THE ALLEGED DANGER OF DISRUPTION IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
WE had hoped to be able to leave the Kikuyu con- troversy untouched for the next few weeks—that is, until the ardour of the disputants on both sides had cooled a little and there was a better chance of debating the matter without an undue amount of passion. The letter of the Bishop of Oxford to Monday's Times, however, forces us to say a word or two upon the new issue which he has raised. Dr. Gore, in effect, threatens the Church with disruption if Bishops and clergy of the Church of England are to continue to give the Sacrament to unconfirmed Nonconformists. Here are Bishop Gore's words in regard to the approval by the Evangelical portion of the Church of the open Com- munion" at Kikuyu :-
"I feel quite sure that to the great mass of High Churchmen such an open Communion seems to involve principles so totally subversive of Catholic order and doctrine as to be strictly intoler- able, in the sense that they could not continue in a fellowship which required of them to tolerate the recurrence of such incidents."
We have the greatest respect for Dr. Gore, and we admire his whole-hearted devotion to what he believes to be the right. Painful as it is to say it, however, we are bound to say that if this were proved to be his deliberate and mature view, and not a hasty conclusion, as we believe it to be, we should have to admit that he could not remain in the Church of England. He would be setting himself against the essential spirit of the Church of England as by law established—the spirit of inclusion and comprehension. Not only does the law of the land prevent those who conscientiously desire to be included in the Church of England from being driven from it on grounds of religious opinion, but the best minds and souls in the Church have always supported the law of the land in that respect. History shows no conflict between the teachings of the great Anglican apostles of comprehension such as Jeremy Taylor and the law as interpreted in the Courts of Law. That is why our Church has been able without disruption to con. tam at one and the same time men of such diverse opinions as the old-fashioned Evangelicals, the Broad Churchmen, and the Tractarians—men with such conflict- ing ideas as Pusey, Maurice, Collins°, Simeon, Jewett, and Stanley. No doubt in moments of heated controversy various sections in the Church would have liked to drive out from her gates many of these great and good men. Yet, God be praised, such efforts at expulsion have never been successful. The law of the land—i.e., the fact of Establishment—has saved the Church and maintained the policy of the open door, and those acts of salvation have been approved by the natural piety and religious good sense of the nation. Not only were the men whom the bigotry of the hour called heretics able to remain in the Church, but the threats of disruption if they did remain proved vain and of no effect. We are not, therefore, in the least alarmed by what we do not like to call Dr. Gore's threat, for we are sure that his words were not meant as a threat in the bad sense, but rather to give utterance to a doubt as to what his conscience might call upon him to do. We believe that on further consideration he will find that though he may deplore the fact that it will prove impos- sible for any properly constituted authority to condemn the action of the Bishop of Mombasa, that fact cannot reasonably be used by him as a ground for secession. And here we may note the strength and benevolence of the true Anglican position. If any force were put upon the conscience of the Bishop of Oxford or upon the consciences of the men who agree with him, we are certain that every other consideration would give way, and rightly, to the need for resistance. They would refuse to be limited in any action which they thought right. But in this matter no attempt is being made to limit religions action or to impose restrictions, either in regard to faith or ritual. If they were to take the grave step of breaking away from the Establishment, they would be doing so, not in order to free themselves, but because they were not allowed to impose fetters on others. This we are certain they will not do, even though they may talk about doing it. When it comes to the point there will be found enough of the true English spirit in them, the spirit of comprehension anti compromise, to hold them back.
Let us, however, face the worst. Let us suppose that we are wrong, and that Bishop Gore and his followers will leave the Church, not because they are themselves asked to give the Communion to Nonconformists, but because other Bishops and clergy who believed it was their right, nay their duty, to do so practised such open Communion and mean to continue such acts of religious lovingkindness. We say that even if this deplorable mistake were to occur no disruption in the true sense would take place. Nothing would happen that need cause anxiety to those who desire wholeheartedly and earnestly the maintenance of the Establishment and the unity and security of the National Church. Secession on the grounds foreshadowed by tho Bishop of Oxford would secure, we will not say no followers, but followers so few in proportion to the total strength of the members of the Establishment as to be unimportant. We do not deprecate anxiety in regard to the threatened disruption from any want of appreciation of the value of Dr. Gore's presence in the Church, for we hold the inclusion of a man of his deep learning and piety to be a matter of gr at moment. Still, these questions must be looked at in their true proportion, and viewed in such proportion the secession of even three or four Bishops and a considerable body of the clergy after the manner of the Nonjurors would not, considering the grounds of their action, seriously affect the National Church. Remember that for a secession to be vital, laymen as well as ecclesiaatics must secede. But we venture to say that, though no doubt an imposing band of ecclesiastically minded laymen such as Lord Halifax and Mr. Athelstan Riley would be willing to go even further than Bishop Gore in the matter of secession, there would be no secession of the laity in the true sense. The vast majority of the English laity, and even of the English laity who hold High Church doctrines and are in strong sympathy with ritualistic practice, are at heart inspired with the true spirit of the Church of England—the spirit of comprehension. They cling passion- ately to the idea of the Establishment, and they know instinctively that the Establishment cannot be maintained except on the basis of comprehension. They know that if the Church were to be narrowed to an episcopal sect, and were to become a body inspired by Roman exclusiveness and by the doctrine of culla statue, even though it were not in communion with the Roman Church, it could not last a day. That intense devotion to the Establishment which Burke noted in the people of England still exists, and will wive for us comprehension in the Church. Burke's words are worth quoting here "The majority of the people of England, far from thinking a religions national establishment unlawful, hardly think it lawful to be without one In France you are wholly mistaken if you do not believe us above all other things attached to it, and beyond all other nations; and when this people has acted unwisely and unjustifiably in its favour (as in some instances they have done, most certainly) in their very errors you will at least discover their seat" This is the spirit which will save the Establishment, or, rather, make any effort at disruption a sterile and unim- portant episode.
