[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."3 Sin,—As an old
lay worker of the Church, I entirely support Mr. Ellis. If your correspondents Bishop Robertson and " L. C. F. C." want an answer to their letters, they can find it in the now famous hook, A Student in Arms, and the statement of the Bishop of Carlisle. The analogy as to doctors is not fair. All of us need a doctor, more or less, at some time, but not ten per cent. of the population recognize the necessity for a priest or religious minis- trations. Both your correspondents miss the real point. Our Lord's ministry and teaching were based on sacrifice, and led up to the spectacular sacrifice on Calvary. We commemorate this in Holy Communion, but I fear that the administrators.of the Church do not realize that something more is wanted than words. NO diocesan has suffered for conscience' sake since Bishop Ken, and only in the mission field has it been spectacular; i.e., evident to all men. The opportunity came like a flash in this war. Good men and true flocked to the colours at the appeal of Lord Kitchener in the most righteous cause this world has ever seen. Then the public saw with stark amazement that, instead of the Bishops releasing, nay, even urging, the junior clergy to join the Army, non-combatant if possible, but combatant if not, they expressly claimed for them to be exempted on theological grounds. So it came to this : that the men who had to teach sacrifice in the example of our Lord were to be specially exempted from physical sacrifice themselves. To the onlooker it seemed that the junior clergy were not consulted, but exempted for the convenience of their superiors at home. I wonder what the result of a ballot among the junior clergy would have resulted in, if taken at the time. That the Bishops and clergy have made splendid sacrifices in their own families, all who know gladly acknowledge. But that is not the point. The subject is a large one, and I personally could give many illustrations in regard to it which your space will not permit. It would mean a magazine article, or possibly even a book.
The record of our Church administration is one dismal list of lost opportunities, and the reverse of sacrifice in action. The Oxford Movement, good as it was in one direction, utterly failed in its outlook towards the masses. There was only one exception as to this—viz., Cardinal Manning, who " 'verted " to Rome. So the masses have been alienated by the Church's callous attitude
towards social wrongs, until too late. Labour is powerful now, and courted, but when Arnold, Robertson, Maurice, and Kingsley were voices crying in the wilderness, how little did • Church administrators heed Labour then. Like the Chuzzlewit family, the Bishops seem to have a perfect talent for missing psycho- logical opportunities, and doing the wrong. thing. But this last is the greatest in its history, and none so powerful to impress the lapsed masses will ever come again. A famous Churchman of to-day referred in a National Mission pamphlet to the splendid example of Garibaldi in 1848: "And because of this, there is a kingdom of Italy to-day." But who the Garibaldi was, to lead the Church to a like sacrifice, we are not told. The subject is toa large for correspondence. I end as I began—" Read, mark, and learn " A Student in Arms, especially the chapter that relates to " Mobilizing the Church."—I am, Sir, he.,
AN OLD LAY WORKER.
[Next week we shall insert a letter from the Dean of Durham, which arrived too late for this issue, but which may fitly conclude the discussion.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
