THE COMPREHENSIIrENESS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
pro THE EDITOR Or THE SPECTATOR:I SIR,—Whether or not it be a gain to a Church to be "com- prehensive" is a matter upon which much may be said; but it is doubtful if facts warrant the conclusion that the Anglican Church in England and Scotland is more compre- hensive than other Protestant Churches. No Protestant Church will close its doors against an "occasional" communicant. Indeed, it is common in Presbyterian and other Churches, when the Communion is observed, for an invitation to be given to any stranger present who may desire to communicate ; and no doubt many so situated have enjoyed a similar privilege in Anglican Churches. But this is a different matter from admitting a person to be a member of a Church entitled to all the privileges and open to election to lay office. What is the position here Is the Anglican Church more comprehensive than other Churches ? When a member leaves, e.g., a Presbyterian congregation he takes with him a certificate stating that he is in full com- munion with the Church. Every Protestant Nonconformist Church in the country, except perhaps the close "Baptist," accepts that certificate ; the individual is admitted with- out question to the membership of the Church he elects to join, and henceforth he may be selected for lay office. Will the Episcopal Church, on a certificate from another Church, admit to full membership without Confirmation ? I know cases both in England and Scotland where Confirma- tion has been insisted upon, and it is always advised, on the ground presumably either that the applicant has not hitherto been a member of a true Church, and that consequently he has never really been a communicant, or that his Church connexion has lacked conformity to a rite regarded as vital. But to submit to Confirmation in any such circumstances is to hold in doubt the spiritual efficacy of one's past ecclesiastical relations—a very serious matter indeed—and it is not to be wondered that those who have a just sense of what that means decline. Now look at the other side. Former members of the Episcopal Church are admitted, as I can testify having myself admitted such, to the full member- ship of the Presbyterian Church simply on their own declara- tion that they have been communicants. In every case a certificate from an Episcopal Church is received without question. Facts such as these, and others which might be mentioned and are well known, do not seem to warrant your claim of comprehensiveness as specially belonging to the Anglican Communion. On the contrary, they emphasise its exclusiveness ; and, just because Churches, like persons, are often taken at their own valuation of themselves, this exclusiveness constitutes a considerable asset among a certain class of people.—I am, Sir, Ice., SECOND PRESBYTER.
[Our correspondent, we think, somewhat misses our point. The Church of England by law established is governed and controlled by the law, and that law secures to all Englishmen certain rights and privileges in regard to their Church of which none can deprive them. Tests of Church membership such as are described by "Second Presbyter" as being imposed or presented by certain Anglican clergymen are utterly unknown to the law, and would not be recognised by the Courts. We are dealing, not with the practice of particular clergymen or with alleged customs, but with a matter of positive law. We cannot continue this controversy indefinitely, but we may state that no argument has been adduced to show that we were wrong in asserting, as we again assert, that the law secures in the Church of England a com- prehension of the most ample kind, and will not permit any person or body, lay or ecclesiastical, to narrow that comprehen- sion. That many of the Free Churches are also comprehensive in intention we do not doubt, but they do not, and cannot in the nature of things, afford the guarantees for the maintenance of the open door which are to be found in a State-established, and therefore law-controlled, Church.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
