CHURCH AND REFORM.
[TO THE EDITOR OP TIIE "SPECPATOR.1
SIR,—With respect to Mr. H. J. Bardsley's suggestion (Spectator, November 1st) that I was over-critical in refusing to accept his statement on p. 173 of ." Church and Reform" that "the proposition that every parishioner is in law deemed 'a member of the Church' was definitely rejected by the Courts in 'Baker v. Lee' (House of Lords Cases, viii., p. 504)," I can only say that my criticism is supported by that case. What Lord Selborne (though acting as counsel in that case) may have said as a private individual in "A Defence of the Church" is scarcely in point. The case of "Baker r. Lee" decided merely that the Courts can distinguish between members of the Church of England and Dissenters. In his judgment the Lord Chancellor said that prima* fade both classes have "a right to seat and sepulture' in the church and churchyard, but nonconformists, as a class baying serious disabilities and some privileges, have long been recog- nised in Acts of Parliament and in judicial proceedings." I take it that this is not a "definite rejection" of thC doctrine that a parishioner is in law a member of the Established Church, but is really a statement to the effect that if a person can be shown to belong to a particular class, then for certain purposes he does not belong to the Established Church. In other words, the Church of England is inclusive, and not exclusive. The case of "Taylor v. Timson " (20 Q.B.D.,•671). emphasises this. That case decides that any person who is " not a Dissenter" is liable to ecclesiastical censure for not
• going to church. In order to escape censure a person has to prove that he belongs to a specific class, otherwise he is a member of the Church. I would, therefore, labour the point that the Church of England is the national Church, and not a sect among the sects.—I am, Sir, &c.,
• . THE REVIEWER OF "CHURCH AND REFORM." [We bold that our reviewer proves his point, and that there is no need in law, as there certainly is none in reason, why the Church of England should abandon her priceless heritage of a comprehension wide enough to include the whole nation. No true friend of the Church can desire to narrow her position to that of a sect. —ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
