THE MOVEMENT FOR AN ENGLISH CHURCH BODY.
THE appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the best mode of constituting an efficient Anglican Church Representative Body,—if, at least, it may also inquire whether such a body would be useful or in- jurious to the Chnrch,—seems to us a step against which it is hardly possible to produce a single solid reason. Of course, we do not mean that there is no solid reason against the constitution of such a Body. We are aware that there is a party in the Church,—and there may be more than one party,—to whom the organisation of the Church into a living body, with power to advise Parliament authoritatively on Church matters, appears a very dangerous proposal. We have ourselves no sympathy with that feeling, from whatever cause it may proceed,—whether it be from fear of the class of leaders into whose hands an organised Church might fall, or from dread that, if it once became a living whole, with power to act for itself, the Church of England might take action which would sever it from the Church of the past. But though we have not the least grain of sympathy with either objection, believing that the Church of England cannot long continue to hibernate, so far as regards her collective life, as she has hibernated so long, we do not deny that all the grounds for fearing the result of a more effective organisation of the Church should be con- sidered, and should be fairly represented to the Royal Com- mission which is proposed. Let the timidities be fairly and fully heard. Let those who, with some friends of our own, think that it is much better to keep the Church as a believing body paralysed, lest it should get itself too strongly discriminated from the nation which has no definite be- lief, say their say before the Royal Commssion, by all means. Let those, again, who fear that if once the Church could act for herself, she might commit herself to some policy inconsistent with her traditional position as a branch of the Church Catholic, be heard too, though we do not well see what they could say, except that they were fearful lest some heretical opinion already implicitly accepted by the members of the Church, should be explicitly accepted also. We do not at all mean to assert that there is nothing to be said against the constitution of an adequate Church Body, nor that the Royal Commission which it is proposed to ask for might not find out what that is, and say it with great force. But then we do think it almost impossible to assert with the smallest plausibility that there is not so much as a case for careful inquiry into the reasons why a wish which so many Churchmen feel,—a wish which we ourselves heartily share,—should or should not be gratified. No doubt, the petition to the Queen asks for the appointment of a Royal Commission, "to inquire into and report upon the best method of creating a Body of lay members of the English Church" to act with a Reformed Convocation as a Church Body ; and no doubt this assumes that the question of method is the only point at issue, and that it must be a good thing to do, if a proper method of doing it can be found. Well, if that objection be sincerely urged, we should not object to allow the Commission to consider whether or not the constitution of an adequate Church Body be advisable or not, before consider- ing how it could be best done, if, as we think, it is advisable. We do not in the least wish to see those questions prejudged which are at the bottom of many persons' objections to a reform of Convocation, and the constitution of a Lay House intended to co-operate with Convocation. If there be an arguable case for keeping the Anglican Church dumb, when every other reli- gious body in the realm has it in its power to express its wishes freely and to avow its aims, let us have these reasons candidly stated, and let us have them fairly examined. But this is at least certain, that while the lay members of the Anglican Church have no proper mouthpiece at all, and while the clerical members of the Anglican Church have so inadequate and misleading a mouthpiece as the present Houses of Convocation of Canterbury and York, the Church of England will continue to be destitute of any semblance of collective life. What she does through individuals, she may do vigorously enough,—and her life of this kind has long been thoroughly vigorous ; but whether she has any view of her own on new questions affecting creed or worship, and if she has any view, what that view may be, must remain for ever un- certain, so long as the great majority of Churchmen cannot make their voice heard at all, while the great majority of clergymen find themselves misrepresented by machinery which seems carefully contrived for that purpose.
We are well aware that the difference between a Church
which has a collective life and a Church that has none is this, —that while the former can commit herself in many ways,—
doctrinal, ecclesiastical, practical,—the latter cannot, and that there are a certain class of persons who think it a great advan- tage to belong to a Church that cannot commit herself, either for evil or for good. We have already said that we should be glad to listen to this plea for a non-committal Church, if it were adequately formulated. It would be something, indeed, to get it adequately formulated, and to have the world ex- plicitly informed that what some Churchmen really wish is to prevent the Church from being put on her mettle, for fear that if she were once put on her mettle, she would fail.
We do not think that that somewhat cowardly and pessimistic plea would find favour with many Englishmen. If the Church of England is really such that a breath of liberty would bring her to ruin, we do not believe that ruin would be too bad a fate for her. For our own parts, we should wish to see the Church fairly tried with the gift of liberty,—liberty to think, liberty to judge, liberty to act,—even though the exercise of that liberty did bring the Church either to Disestablishment, or,—what would be much worse,—national discredit. This, of course, we do not fear,—the former not much, the latter not at all. The effect of giving the Church power to think, and speak, and act as a Church, might, of course, be to bring her difference with the nation into strong relief; or it might be, to bring her influence with the nation into strong relief. In the former case, we should have Disestablishment, and some kind of Disendowment ; in the latter case, a speedy euthanasia for the popularity of the Liberation Society. But whichever event happened, the result would be to show the Church in her true colours, and the nation in its true colours ; and that cannot but be desirable, whether the Church should turn out to be more or less popular with the nation than she at present seems. As it is, the Church can do anything but prove herself a Church. Many of her Ministers are most admirable teachers, many of her Laity are most earnest and most religious, many of her rites are most impressive and inspiring. But yet if any one asks that a Creed which is explained to mean one thing shall be modi- fied so as to say that thing, and that thing only, in unmistake- able language, we are merely told that the thing cannot be done,—that thephurch has no power of adapting herself to the living generation, but must speak the language of the early centuries, even though that language does not express to us what it expressed to them. That is not the kind of Church to meet modern infidelity and demoralisation. A Church that has no living voice, cannot grapple with a scepticism which has a living voice. That is why we wish to see at least a fair dis- cussion of the reasons for and against restoring the Church to the kind of life which the Roman Catholic Church, and the Presbyterian Churches, and all the Dissenting Churches in the realm, have now, and would never consent to forego.
Previous page
