trttpro to q itor.
THE OBJECTS OF CONVOCATION.
Sin—In your article on Convocation I find the following passage : "The revival of Convocation might or might not be advantageous to the Church viewed apart from the State and the Nation, but that is plainly not the point at issue ; and the Guardian, in seeking to narrow the discussion to this point, takes it out of the region of practical topics : at least, the only prac- tical effect such an avowal can have will be to merge the Convocation ques- tion in the larger policy of separating Church and State." You will pardon me if I express my opinion that I think you do not quite understand the Guardian. Where the Church and State are united, every religious question must bear a civil aspect. The Guardian says its rea- son of disagreeing with yourself and other contemporaries is, that you give almost entire predominance to political, and itself to religious considerations. I do not conceive that it went the length of charging you and others with an entire oversight of the religious question, but merely with putting it unduly in the background. You ask what the Church wants ? and your correspondent "Cam" answers you in some points very clearly, and to my mind practically ; but I believe the real answer to your question might be given in a shorter space. The Church wants some readjustment of her relations with the civil power : do you mean thereby a separation of Church and State ? I reply, certainly not, though it may come to that in time, if matters are not arranged peaceably soon. It is possible, I believe, now to introduce greater harmony into the Church itself, and to give greater freedom of action to those who dissent from her, by a fair compromise, than it may be some years hence if the irregular bickerings and disputes amongst us, which have raised such un- happy feuds among religious and good men be allowed to continue unchecked. But to do this two things are necessary : to give the Church, who is one of the parties concerned, an audible voice ; and next, to treat her with tender- ness, forbearance, and respect, when that voice is heard ; for, as a Church- - man, I own it with shame, that the clergy possess to a far less degree than others those settled habits of self-control which are so necessary in debate and for the transaction of public business. It is worth while asking whether this may not arise from the want of habit, and from the very fact that they
are upon all those questions which most deeply interest them, perfectly tongue-tied, except, perhaps, in the pulpit; not the place, I fear, where for- bearance to the opinions of others is best learnt. I do not think there would be any disposition to depart from the existing contract between the State and Church, in its spirit or its main features. But many of its provisions are obsolete. The existing status of the Church should be the starting-point, and the new treaty should be arranged strictly on the principle of quid pro quo.
I will not enter into details ; but it is obvious that our existing laws give the Church powers over the Dissenters, of a painful and obnoxious character. Suppose these given up : the clergy might demand, and with justice, a more efficient control over those who are really within the pale of her communion. Earnest-minded men are anxious for a restoration of greater discipline and better order in our congregations, (e. g. the removal of high-backed pews, the doing away with the disrespect shown to the poor, 8ce.)' but the rights of private property and the selfishness of individual interests greatly obstruct the progress of legitimate improvement.
I have mentioned the services of the sanctuary as one point in which greater power should be given to the clergy, and to the Church ; by which expression I understand "the communicants." But if there are those who think otherwise—who, in your words, "dread the mischief which religious or- ganizations, (whose prevailing spirit is seldom religious, however theological it may be,) have done and always may do to the existing material and still more to the human interests of society,"—I must fear that such persons will find matters have gone so far now,. that by enforcing the principle of "Lais-
sez faire," attempting as they call "to 'keep things straight," they will do more harm than good.
It is only of late years that I have come to the conclusion that the in- ternal dissensions of the Church should have some legitimate vent. Until very recently, I was inclined to think that it is "only bad workmen who com- plain of their tools," and that the existing machinery gave a good parish priest abundant means of usefulness in his own sphere without meddling with politics and Convocation. I am sorry to say I find myself deceived ; and while I admit that calling together such a body is an experiment fraught with considerable peril—being nothing less than a sort of meeting of the Ecclesiastical States General—I am forced to the conclusion that the thing must be ; that the fervour of religious feeling in the country is to a great degree irrepressible ; and that the sooner it is done the more likely are the deliberations of the assembly of the Church to be conducted with order, propriety, peace, and decorum.
A MODERATE HIGH CHURCHMAN.
• P.S. By the words "fair compromise" I mean-1. a compromise between the Church and the Dissenters e. the non-Church ; 2. a compromise be- tween the hostile parties within the pale of the public Church itself. "Life," you remember, "is a compromise."
Previous page
