Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

state.

"Christian men's goods are not common." In this respect, the Catholic tradition has been firm and consistent; the Law of Nature is still appealed to by Catholic casuists as a sacred and final authority. Collectivist movements within Christianity have proceeded almost entirely from the step-children of the Reformation, like the Anabaptists and other sectaries who gave Cromwell so much trouble.

The most recent activity of Anglican socialists has been the widely advertised and cleverly engineered "Conference on Politics and Economics," commonly called, from its initials, "Copec." A very large number of workers was enlisted, and the educative value of their labours to themselves was doubtless considerable. Parts of their lengthy report show ability as well as painstaking research; but the whole was rendered slightly ridiculous by the pontifical language in which their conclusions were given to the world. If words mean anything, they claimed to have been divinely inspired. We may hope that such assistance is always given to those who humbly seek it; but in the rather sloppy socialism which pervades the report there is nothing which seems to transcend the limits of unaided human intelligence.

Liberalism in the Church has never been organized as a party. The Liberal as such is a free lance; he does not wish to have to conform himself to any programme or policy. But the advance of Liberal opinions during the last fifty years has been far more noteworthy than the loudly trumpeted triumphs of the Catholic revival; and, unlike these last, it has gained ground which can hardly be lost. It is difficult for us to believe that in 1829 Dean Milman's History of the Jews had to be withdrawn by the publisher in consequence of the commotion which it made in ecclesiastical circles. Essays and Reviews," in 1860, raised a storm which swept the bishops off their feet, and soon after Colenso was excommunicated by Bishop Gray of Capetown for views on the Old Testament which are now taken for granted. But Canute soon had to move his chair backward. "Lux Mundi evoked a few protests, and embittered the last days of Canon Liddon; but the protagonist of this group, who has changed none of his opinions since that early venture, is now justly regarded as the main pillar of theological Conservatism. Much bolder books of essays, such as "Contentio Veritatis" and "Foundations," were widely read without getting their authors into trouble.

[ocr errors]

Attempts at heresy-hunts have collapsed ignominiously, and the few Liberal bishops to-day have nothing worse to fear than the calumnies of the ignoble Anglo-Catholic press and an organized boycott by some Theological Colleges. The two other recognised parties have been quite unable to prevent the infiltration of Liberal ideas into their own circles. The more thoughtful of the Anglo-Catholics show a leaning to the continental type of Modernism, represented by Loisy (in his earlier phase), and by Le Roy, Tyrrell, and Heiler (of Marburg); the younger Evangelicals read the critical and philosophical works of German Protestants, and are in process of reconstructing their party on new lines. Thought within the Church of England is now much freer than ever before; the battle for liberty has been practically won, though the dominant faction would gladly destroy liberty if they could.

[ocr errors]

Liberalism in the Church has in truth a tradition and a history which make attempts to expel it absurd. It is, especially in England, closely connected with the Platonic or Renaissance tradition, which in its turn may be traced back to the Greek Fathers and the Fourth Gospel. Anglican Liberalism is for the most part orthodox about the Person of Christ, but it believes that Christianity is primarily a way of living, which is its own evidence. The Liberal, feeling himself independent of "proofs from miracles, wishes to terminate the long feud between the Church on one side, and humanism and science on the other. He is convinced that a frank abandonment of certain dogmas which are intelligible only by the geocentric hypothesis, would strengthen the influence of Christianity by removing the stumbling blocks which keep many candid and intelligent persons out of the Church. If the Liberals expect quick results, they are too sanguine, for the love of truth is not very common, and superstition grows rankly in the soil through which the war-god lately drove his plough. But no form of Christianity which flouts science is in the true line of progress; it may have a disastrous success for a time; but the conscience as well as the reason of civilised man demands a reconciliation between secular knowledge and faith. An obscurantist religion can only assist at the euthanasia of decadent nations.

