" WESLEYAN ULTRAMONTANES."
(TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR.")
Sin,—I am a true admirer of what has been called the Spectator's English temper. May I presume upon that for a few remarks on the above subject? In your trenchant article last week, the main proposition is a salutary one,—that Ultramontane ideas may exist in a Voluntary as in a State Church. All that I would submit, by way of thorough agreement therewith, is a correct postulate being required, which to me seems absent in this particular case. From a Wesleyan stand-point, I would not defend "spiritual des- potism," any more than Erastianism. But audi &term partem.
'The whole question is one of economics, and does not touch what, al, officio, belongs to the ministry. The difficulty consists not in any dispute of rival powers, but in rearrangement of the sphere wherein separate offices can be more immediately fulfilled, without crowing the line of either. And although some speeches might seem to an outsider to savour of Butler's lines,
""Fig an orthodox opinion That grace is founded in dominion,"
—yet the " giving-up " of the clerical element only amounts to a possible unsettlement of well-accepted boundaries, if once, what now is done by two Chambers shall be done in one united body, always subject to the supreme Legal Conference for ratification. While there is no lay Philip who would enter our Amphictyonic Council, still our Demostheneses fight shy of what might insen- sibly become a Chwronean field of confusion.
And further, this "giving-up" appears to evidence the Liberal- ism of the clerical body, of which every member is, in the first instance, chosen by the vote of laymen for their vocation. For that this movement is not propelled by outside pressure is clear, in that so very few districts (and even these by clerical majorities) have asked for laics to be admitted into the Conference.
On every hand, our laymen wish to continue the brotherhood of ministers intact as regards control over ministers", personnel" (which is severe as mutual), just as individual laymen are amenable to their Methodist lay peers.
In short, then, ministers and laymen are at one in fealty to a polity, while aiming at a greater directness of co-operation. Permit me also to say that ministerial office is not Sacerdotalism, nor is its proper relation to other and equal functions Ultra- montanism.
Your kind insertion of this may at least have interest for many of your readers who are co-religionists with my obscure self.—
[The "laymen" may say they wish to maintain the powers of "ministers" intact; but the ministers do not believe them, nor do we. Every speaker in Conference against change mentioned the risk to the "brotherhood" of the ministers,—that is, to their exemption from any but caste oontrol.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
