TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE REPORT OF THE CHURCH COMMISSION.
WITH the tone and temper of the Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline, and with the greater number of its specific recommenda- tions, we find ourselves in sympathy. On the one band, we admit the need for modernising the rubrics in several particulars, and, on the other, we desire a better discipline in regard to the services of the Church, and more efficient means for enforcing that discipline. Those who have followed our pleas for the preservation of the spirit of comprehension in the Church may possibly be surprised for the moment at such a statement. If we hold that the Church of England can comprehend, and ought to com- prehend, if she obeys the law of her being, all who desire to be comprehended and to count themselves members of the national Church, how can we approve of what makes for greater uniformity and rigidity? A very little considera- tion will afford the answer. What the Report recommends, and what we endorse, does not concern the membership of the Church of England or in the slightest degree narrow her doctrinal basis. The Report deals only, as its refer- ence shows, with the conduct of Divine Service in the Church of England and the allied subject of the ornaments and fittings of churches. It is clear that, however wide a comprehension is secured in regard to doctrine and personal opinion in a. Church, it is necessary, if public services are to be established, that a compromise shall be arrived at as to the nature of those services. Hence, even in a Church so comprehensive as ours, so set against exclusion and so designed for inclusion, a reasonable uniformity in public worship is required. No doubt it is possible to introduce to a certain extent the spirit of comprehension and of compromise in the forms of public worship, and such comprehension and compromise were successfully introduced during the various Reformation settlements from the time of Edward VI. to the beginning of the reign of Charles II. If, however, the idea of a common worship in which all members of the Church may be able to join is not to be abandoned, it is necessary to maintain the forms of public worship agreed on, and to prevent them being altered, enlarged, or reduced to such an extent as to vitiate the terms of the treaty of peace which is represented by the Book of Common Prayer.
But though we hold that Divine Service and the arnamentation and fittings of our churches must be to a very large extent uniform, we agree with the Commis- sioners in thinking that such uniformity ought to be subject to occasional reform and readjustment. We therefore heartily concur with their recommendations for the pre- paration of a new rubric regulating vestments, for the framing of modifications in the existing law relating to the conduct of Divine Service and the ornaments and fittings of churches, and further, for the sanction- ing of additional and special services, collects, hymns, and so forth. When we come to the disciplinary recom- mendations of the Commission we are also in general sympathy, though we admit that there would probably be great difficulties in obtaining the sanction of Parliament for the changes required. Parliament has had too severe a dose of religious controversy during the present Session to make it enter light-heartedly upon an even fiercer struggle. At the same time, we hold that the Arch- bishop of Canterbury has shown his usual good sense and statesmanship in declaring that it would be cowardly for the leaders of the Church not to endeavour to obtain alterations in the law merely because of the difficulties which appear to be involved. But even if legislative action cannot be obtained for some time, there is still plenty of work which may be done to bring better order and discipline into the Church. We have always held that the proper remedy is to work through that episcopal authority of which a complete chain is already established in the Church, not only by law, but through the personal vows taken at Ordination and Consecration by the clergy and the Bishops respectively. When he is ordained, a clergyman promises to obey his Bishop, and a Bishop to obey the Metropolitan of his Province. Here, therefore, exists a system under which discipline and a reasonable uniformity may be obtained. It is alleged, no doubt, by those who desire to " warp " the Church in a particular direction, and who are prepared to intro- duce anarchy rather than render obedience in matters upon which they feel deeply, that the promises in the services to which we have referred must be taken in a limited and restricted ' sense. The clergyman is only obliged to obey the Bishop, or the Bishop his Metropolitan, in matters where the superiors have a right to demand obedience, and the question of that right is apparently to be decided solely in accordance with the views of those from whom obedience is proposed to be exacted. If, however, such sophistries are put aside, the plain fact remains that Bishops have sufficient authority to maintain discipline in their dioceses, and the Metropolitans sufficient authority to prevent the several dioceses in their Provinces being governed by different rules and in a conflicting spirit. The Report, though it asks for special powers, clearly recognises this truth, for it tells us that certain illegal practices should "promptly be made to cease by the exercise of the authority belonging to the Bishops, and if necessary by proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts."
In other words, the Bishops are advised to do what, perhaps not unnaturally, they have been reluctant to do hitherto,—that is, to exercise their undoubted episcopal authority to the full, and where it is defied, to put in motion those Ecclesiastical Courts which already exist, and which are in most cases sufficiently powerful to produce obedience. No doubt if the course of action we recom- mend were carried out strictly, there might atUl be a certain number of recalcitrant clergymen who, if tl‘py insisted on defying their superiors, could not under tho existing Acts be deprived of their benefices. Such cases, however, would not be many, and when they occurred we would leave them to be dealt with by the public opinion of the Church and of the nation. A clergyman who has vowed obedience to episcopal authority, who professes to believe in the sanctity of such authority, and who yet refuses to respect the orders of his Diocesan, is not likely to gain much external support ; and without such support his recalcitrancy is of little importance.
Previous page
