LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Protestantism
SIR.--I saw Dr. Sykes' criticism of my Westminster Abbey sermon only a few days ago. Permit me a belated reply. He misunderstands the purpose of my sketch of the relations between the Church in Wales and the Church of England, calling it "a fervent assertion of provincial Protestantism " (a misuse of the word), whereas I explained that I was using the relations existing at various times between the Church in Wales and the Church of England to illustrate the relation- ships that have existed between the Church-Of England and the Church of Rome.
Dr. Sykes says that " The Bishop of Chichester's Randall Davidson makes it clear that the present form of the royal declaration . . . was drafted by that archbishop himself on his own initiative at the acces- sion of George V." This is inaccurate and misleading. Dr. Bell says that the declaration which had stood since 1689 " was gravely resented by Roman Catholics. The King himself, when Prince of Wales, had been anxious for its amendment, and had discussed the matter informally both With ministers and with the Archbishop. From time to time the question had been raised in the House of Lords. It had been mentioned soon after the accession of King Edward. . . . The Archbishop had himself been approached on the subject by some Roman Catholic peers." So much for the initiative.
Eventually the Prime Minister himself proposed to Parliament a new-form requiring the King to say, "I am a faithful member of the Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England." Dr. Bell says that " this form at once aroused objections on behalf of the Church of England. The Archbishop told the Prime Minister that the term ' Protestant Reformed Church by law established in England ' would be greatly resented." So my criticism has respectable precedent ! Only after all this did the Archbishop suggest the form which was accepted by Parliament. It is misleading to represent a draft devised to avoid an unacceptable alternative as due to the unfettered initiative of the Archbishop. Dr. Bell, too, makes it clear that the form of the declaration also had to satisfy Nonconformists, which goes even further than my statement that the form of the oath (which involves the same point as the declaration) has to satisfy Scottish Presbyterians as well as Anglicans. A form having this origin, and required to- have this character by Act of Parliament, should not, as I said, " be regarded as definitive of the character of the Church of England." Dr. Sykes remarks that " during the seventeenth century in England the antithesis of ' Protestant' was not 'Catholic' but ' Papist '." I am
well -aware of this, but things have changed. For the last century
the Roman hierarchy in our midst has persistently tried to establish the exclusive right of the Roman Church to the word "Catholic." On the other hand, the description " Protestant " is now accepted by religious bodies whose members shrink with horror from the word "Catholic." The word " Protestant " cannot be confined to the mean- ing " not Roman Catholic " because most of those who now use it think that it means " not Catholic." I know that a positive content is claimed for it, but what is true in that content is covered by the word " Catholic," while part of its positive content is uncatholic and
Previous page
