materials to start with. The one point above all others that has to be settled, is the nature of the Ecclesiastical franchise. "Every parish,' says Mr. Gurney, "should elect its delegate, in a vestry meeting, in the
usual way." We must object that this statement suffi- ciently discloses Mr. Gurney's ideas as to the ecclesiastical franchise. A vestry meeting, voting in the usual way, must be a meeting of ratepayers, and their title to a vote in Church matters, as in secular, must be the payment of the local rates. We cannot believe, however, that Mr. Gurney really intended this. If he did, we certainly cannot share his conviction "that in the presence of such a body, interference with Christian liberty of thought or worship would be almost or quite impossible." A Church Synod elected by the Rate- payers would be just the body to refuse toleration. In religious matters, the average ratepayer is very much a dog in the manger. He does not want much religion him- self, but he is exceedingly anxious that other people should not have more than he has. Yet it must be owned that the mo- ment we go beyond this common-place plan, we come upon immense obstacles. In theory, the Electorate ought to con- sist of those persons who use churches in something of the sense in which those members of Clubs who spend a great deal of their time there are said to use the club. It is of far more importance to these people what the services in the churches are like, than it can be to outsiders, and no one can have so good a claim to determine what the character of the services shall. be. But when we come to consider how it is to be ascertained who do use churches, all manner of difficulties present them- selves. In large towns, for example, the congregation of a church may be mainly extra-parochial; so that those who use the parish church are not parishioners, while the parishioners who use a church do not use the church of their own parish. In the country, this difficulty takes another form. If only the people who use a church are represented, any who may be prevented from using it by the character given to the services by the incumbent will not have a vote. Yet they have a clear right to be represented in the Church Synod, since they have a direct interest in the decisions at which it will arrive. It seems to us that those who are really anxious to see a Church Synod created cannot at present do better than consider with them- selves how the Electorate which is to return it shall be com- posed. That the franchise should be extended to every rate- payer would only exaggerate present evils ; that it should be limited to communicants would only introduce new and worse evils. If there is a practicable expedient within reach, it must be somewhere between these two extremes, and he who shall discover it will render a service of some value to the Church of England.
Previous page
