PRINCIPLES AT STAKE.*
THE Church Party of the Centre, if we may borrow the phrase from a secular terminology, has followed the example of its opponents in adopting for its manifesto the convenient form of a volume of essays, for each of which the author alone is responsible, but which collectively represent a general agreement of opinion. The volume before us comes into comparison with its rivals under unfavourable conditions. The Centre of a political assembly always suggests the odious notions of timeserving and compromise when contrasted with the more fervid partizans of the Right and of the Left. In theological controversies the word " moderate " has often been employed as a term of reproach, and a tendency has lately been developed to give the same opprobrious sense to the once coveted title of orthodoxy. The contributors to Principles at Stake contrast most favourably in point of learning, ability, and good sense with the writers whose ignorance and rashness were exhibited in The Church and the World; but it may be doubted whether this appeal of theirs to the public judgment will meet with equal attention, not to say success. The position of defence affords, of course, less opportunity for the display of ingenuity and courage than that of attack, and it is no discredit to the more modest of the two rivals that it should miss the notoriety which waits on recklessness and audacity. This is true enough, but this is not all. Principles at Stake betrays a weakness which is not a literary &het of a particular volume, but the fault, we fear it must be said the incurable fault, of the party whose opinions it represents. The Ritualist work made at least an attempt, however ill-judged, feeble, and offensive, at construction. On the question, for instance, of the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine it had a definite and tangible answer to give. It told those who persist in putting a blind trust, which criticism is showing every day more and more plainly to be untenable, in the letter of a book, that they must look elsewhere ; and it told them where to look, though it pointed, of course, in a direction very different from that in which our own thoughts would tend. On other great questions also, such as the relations of the Church to education, to the practice of medicine, to the condition of the poor, it had something definite to suggest. Of the volume before us it seems to be the great defect that it has nothing to suggest, nothing to propose except that we should keep, as rigidly as may be, to the status quo. Readers who may ask it the questions which are being asked every day, and which will have an answer from one source or another,—such questions as those which concern Inspiration and the schemes of Comprehension,—find little satisfaction here. How, indeed, could they expect it? It could not be afforded with "safety." And " safety " is to the merits of an Anglican divine what charity in the Apostolic conception is to the virtues and graces of the Christian character.
Of the ten essays which make up the volume, four, or rather five, are devoted to the pretensions of Ritualism. All are moderate, all are well-reasoned ; all of them, we may venture to say, will be conclusive to ordinary readers, and utterly thrown away on those to whom they are specially addressed. We do not propose to consider the arguments advanced, of which in truth we are now somewhat weary, and of which, when we have to deal with such opponents, we cannot any longer believe in the utility. Ordinary processes of reasoning are clearly out of place with a party who are capable of dealing, whether it be in good faith or no, with authoritative documents as Bishop Forbes of Brechin has dealt with the Articles ; and who claim to represent the English Church, while they repudiate with scorn every distinction, theological or other, which makes the English Church what it is, and allow that they cannot claim an ancestry in any school of thought which has ever existed within her borders. Even those Churchmen whose Liberalism is most complete and consistent cannot but feel a certain satisfaction that in the last decision of the Privy Council an authority more cogent than reason has pronounced against pretensions which have for some time become intolerable. We will notice, however, one point which Dr. Salmon, in his essay on
"The Schismatical Tendency of Ritualism," seems to put very well, it is the one point on which the Ritualists are vulnerable, or rather feel themselves to be vulnerable. Cast a doubt on the validity of their orders, and their whole system collapses. If there even is the slightest probability of its being well founded, their positiorf becomes untenable. On a question so momentous they must have certainty, which they know they can get in Rome, which they have a dreadful suspicion they cannot get at home. Dr. Salmon says :—
" But supposing that we own that our fathers were in the wrong in the dispute with Rome, and that the responsibility of the schism rests with them, we have the further question to ask ourselves, ' May it not follow that Rome is also in the right as to the forfeiture of privileges which that schism incurred?' It is assumed that we are the undoubted representatives of the ancient Church of England, and it is proposed that we should in that capacity seek reconciliation with Rome. But it is certain that this claim of ours Rome does not acknowledge. She maintains that by our wilful schism we cut ourselves off from the communion of the Christian Church, and can no longer claim its episcopate or its priesthood. And if she turn out to have been right on so many points on which our fathers deemed her erroneous, may she not be right also in this ? If she be right in charging us with the guilt of schism, may she not be right also as to the penalty with which she declares it to have been visited?"
