THE CLASSIFICATION OF ANGLICAN ECCLESI- ASTICAL PARTIES.
pARTY names are seldom completely satisfying except when they are completely meaningless. To be per- fect, they must be denotative, and nothing else. The moment that questions of connotation come in, differences are sure to spring up as to the suitability of the name to this or that set of persons. How many protests would have been saved if the Liberal Unionists had been as fortunate as the Independent Republicans in the United States, and had been able, without affectation, to call themselves " Mugvnimps !" You cannot quarrel over the meaning of "Mugwump," for it has no meaning. It stands for such-and-such people, but it does so merely because chance has decreed that it shall stand for them. You cannot debate about the appropriateness of the name in any particular case, because views about the appro- priateness of a name imply acquaintance with its meaning, and we have seen that " Mugwump " has no meaning. "Liberal Unionist" offends those who hold that Union under an Imperial Parliament is no better than a paper Union. "Dissentient Liberal" offends those who hold that it is the Home-rule leaders that have really changed their principles. But " Mugwump " could have offended no one. It would have belonged only to those who chose to claim it, and their title to it would have been undisputed.
The letter from Mr. Quick which we print in another column, is another example of the drawbacks of connota- tive names. He is much exercised because the recognised party names in the Church of England bear a meaning, and, consequently, do not always fit those to whom they are applied. "High Churchman," "Low Churchman," and "Broad Churchman" involve, he thinks, an "absurdly inadequate" analysis. There are far more distinctions among Churchmen than can be expressed by these familiar terms. "Broad Churchman," he admits, had once a meaning, but it is a meaning which has long ceased to be distinctive. In days when "High Churchmen, if they had had the power, would probably have driven Low Churchmen out of the Church of England," and when "Low Churchmen would certainly have driven out High Churchmen," there was some sense in a term which implied "those who were content that the Church should contain both." But in that sense "most High Churchmen and most Low Churchmen have become Broad Churchmen also ; and the name is now used to describe in a slipshod fashion any man whom you have a difficulty in classifying." Mr. Quick does not suggest any alternative, or any additional names ; if he had tried to do so, he would soon have found what an impossible task he had set himself. If a name is to convey an adequate analysis of the meaning conveyed by it, a party must have nearly as many names as members ; and just when Mr. Quick, in the character of a New Adam, has re- labelled theological partisans, a fresh subdivision will bring all his labour to nothing. Moreover, this excessive multiplication, though it seems scientific, is not really so. It lays too much stress on minute differences ; it forgets that these minute differences often conceal a large amount of solid agreement. The term "High Churchman," for ex- ample, undoubtedly comprises many who differ greatly from one another. "High Churchman" does not mean the same thing as " Ritualist ;" and "Ritualist," again, might easily be broken up into" Roman Ritualist," "Sarum Ritualist," and "Eclectic Ritualist "—all denoting the source whence the ritual is derived—to which would have to be added "Eccentric Ritualist," to cover cases in which the source lies no further off than the fancy of the individual Ritualist.
But when the process of subdivision had been carried to this length, we should still find ourselves in want of a term which should express not these minuter differences, but that general temper of mind which marks off the High Churchman from the Low Churchman or the Broad Churchman. We should have, in fact, to go back to the very classification which Mr. Quick dislikes, and. admit that party names, however inappropriate they may be at starting, come in the end to have a propriety of their own. It is easier to quarrel with them than to replace them.
What Mr. Quick says of the change that has come over High Churchmen and Low Churchmen is quite true,— provided that it be not pushed too far. As regards co- existence in the same Established Church, so long as it is established, High Churchmen and. Low Churchmen have for the most part become Broad Churchmen. The Gorham case and the Bennett case mark the point at which each of the two former parties tried and failed to turn out the other, and determined to acquiesce in its presence. But what if Disestablishment were to come ? What if the Church of England were to regain the freedom, and with the freedom the responsibilities, of a voluntary com- munion ? Would not this change bring back in a great measure the desire to make orthodoxy a rule of the Church, and to ensure that, among the clergy at all events, there should be agreement on all essential doctrines. We believe it would with a large number of High Church- men, and with a smaller but still appreciable number of Low Churchmen. And if it did, the significance of the three party names would be as vivid as ever. "High Churchman" would then stand for a man who desired to see certain views of Church government, of the sacraments, of the authority of creeds, made co-extensive with the Church of England. "Low Churchman" would. stand for a man who was equally anxious to see certain views made co-extensive with the Church of England, only the views to which he wished to give this exclusive currency would be different. It seems to us quite legitimate to apply the terms in this sense, though all wish to give exact unity of belief to the Church of England may be for the time in abeyance. It is only in abeyance because it is impossible to realise it. So long as the Church remains established, and in view of the advantages of a religious Establishment, this impossibility is put up with. This does not prevent either High Churchmen or Low Churchmen from valuing unity of belief; it only com- mits them to the position that unity of belief would be too dearly bought by the confusion that would probably follow upon Disestablishment. If ever these parties regain their former significance, the meaning of "Broad Churchman" will revive at the same time. There will be a party which will hold that a voluntary as well as an Established Church may rightly embrace religious con- tradictories, and that the fact of holding different opinions upon important and far-reaching doctrines should be no bar to religious intercommunion. As, therefore, these three names are fairly identified with the views and wishes of those whom they denote, though, from the force of circumstances, the views and wishes in ques- tion may for the time be in abeyance, we recommend Mr. Quick to put up with them. There is no reason why he should not exercise his fancy in inventing new ones ; but he will do well not to wonder if the public decline to take them into use. There was much to be said in favour of calling Tractarians "Newraanites" rather than " Puseyites," but " Puseyites" was the term that stuck by them. It is one thing to preach that a certain classification "had better be laid aside," and quite another to convince your hearers that the classification you propose to put in its place has any real claim to be preferred.
Previous page