We must say again that though we are not afraid of dis- ruption if it should come, we are convinced that it will no more come over the Kikuyu conference than it came over the Revisere' Communion in Westminster Abbey or the Coronation Communion for Nonconformists, so wisely and so generously held by the Bishop of Hereford at the time of the King's coronation. And here, if we may do so without offence, we should like to make a suggestion CO those who are arguing on the side of compreheneion. It is that they should not only not be perturbed by any threats of a disruption which will not come, but that they should ignore all such threats and refuse to dwell upon them. If they argue with those who threaten dis- ruption, there is always the possibility of driving goad and conscientious but angry men into action of which they will not realize the unwisdom until it is too late. Never argue with a man who is threatening suicide on a point of con science. His own reflections are far more likely to convert him to the true view than vituperative controversy.
Before we leave the subject of the Kikuyu conference we would ask our readers to remember that two points are involved in it which ought to be kept entirely separate, for confusion in regard to them can only lead to unnecessary difficulties. The first point is the question of unity, or what we may call federation, for missionary effort. Here at any rate there is clearly a strong case for further dis- cussion and deliberation. Those who held the conference at Kikuyu would, we feel sure, be the first to admit this. They were only attempting to dtaft articles of peace, and not actually to make a final treaty of peace, still less to create any amalgamation of the Churches. They wanted to find, but they did not attempt to say that they had found, some method for putting an end to internecine disputes in the face of the enemy. The other point, the giving of the Communion by a Bishop or a clergyman to Nonconformists or other nneonfinned persons, is an entirely different point—not a point of policy, but a point of law. Here those who are indig- nant with the Bishop of Mombasa are either ignorant of the law, or else, unfortunately, are governed by motives of conscience which place them in direct opposition to the law of the land and the law of tba Establishment. The more the legal aspect is discussed, the more clear must it become that neither at home nor abroad is any Bishop or clergyman of the Church of England guilty of any offence, civil or ecclesiastical, in giving the Communion to unconfirmed Nonconformists, or even to persons alleged to bold heretical views. Under the law which governs the action of the. Established Church in this matter the priest cannot withhold the Communion, except on the grounds maintained in the prefatory rubric to the Communion office—i.e., open and notorious evil living—from anyone who desires to communi- cate. (We leave out of account as obsolete the Canon which forbids the clergy, under pain of being deprived of their Orders, to give the Communion to persons who deprave and deny the Royal supremacy in causes ecclesias- tical.) It is, indeed, we believe, no exaggeration to may that every layman has a statutory right to receive the Communion in his parish church, and that no question as to the doctrines or dogmas which he holds being those of the Church of England, or as to his adhesion to any other religious body, can be entertained by the clergy- man as a ground for excluding him from the Sacrament. Even the question of the morality of his private life cannot be inquired into unless it is a ease of evil living which is open and notorious. The rubric in regard to confirmation when properly understood will not, we believe, be held by any competent Court to justify the exclusion of any adult persons. Clearly these two points, so distinct, should be kept apart. For ourselves, we should like to see the question of common policy on missionary action referred to a Committee of the next Lambeth Conference, so that a general decision might be arrived at, and, further, a clear statement made as to the true position in regard to the giving of the Communion to unconfirmed persons. Probably the best way of obtaining an authoritative state- ment of the law in this respect would be to ask the Crown to appoint a Commission of, say, three Judges or ex-Judges learned in the matter of ecclesiastical law to report as to the exact legal position. They would, of course, hear legal arguments on both sides before making their report.
Previous page
