THE CHURCH AND THE DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER ACT.
IT is with no small reluctance that we touch the contro- versy that has arisen over the Deceased Wife's Sister Act, for we are profoundly convinced that the continuance of such controversy can do nothing but harm to the national Church. We deal with it, indeed, ouly because it is necessary to sound a note of warning in regard to the harm which is being done to the Establishment by the violent and inconsiderate things which have been said and written upon the Act and as to the attitude which ought to be assumed by the clergy. If we wished the Church of England ill, or at any rate desired that she should cease to be the national Church, nothing could have pleased us more than what has taken place. Every enemy of the Establishment is rejoicing at the bitterness and confusion caused by the unwise utterances of certain Bishops and clergymen and at the widening breach between clerical and lay opinion. Since, however, we are not ashamed to describe ourselves as passionately attached to the maintenance of the Establishment and to keeping the Church of England as the Church of the nation, we view with the utmost anxiety the tendency of the present agitation.
If Disestablishment is to be prevented, it can only be by making the English people realise that the Church belongs to them as a whole, and is in no sense merely a large and important sect with an episcopal organisation. It is essential that they should be made to feel that though for many reasons, historical and other, there are a very large number of persons who do not conform to Christian worship as conducted by the Church of England, these persons have still, as Englishmen and Christians, a part in that Church, and are in no way banished or cast out from the organisation of the State on its spiritual side. The Church of England is not a sect, but something much more than a sect, because of her comprehension, either actual or potential, of the whole nation, and because the whole body of the people have rights in regard to her offices and ministrations. The virtual appointment of the highest officers of the Church by the national Executive, and the control of Parliament and the Courts of Law, are a symbol, or rather a proof, not of any servitude in the Church, but of her intimate and, we trust, indefeasible union with the State. We do not, of course, desire to press this union too far, or to suggest that the connexion between the Church and State could in no circumstances put an intolerable strain on the con- sciences of Churchmen. If such a strain were to be imposed, and the majority of Churchmen were driven to a new Nonconformity, there would, of course, be no possibility of saving the Establishment. We do not believe, however, that there is any danger of such a constraint of conscience taking place, so wide and so carefully guarded is the comprehensiveness of the national Church. In any case, no constraint of con- science has arisen in the matter of the Deceased Wife's Sister Act. No one who is not steeped in an ignorant and unreasoning mediaevalism can pretend that the Canon law is the same as the law of God. If it could be shown that the teaching of Christ, or even the Old Testament, endorsed by the divine Founder of Christianity, forbade the marriages which have now been made legal by Act of Parliament., it would, no doubt, be impossible for Churchmen, or, indeed, for Christians of any kind, to sanction them. When, how- ever, the injunction against such marriages is based on that portion of the Canon law which was adopted by the Church of England in 1604, the point of conscience cannot, it seems to us, be effectively urged. When we say this we do not mean to suggest that there are not a great many men who sincerely believe that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is most undesirable,—nay, most injurious to the moral, or even the spiritual, health of the community. Nothing can be further from our intention than to make little of, or to ignore, the sincerity of those who are opposed to the Act. Iu our opiuiou, persons who take the line of opposition should receive all possible consideration. All we desire to urge is that, in view of all the circumstances, Churchmen ought not to go further in the way of opposition than to adopt the opinion expressed by " Episcopus " in the Times. According to him, " Lawful, but not expedient," is " the solution of the present problem."
But if, as we believe, Churchmen are not compelled by considerations of conscience to set at defiance the legalising of marriage with a deceased wife's sister by the supreme authority in the State as something immoral and un- Christian, they can and ought, even though they strongly dislike such marriages, and would feel obliged to do all in their power to dissuade persons from contracting them, to give weight to considerations affecting the general welfare of the Church when determining their attitude towards the new Act. These considerations, as we have stated above, concern the position of the Establishment. If the Establishment is to be maintained, it is essential to make the mass of the people understand that the Church does not consist merely of the clergy, but of the laity as much as the clergy. No clergyman, unless very ill read in the history and development of Christianity, would, we feel sure, consciously encourage a popular error fraught with so much injury to true religion. Yet we can hardly doubt that such error will be encouraged if Churchmen draw the kind of distinctions between the law of the Church and the law of the land that have un- happily been insisted upon in the present controversy.
