PAROCHIAL COUNCILS.
[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
replying to your editorial comment, I do so fully- recognising the force of a remark by a friend of mine, that "a. man who can hold his tongue, can hold anything." Possibly, I. shall only weaken whatever force may attach to my former- utterance by attempting to break a lance with you, instead of with the general public, whom I addressed through your- columns.
It is impossible to suppose that you have overlooked the con- nection between the a priori objection you raise to the expres- sion of the opinion of outsiders, and the a posteriori fact I quoted of the working of the Churchwarden system. No doubt, the Church never contemplated the election to the post of churchwarden of one who was not a Churchman. I ventured to• say that the system worked well. Let me add, as an instance,. that in the not very ecclesiastically-minded parish of White- chapel, a church-rate has for many years been collected, and that this church-rate was carried on the proposal of a Nonconformist churchwarden. I fail to see why a system which has worked well is not capable of further development. I allow that it seems an anomaly, but practice bristles with anomalies, which theory would condemn.
But, further, when you say " that you see little justice in giving virtually the power of controlling ritual to a number of persons who have no personal interest whatever in that ritual, since they never worship in the church," surely I am entitled to answer that this is somewhat of a petitio principii. Why do they not worship ? It is that, being parishioners, many have- been driven away from their parish church by practices insti- tuted by those who are called ministers, but who lord it over God's heritage according to their own sweet will. My conten- tion is that if the parishioners had the power originally given, them, a power which they exercised through the churchwardens in the days of Church-rates, many more would be found within the walls of the Church. Nonconformity, to take the ex- tremest position, is not necessarily hostile to the interests of the Church.
The deeper question which seems to me to underlie your- remark, is whether the Church of the future is to be wholly congregational, and not parochial. If that is to be so, I see no- solution of the question but a council of communicants. The- same argument which applies to outsiders seems to me to apply, to those who, not being communicants, claim to express an opinion on the subject of that ritual, on which the controversy at present chiefly turns. And yet, if I have read my Spectatav- rightly, I think you are not in favour of a council of communi cants. To this you will probably reply that you are not in favour of a Church Council at all, now that such powers are claimed for it. But then, why should Parliament, which has ceased to be a Christian body, be allowed to legislate for the: Church P—I am, Sir, &c., [The principle of extending a harmless anomaly in unim- portant cases to very important cases is a dangerous one. What would a Parish Council elected by the ratepayers have done in the case of Mr. Lowder's work, twenty-two years ago P Non-communicants are as much interested in the ordinary ritual of their church as communicants, but it would be daring to assert this of persons who never go near it.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
