THE FUTURE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. T HE Bishop of
London's address to the Church Congress struck exactly the right note. It was an appeal to Englishmen to think of the future of their Church, and not to jeopardise that future by unwise or hasty action. "Our difficulties and differences," said the Bishop, and he said truly, "arise because we have not a sufficiently lofty conception of the destiny of the English Church." When we endorse the Bishop's words we do not, of course, mean to imply that if the Ritualists and their opponents thought sufficiently of the future, and could form a sufficiently wide and great conception of what the English Church might become, they would no longer attach any importance to the controversies over incense and moving lights. They would no doubt still conscientiously differ on such points, and would still respectively believe that a subtle symbolism was an aid or an injury to true religious feeling. But though the controversies would still go on, and perhaps ought to go on, for frigid indifference or too easy agreement is often a sign of petrifaction, they would, if men could only fasten their minds on the future, lose their destructive character. If men fully considered and fully understood the spiritual possibilities that lie before the Church of England, we should not hear one set of men saying that they would rather leave the Church as by law established, or break up its present national character, than give up this or that practice or observance ; and others, equally to be condemned, declaring that they want to drive out of the Church, and be rid of altogether, those who insist on certain points in ritual or doctrine. If they could raise their eyes from the ground, or, shall we say ? from the incense or the candlesticks, whether in satisfaction or in anger, and could see to what a body they belong and to what great things that body is called, the controversies of the hour would assume their proper pro- portion. Each side would be checked by the thought- ' We dare not press our own view too far or too fiercely lest we endanger the safety and the power of the whole body,—lest we incur the terrible responsibility of being the men who raised a mutiny, or ran the ship ashore, or flung half the crew overboard rather than allow a certain diversity in the discipline of the ship.' In a word, a true understanding of the destiny of the Church of England will teach the need for that comprehension and Christian forbearance and toleration which must be the basis of the national Church if she is to survive and fulfil the duties which lie open to her.
What is the destiny of the Church of England ?—or rather, what may be her destiny if she can seize the oppor- tunity before her ? We believe that she may, if she choose the right path, be the greatest spiritual organisa- tion that the world has ever known,—far greater than the Roman or the Greek Church, because she will be a free Church, claiming no monopoly of holiness, repudiating all desire to control or force men's consciences, and con- tent to be judged, not by her claims, but by her deeds. The mighty force of tradition behind her she will use and enjoy to help and strengthen the work, or, if you will, as an inspiration, but never as a weapon of offence against those who attach no value to such spiritual descent. But though this should, and we believe will, be the position of the English Church, we agree with the Bishop of London in thinking that she will be essen- tially a national Church,—the guiding Church, that is, of the English-speaking race. Her duty and her practical work will he to keep alive the flame of religion among theEnglish- speaking peoples. It is the duty of the Church to build up character, to manufacture men, to spiritualise the work- aday world, and to give that vitality and creative force to morals which only the religious spirit can ultimately give. Unless it is spiritualised the national life is doomed to destruction. We have always contended, and shall always contend, that in the last resort the Empire rests, not upon fleets and armies, but upon a moral basis. It is, of course, the same with the national life. We can only remain a great nation if we are sound at heart. But we can only be sound at heart as a nation if we are open to and affected by spiritual and religious influences. The Anglican Church, if she rises to a full conception of her powers and duties, can, we believe, become the chief influence in keep- ing alive the moral forces on which the safety and welfare of the English-speaking world depends. The Bishop of London puts the duty and office of the Church in sustaining national character with great force and penetration when he says :—" On the Church falls directly the maintenance of the basis of national life. The politician and the philanthropist are always counting on an assured balance, and are fertile in devising means of spending it. They deal with men in the mass. They assume popular intelli- gence, foresight, goodwill, and readiness to make personal sacrifice to the common good. They forget that these qualities are not natural, but imparted. The public mind and the public conscience do not go on automatically, like a public water supply. Mind and conscience are in- dividual matters, and have to be cultivated from the beginning in the case of every one born into the world. This quiet work of creating character is the continuous contribution which the Church makes to the life of the nation. I think that this is increasingly realised. I think that the influence of Christianity on society is more truly apprehended at the present day than ever before. One of the most noticeable features of our own times is the disappearance of the belief that it was possible to substitute a system of philosophy for a religion, and that Christian ethics could stand by themselves apart from Christian doctrine. The significance of the Christian faith as a whole, the nature and power of the Christian motive, and its unique value for creating character,—these things have been tacitly admitted, and the application of religion to life is watched as a matter of public interest." Again, as the Bishop puts it, it is the duty of the Church to set up a standard round which the best endeavours of the nation may be rallied.
We shall be told, perhaps, that we are insular and narrow-minded in speaking as if the moulding, develop- ing, and spiritualising of the English-speaking race offered an opportunity so tremendous. That depends, of course, upon what view one takes of the future of the English-speaking race. Onr belief is that the material progress of the world belongs to it, and that at the end of the next two hundred years it is only the English-speaking peoples and the Slays who will count, and that the Slav will be of infinitely less importance than the Anglo- Saxon. Then will come the question whether the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon shall wither and fail like that of the Roman or whether it shall endure. Our answer would be that if the Anglo-Saxon knows, like Wordsworth's Happy Warrior, how to make "his moral being his prime care," his power will endure. If not it will perish. Now the Church of England has the opportunity, if she can rise to it, of teaching the English-speaking peoples to carry out the idea embodied in Wordsworth's lines. But we are fully persuaded that she can only rise to it by her members fixing their minds on this great duty, and sub- ordinating thereto all lesser hopes and aspirations. When we point out this, we must not be held to assume that if the Church of England were to fail no other religious organisations would be found to take her place. It would be a monstrous injustice to ignore the great Non- conformist bodies, or to speak as if they were certainly incapable of doing the work if the Church of England were not to prove worthy. All we say is that by reason of her traditions and her greater power of com- prehension the Church of England is specially marked out for the work. Another generation may see great changes of attitude. At present men think much of differences of dogma. We believe, however, that as time goes on these differences will wear a different aspect, and that what men who agree in essentials will care most about will be, not the formulae, but the institution. It will be to the institution, to the great mill of God, that men will give their loyalty, their love, their self-sacrifice. But the institution which will succeed, which will be chosen for the work of guarding the spiritual interests of the race, will be the institution which will most easily draw men's hearts and brains into its service, which will be most capable of growth and expansion, which will be most actively alive. That institu- tion should be the Church of England. The spirit, of com- prehension which she has preserved against so many assaults gives her that life breath of freedom without which nothing can last long. It allows her fail expaosion and growth. At the same time her unbroken connection with the past gives her strength, stability, and the support of tradition. In a word, her history gives her the past, her wide and liberal spirit lets her command the future. She holds to the firm rock with one. The other gives her access to the free air. All, then, depends upon two things, each as important as the other. One is the preservation of the institution unimpaired as a great national and spiritual organisation. The other is the retention of a comprehension so liberal and so wide that it denies inclu- sion in the Church to none who sincerely and religiously claim to be included,—a comprehension such as that to which Jeremy Taylor aspired when he recalled to men's minds the parable of Abraham and the Fireworshipper.
Previous page