Again, it is of the utmost importance that, because a certain number of Churchmen believe that Parliament has done a foolish or even a wrong thing, they should not take up the attitude of hostility to the law of the land which approaches very near to that of the " passive resisters." We have always held the " passive resisters " to have been guilty of an offence against good citizenship in defying the law rather than obeying it; but however that may be, " passive resistance " is certainly a spiritual luxury in which members of the Established Church have no right to indulge. The fact that they are members of a Church established by law, a Church national in her character, and with special duties and obligations in her relations to the State, ought to make them, as long as the Establishment lasts, peculiarly anxious to obey and maintain the law wherever the law can be obeyed without a real injury to conscience.
Those Churchmen who have made up their minds that what they believe to be the higher interests of the Church areinjured by an Establishment, and who are, in fact, willing to join forces with the enemies of the Church in demanding Disestablishment, will, of course, not be moved at all by the considerations which we have set forth above. Indeed, they will only find in what we have written further argil- ments for separating the Church from the State. To them, therefore, any appeal based upon the injury likely to be done to the Establishment by the present controversy is in vain. If they wished the Establishment well, they might listen to us. As they wish its destruction, they will welcome rather than deplore anything which widens the breach between Church and State. We do not believe, however, that these enemies of the Establishment from within, though they are very able and, we willingly admit, well-meaning men, represent any really large body of Church opinion. They may occasionally, and in moments of excitement, obtain a good deal of support for their views ; but we are confident that when the question of Establishment or Disestablishment has actually to be faced, thousands of those who are now apt to say that they would rather see Disestablishment come than be con- trolled by Parliament, and that the connexion between Church and State had better be got rid of, will at, the last moment shrink back in dismay at the prospect of denationalising the Church. It is to such men that we appeal. We would ask them to remember that if they lend support to the enemies of the Establishment until the crisis arises, it may be too late to draw back.
If once, the lay people are taught to believe, first, that the Church is not their Church, but only that of the clergy, and next, that the clergy desire Disestablishment, the impetus may be sufficient to carry the ship over the cataract, even though at the last moment those on board may be sincerely anxious to avoid the catastrophe. We would ask, then, all those who at heart value the Establishment, although they may fret at some of the obligations involved in the connexion between the Church and State, to inquire of themselves whether it is not worth while to sacrifice something to maintain the Establishment, as •long, of course, as that sacrifice does not involve any real injury to conscience. We find no difficulty in asking them to answer this question as Englishmen and lovers of their country as well as Churchmen, for we cannot believe in any essential conflict between true patriotism and true religion. Surely they will admit that it is of vital import- ance in the present age to do nothing to weaken the spiritual forces at work in the country. They cannot deny that it is their duty to combat a principle so odious as that which conceives of the State merely as a committee for con- ducting the material affairs of the realm. As long as there is an Establishment, and that Establishment is truly comprehensive and truly national—and this no man can deny is the position of the Church of England as by law established—we possess a powerful barrier against national materialisatiou. Once again let us say that we believe that the maintenance of this barrier is worth sacrifices many and great, as long as those sacrifices do not involve any denial of the teachings of Christ, or any destruction of the institution of marriage. We have uttered our warning against the dangers of the present controversy, —a warning which we wish had come rather from the chiefs of the Church than from us, for none can realise more clearly than we do the inadequacy of our words in regard to a subject fraught with issues so tremendous.. But if our words are inadequate, we can at least claim sincerity of purpose and an ardent desire for the welfare of the national Church.
Let us say in conclusion that we do not mean to open our columns to any controversy either on the merits or demerits of the Act, or upon the attitude of the Church, for we are convinced, as we have said above, that such con- troversy can do nothing but harm. We will not take the responsibility of giving publicity to anything which, in our opinion, may injure the Church, or may lead to a further breach of opinion between the clergy and the laity.
Previous page
