THE OXFORD LAYMEN'S LEAGUE FOR DEFENCE OF THE NATIONAL CHURCH.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."' SIR,—Your note of August 14th on the Oxford Laymen's League appears to me to be based on a misconception of its object. Whatever may be the difficulties or mistakes of its position, it is assuredly organised in no " aggressive spirit."
It is true, as you state, that the Oxford League attempts to prove "that the Liberation Society has got out of the hands of the great Nonconformist leaders, and has got into the hands of men who take up an aggressively irreligious position." The grounds upon which the League seeks to establish this con- tention may be briefly summarised under three heads.
1. The design of the Liberation Society of 1885, which you condemn as " in a marked degree unjust," goes far beyond the scheme put forward by the Liberation Society of 1868 for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. Yet the arguments to be urged against the Irish Church are admittedly stronger than those which can be pleaded against the English Establishment. Though the plan of the Liberation Society for Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of England in 1885 was publicly rejected by (to quote your words) " a good many of the religious Nonconformists," it was yet, at the same time, dangled as a bribe before the electors.
2. In 1868, the Parliamentary representative of the Liberation Society urged the House of Commons to accept Mr. Gladstone's resolutions upon the Irish Church question, because otherwise so grave a question would be decided by a " 'prentice Parlia- ment.," returned by a " raw, inexperienced constituency." The occasion thus deprecated in 1868, is the opportunity embraced by the Liberation Society of 1885.
3. Among the papers published by the Liberation Society is an eloquent lecture by Dr. Maclaren, forcibly stating the argu- ments of religious Nonconformists for the Disestablishment of the Church. But the mass of the pamphlets published by the Society teem with arguments which only Secularists can em- ploy, and, at the same time, bristle with misstatements, with suggestions of what is false and suppressions of what is true, with appeals to the pecuniary interests of the electors, and innuendoes which may apply to individuals, but are wholly untrue of the established clergy generally.
Nominally, Nonconformists who support the Liberation Society are responsible for the enlarged design, the unscrupu- lous tactics, and the unworthy arguments of the Society. Practically, the Oxford Laymen's League does not hold them to be responsible, and therefore falls back upon the only explana- tion possible, viz., the contention which I have already quoted in your words. To draw and enforce this distinction between religions-minded Nonconformists and their allies is one of the principal objects of the League. This is throughout the aim of the pamphlet on " Aggressive Irreligion," to which you refer.
The attempt to distinguish between Secularists and Noncon- formists in the interests of peace may be a mistake ; but the effort can hardly be said "to savour," even a little, "of the odium theologicum." If it succeeds, much will be gained. Not only the bitterness and personal animosity of the contest, which the action and language of the Liberation Society do so much to increase, will be mitigated, but those to whom the high and sacred interests at stake are of immense, though different, value, will be enabled to conclude the dispute without the intervention of a Society which accepts the support of men, to use Dr. Parker's words, " avowedly opposed to all religious faith and action." Above all, one of the most fatal consequences of a measure which, for my own part, I regard as disastrous, would be averted. If Disestablishment is effected by an alliance of Secularists and Nonconformists, it inevitably appears to the- world as a triumph of infidelity. If it is brought about by the men who publicly repudiate the aid of Secularists, it will still be possible to treat the measure as a new departure, designed to promote, and not to injure, the cause of religion.—I am, Sir,
R. E. PROTHERO.
[All the same, the Oxford Laymen's League do not show that aggressive Radicalism is identical with aggressive Irreligion ; and if they do not show this, is it wise to impute it P For our own parts, we believe that the ruling motive at the back of the Liberationist Society's policy has not been aggressive irreligion at all, but that dislike to a State Church which usually accompanies the dislike to all forms of political authority and tradition.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
