THE ANGLICAN MISSION TO CONVERT ITALY.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Thongh I hoped to have written no more on the subject of the unfortunate Anglican project of proselytism in Italy, it would be a want of courtesy if I were to pass over the letter of the Archbishop of Dublin without an acknowledgment. I feel this the more as he has answered me in a manner at once frank and courteous, and I should exceedingly regret if any word escaped me which might appear to be wanting in courtesy in return. So far from "holding any opinion of his in light esteem," I respect him as one of those (they are not too many) whose convictions are sincere, and who are not afraid to carry them out in action. And the only word which I can recall in my past letters which might appear, but was not intended to be, a disparaging one, was a reflection on the apparent anomaly of his establishing missions to convert. Roman Catholics abroad when he has so large a field for his energies in his own diocese and province in Ireland.
Having said this much, I may be permitted to add at once that I cannot allow that there is a single statement in Lord Plunket's letter which in the least affects the accuracy of the account which I have given of the character and objects of "the Anglican mission" (or, if Lord Plunket prefers it, I will call it the "mission supported by Anglicans ") "to convert Italy." I have described it, indeed, almost entirely in the- words of its own authors, as being "an Association for the great work of Church Reform now being carried on in Italy, with the sympathy of his Grace the Archbishop of Canter- bury, the active support of the Archbishop of Dublin, and the provisional episcopal oversight of the Lord Bishop of Salis- bury;" and I believe I added, and I repeat, that "if this is not an active propaganda, it looks uncommonly like one." It is no use to try and draw distinctions where there is no difference ; and I am sure that any of your readers who may interest themselves in this subject will see at once that this statement, if true (which I hardly believe), commits some leading members of the English Episcopate to the support of a strong anti-Papal mission in Umbria by persons who are, 8.& their chief expresses it, "labouring night and day" in their attack upon the Roman Catholic Church.
Such being the case, I am really at a loss to understand what Lord Plunket can possibly mean by saying "emphati- cally that such a description of the movement betrays a total misapprehension of its true character, and that any protest based on such a misapprehension must fall to the ground." Where is the misapprehension ? I have said, as Lord Plunket admits, that "this mission is carried on by Count Campello," is backed by one or two English Societies—of one of which Lord Plunket is President—relies upon English funds, and has the apparent support of two or more English Bishops DoesLord Plunket deny any of these facts ? And if he does not, will he allow me in all courtesy to ask him whether it does not rather look as if he was afraid of his own proceedings, and frightened at the sound of his own guns, to deny that such a mission is, to all intents and purposes, an Anglican one, and would, if persevered in, commit the English Church to a most
novel and extravagant attack, in his own immediate neighbour- hood, on the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church?
I am sorry to dwell on a point so obvious ; but in order to avoid even a verbal mistake, I have referred to the lengthy letter of the Secretary of Lord Plunket's Society in the Times of February 2nd :—" Count Campello," he says, "came to this country to seeic the help of the great Church of England. He met some good ladies, who had formed an Association under the auspices of the Anglo-Continental Society in aid of Church Reform in Italy. He received the sympathy of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, the active support of the Archbishop of Dublin, and the provisional episcopal oversight of the Lord Bishop of Salisbury." And he concludes by saying: —" We—[i.e., Lord Plunket, and the Society he presides over]— appeal to all Englishmen who value Evangelical truth, Catholic unity (I), and Apostolical order. The Reformed Catholic Church .cries for help to the great Church of England." So much for my "entire misapprehension" of the tree character of this move- ment. I need only add that the account which Lord Plunket gives of his interview with Count Campello, and of his pleading for "sympathy and help," however interesting to himself, does not appear to me to affect the question in the least. I have never implied that the "help was offered to him in any meddle- some or intrusive fashion."
Before concluding, I will only notice one or two other points on which Lord Plunket has dwelt :—
1. He has quoted a resolution of the late Bishop of Lincoln (Bishop Wordsworth) ten years ago, at the last Lambeth Conference, to the effect that "we welcome every effort for reform upon the model of the Primitive Church," and he con- tends that this and the words of the late Archbishop Tait will justify the support of the mission of Count Campello. I have a great reverence for the late Bishop Wordsworth, who was, how- ever, perhaps influenced in these matters by his astonishing hallucination that the Pope was "Anti-Christ;" but whether Count Campello, who abjured the Roman faith in the Methodist ehapel at Rome, would have been held by him to be acting, either then or since, "on the model of the Primitive Church," is more than doubtful ; nor is there, indeed, the slightest evidence that he is acting in the spirit of the Primitive or the English Church at all. And with regard to the words of Archbishop Tait, Lord Planket must surely see that there is the widest interval between a few words of generous sympathy spoken in a debate, and the "active support" of a mission such as Lord Plunket is himself giving. Archbishop Tait, in a word, seems to have done what I hope and believe is all that the present Archbishop of Canter- bury has done. His natural kindness and courtesy induced him to express " sympathy " for a movement to which I am persuaded that he would never, especially in his later days, have committed the Church of England.
On the strange statement made in the letter I have quoted, that this mission is "under the provisional episcopal oversight of the Bishop of Salisbury," I will say little, for, in fact, I do not believe it. The Bishop of Salisbury is a prelate for whom, both for his father's sake and his own, I have a sincere respect ; and I observe in a letter from him to the Guardian of only last week, that he is himself engaged in a benevolent undertaking to assist poor Italians in London. In this letter he expressly states that, "I say advisedly, we abstain from proselytising among those who are attached to the Roman communion." That, at the moment when he is "advisedly abstaining" from proselytising in London, he should be undertaking the "episcopal over- sight" of a body who are "labouring night and day" to make proselytes in the Pope's own immediate dioceses in Italy, would argue, to say the least, a very singular idea of consistency. And most of your readers would agree with the sarcastic remark of "A Roman Catholic," that "no more flagrant viola- tion of the letter and spirit of our own Canons could be imagined than the 'provisional' annexation of Umbria to the diocese of Salisbury, under the Protestant primacy of Dublin."
May I, in concluding, express my regret that, instead of dwelling upon " misapprehensions " which do not exist, Lord Plunket did not recognise as clearly as Mr. Lias does, that the difference between him and myself is one of principle ? Mr. Line tells us frankly that the Roman Catholic Church is "one
of the greatest dangers which Christianity is at present called upon to confront," and that we must "quit our position of isolation" to meet it; and I think I do Lord Plunket no wrong in assuming his opinion to be the same. It is a view of
Christianity in which the "Evangelicals" of fifty years ago rejoiced, and which I am afraid would equally gladden the hearts of unbelievers now,—viz., that our Church is to spend its energies and its wealth in attacking the greatest historical Church of Christianity, and without which Christianity could hardly have existed. But I will not believe that we shall now, for the first time in our history, do violence to our traditions and our character by a feeble attack on that great Church which, whatever may be its mistakes, has been in past days the Church of St. Francis and Sir T. More, of Fen6lon and of Boss net, and in this generation of Bishop Dapanloup and John
Henry Newman.—I am, Sir, dm, CaTawAcus.
Previous page
