DISESTABLISHMENT.
r 1HE debate on Disestablishment in the House of Commons on Wednesday proved that the Govern- ment have no intention of interfering with the principle of a national Church during the present Parliament. Mr. Birrell, who treated the question in a very interesting philosophic speech, with the conclusions of which, however, we cannot for a moment agree, professed to speak only for himself when he said that he found it impossible mpossible on any philosophical grounds whatever to justify the continuance of an Establahed Church." It
is always profitable, however, to face the arguments against the Establishment, and it is particularly profitable when they have the appearance of logic with which Mr. Birrell's skill and powers of persuasion are able to invest them.
Mr. Birrell argued as though a national Church could bold an unassailable position only if there were complete unity of faith among Englishmen. The Charch and the nation would then be identical, and there would be no more to be said. But as Englishmen are obviously not united, he thinks a common national expression of a par- ticular form of faith is an obsolete device. He thinks, too, that the " quiet times " of a generation ago, when Anglican Bishops and Nonconformists sometimes sat down together in concord to further the aims of the Bible Society, are .almost incapable of reproduction to-day. Doctrine is causing more dissension than ever, not only between the Church and the Nonconformist bodies, but among the various grades of opinion inside the Church herself, and he therefore sees no reason why Nonconformists should any longer assent to what is not even satisfactory to Churchmen themselves. Some of these facts may rightly be conceded. We may even admit that differences in doctrine are not to, be laughed away (although some people lightly and unhistorically think so) as things having no conceivable connexion with Christian practice. These differences are vital. No intelligent man can act without being clear as to the reason of his action, and doctrine is not a mere perverse excrescence of faith, but often a fundamental definition.
We have dwelt upon this point because, although in a certain sense we agree with Mr. Birrell about it, we still maintain as strongly as ever that the Church of England, however great and progressive the differences of doctrine outside and within, is essentially the comprehensive Church. She is, by her constitution and character, the greatest common denominator. We do not desire the absorption of Nonconformist bodies by the Church. We believe that they incite to activity. Christians may be taunted with their dissensions, but fruitful dissension is infinitely preferable to what Professor Gwatkin once called " the dignified slumber of catho- licity." But every sect outside the Church of England has its qualifying test, and in many cases it is a severe one. Here is the very need for the national Church. Although the depositary of a traditional form of faith, she imposes no dogmatic obligations. Every Englishman is born to membership, as it were, of the Church of England as he is born a subject of the English Sovereign. If he does not avail himself of that membership he is not said to be a heretic, or to renounce or- forswear anything, but simply not to conform. Just as the law of the land gives all citizens certain civic rights and liberties, so does it give them, unless they prefer not to use them, particular rights of a religious kind. The Church of England clergy are at their disposal; the Church enfolds them without question. We dare say a Nonconformist could make good his right in a Court of Law to become a member of a church vestry if he insisted on the point This is a democratic conception ; it is also truly Scriptural. The Church of England con- tained at one and the same time clergy of such diverse opinions as Jewett, Pusey, F. D. Maurice, and Colonso. It would be difficult to excel that for comprehensiveness. If once we admit the vital significance of doctrinal differ- ences, we are impelled, in fact, to a precisely contrary con- clusion to Mr. Birrell's. We hold that every denomination which is not under the influence of State connexion evolves what may be inaccurately, but intelligibly, called a sacer- dotalism of its own. The influence of the State alone keeps the Church broad, moderate, and therefore com- prehensive. If there is to' be 'a union between State and religion at all (and Mr. Birrell himself has declared that a divorce is utterly opposed to the desire of the country), it can only be made secure by the maintenance of a State • Church. This conception we have said is Scriptural. The teaching, of Christ in the parables seems to have been, opposed to the imposition of dogmatic tests. Certainly the test by conduct was repudiated, and those bodies, like the Lollards, which ignored the teaching of the parable of the tares, and tried to form a close community uncontaminated by the world, have perished.
A protest is especially necessary against the unwarrant- able contention that the influence of the' State must necessarily be bad for the Church,—bad because it" is a temporal influence exerted on a spiritual body. Why should not a Christian believe that there is at least some divine authority in the appointment of the State ? It may be said that the exaltation of the State in the union with the Church is only Erastianism: We are not con- cerned' to deny it. An Erastian basis is the only one on which the State can guarantee a comprehensive Church to the nation, by whose offices every citizen shall have a right to profit. Mr. Birrell; of course, laughs at the dogma which is the common property of all Churchmen as a small and colourless thing, and says that the Church which admits it to be sufficient must always be a kind of "Cowper- Temple Church." Well, let it be so. Englishmen are said to have a genius for compromise, and if by virtue of it they can fit themselves into a very flexible framework, so much the better. What Thiers said of the French Republic may be said of the Church of England ; we want " the form of government that divides us least." If that be secured, it will always be so great a satisfaction that it will' survive the cynical gibe that no self-respecting Church ought to regard itself as an institution which provides a church for those to go to who have no religion of their own, or which has always a clergyman of pleasant manners on hand whom one can send for when one feels inclined.
Mr. Birrell professed his liking for arguments which are not transmitted from the past, but are couched in the language of today. We would put forward this con- sideration, then, which has not perhaps entered into the discussion so far. Among her services to the State, the Church provides forms of public ceremony and thanks- giving on great occasions in which the Sovereign is con- cerned. At present these forms are beyond dispute. If the Church were disestablished, either all recognition of divine interest in our national affairs would have to be abandoned on these occasions, or new forms would have to be invented. No doubt the latter course would be taken, but we do not know whether the Government would care to face another "religious difficulty " in this apparently simple matter.
To sum up, if the State means to retain Christianity as the basis of our national conduct (and the present Govern- ment, we must repeat, have said that they do), the dis- establishment of the Chiunh would be a step into an abyss. For the Establishment is democratic ; it provides a comprehensive Church of which the very existence proclaims the connexion between the Government and Christianity, and no body in a different position could do that. If it be said that the Church does not express the belief of nearly all Englishmen, it may be answered that the very Government itself does not speak for the whole nation, yet that is no argument against having a Govern- ment. The Church is improperly called a denomination. Her Articles were meant to include, not to exclude. She protects men who might be driven out of all denomina- tions. We believe that this idea of the Church would commend itself to the country in our democratic day if the exponents of Church defence would 'adopt it, instead of haranguing about " Church rights " and " spoliation." These very phrases, unhappily, suggest a private or non:- democratic basis for the Church, as though she were a kiitd of property-owning syndicate.
Previous page