And he illustrates the point very aptly, by instancing the case of an usurping family which in process of time should come to hold.
legitimist opinions, but which could not hold them and fancy at the same time that they were or ever had been the rightful depositary of power.
Mr. Alexander Grant's essay on "National Education" illus
trates what we have said of the negative character of the book. Mr. Grant, both personally and from the position which he has occupied, speaks with an authority which we gladly acknowledge. He is no bigot, though he stands up bravely for his order, whose efforts and sacrifices for education ought not, indeed, to be forgotten. He writes generally with spirit and good sense ; in matters of detail he makes some practical and useful suggestions. But his main argument is against an Education Rate. The present system might, he thinks, be extended sufficiently to meet the demand which is being made for increased efficiency. There is force in his argument that rating would interfere with private effort. So it will. So the Poor Law interferes with private benevolence. But there is no reason why the two things should not act in harmony both in one pro vince and the other. In both, private effort would perform the supplementary work which could not be recognized in any system of public expenditure, and in which the influence of the more affluent and cultivated class would make itself most beneficially felt. It gives one a feeling of despair to hear an able man declare that nothing more is wanted than an extension of the present system, and this in the face of such facts as agricultural gangs and the condition of rural schools, from which, in spite of all the efforts of parson and squire, the demands of labour constantly drain off their scholars just at the age when something like real education is becoming possible.
Lord Arthur Hervey treats of "the increase of the Episcopate of the Church of England." He seems to think, if we may be pardoned the vulgarism of a proverb, that "there is nothing like
leather." An Archdeacon himself, he proposes that the Archdeacons should receive Episcopal ordination and fulfil the offices discharged by the Chorepiscopi in the Early Church. The suggestion
is probably as good as any that has been made, and is certainly more likely to be adopted than any proposition for additional Bishops of the same model as those whom we now have. But whether the "Gig Bishops," as we remember they were called in a scheme of the same kind put forward years ago, will be sufficiently respected by the body of English incumbents, already the most insubordinate clergy in the world, is another question. The truth is that the Bishops are overpowered by work that requires official rather than personal qualifications, by confirmations and consecrations. It may very well be doubted whether Episcopal
orders are really necessary for the performance of these functions. If it seems better to leave undisturbed the Anglican practice on this point, Bishops might be appointed ad hoc, and in the Arch deacons we have a machinery ready to our hand.
Dr. Payne Smith's essay on "The Powers and Duties of the Priesthood" has, we believe, grievously offended the High Churchmen, who propose that the Bishops should dispense with the usual certificates of attendance upon his lectures. The proposal is worth notice, not for its intolerance, but for the consciousness of strength which it seems to indicate. We cannot see that Dr. Smith says anything more than has always been consistently maintained by one party in the Church. He asserts, it is true, that Episcopacy
is not of the essence of a church, and declares himself plainly enough against the Sacerdotal theory ; but he does depart from the compromise generally accepted by Low Churchmen, Presbyterians, and those Dissenting communities which recognize a distinct order of ministers. "In one sense," he says, "Orders must be indelible in every communion." The theory Which is distinctly opposed to Sacerdotalism maintains, we apprehend, that orders are nowise different from the diploma by which one man practises medicine or the certificate by which another practises law. The essay generally shows ability and sound sense, but we cannot help expressing our surprise at one passage which it contains. "Contend," says St. Jude, v? eigUa TaPecaohifrp 70k 1ll710/5 1116'7E4 If you cannot prove your doctrine by the testimony of Holy Writ, you cannot prove it at all, unless St. Jude be mistaken." What "Holy Writ" had St. Jude to refer to ? Does the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford suppose that be had a New Testament at hand, and proved his doctrines by texts, as Dr. Smith is probably accustomed to prove them ? What about the books that were written after St. Jude's Epistle ?
Dr. Howson in his essay on "Parties and Party Spirit" sums up the debate. "Parties are good, party spirit is bad," is his text, and he discourses on it very well. He lectures every one in turn, and administers his severest reproofs to his own friends. It is impossible to give any notion of an essay which touches upon nearly every point that recent controversies have brought into dispute, but we may say generally that the honesty, moderation, and good sense which the writer displays are worthy of all praise. They are just what we should expect from a divine who exhibits one of the best types of character that is to be found in the English Church, the union of large knowledge and of great practical ability. We are glad to see that he does not "despair of the republic." We should join more unreservedly in his hopefulness, if we could feel that there were more who had such a wise comprehension of the position.
Previous page