The isolation of the Church of England causes distress to all Anglicans, but the remedies suggested are very diverse. The

theory of the Apostolical succession obliges its supporters to recognise as true Churches only the Anglican, Roman, Eastern Orthodox, and perhaps the Swedish Lutheran. No reunion with the English Free Churches is even desired by this party, except on condition of their ministers submitting to episcopal ordination. After the war, there was a general wish for fraternisation among Protestants; but the Anglo-Catholic party blocked the way. The contribution of this party to reunion was to open a ridiculous flirtation with a Belgian Cardinal, although the Vatican had recently pronounced with full authority that Anglican Orders are entirely null and void. It is certain that the Roman Church will never recede from this position, which is inevitable on the Roman theory of universal sovereignty. But no rebuffs, however humiliating, deter the Anglo-Catholics from begging for recognition by Rome. Without it, they are open, on their own principles, to the severe verdict of the Papal Church-they are schismatics, and their priests have never been ordained. To the Protestant, institutional union is of far less importance. The "one flock" need not be penned into "one fold." The Protestant recognises that reunion with Rome is for ever impossible --the door has been locked and barred on the other side. But he would welcome friendly co-operation with other Protestant bodies, especially with the Scottish Presbyterians and the Wesleyans, from whom he is not separated by any doctrinal differences of importance. Mutual recognition of each other's commissions, interchange of pulpits, occasional inter-communion, and co-operation in moral and social work, as well as in all branches of theological study, represent about all that is possible or desirable in the way of reunion; and but for the AngloCatholics, this rapprochement would be easy. The relations with the Orthodox Eastern Church, and with the Church of Sweden, are far more friendly than with Rome. Intercommunion with Sweden has been practically settled, and Greek ecclesiastics have repeatedly taken part in Anglican worship, at St. Paul's and elsewhere. Many Anglicans of all schools of thought would think it an honour to claim fellowship with the persecuted Church of Russia, and to support its just claim to recover Saint Sophia for worship according to the Greek rite.

The Church has lately obtained large measure of selfgovernment, which will probably prove to be incompatible with

the maintenance of the Establishment. These constitutional changes, for which there was no demand from the mass of the laity, were pushed through during and after the war by a group of busy-bodies, who were not too much engrossed by the agony of their country to conduct a raging agitation in all parts of England. The dominant faction was at first indifferent, but soon realised that under a system of election to which nine-tenths of Churchmen were wholly indifferent, the power could be easily grasped by themselves, the only well organized party in the Church. So far, the result has been entirely in favour of the Romanisers. They have a large majority in the National Assembly, which they are using, without much scruple or moderation, to tear up the old Prayerbook and the prudent compromise which it represents. The bishops, meanwhile, are steadily encroaching on the rights of the incumbents and their flocks, drawing all patronage into their own hands, and claiming to dispense the clergy from obeying the very laws which the bishops are pledged to enforce. Nevertheless, the bishops are a steadying influence. Tired of the part of Canute, they now take as their pattern the wise Gamaliel, whose advice to the Sanhedrim is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. They have damped down several attempts at persecution.

The question is often raised, whether a Church so sharply divided on fundamental matters of principle can hold together. Some think that only the Establishment prevents it from flying apart into its component elements. It may be admitted that in no other country could Catholics and Protestants dwell together as members of the same Church. But the genius for illogicality of the English people is unique, and in the present case I shall try to show that it is not unreasonable. The danger of disruption. certainly exists. It has been averted hitherto partly by the long experience and great sagacity of the present Primate. A less judicious successor might overturn the coach. There is also a possibility that the Anglo-Catholics, who are utterly reckless and actually desirous to make things intolerable for the other historical parties, may introduce changes in our formularies which neither Evangelicals nor Liberals could conscientiously accept. But, personally, I do not expect it. There are traditions which would curb the rashness of any occupant of Lambeth; and the fanatics, even in the dominant party, are really a small minority. The

practical difficulties of a great secession would be enormous, and it must be remembered that the mass of the laity are intensely conservative. They have no wish for a new Prayerbook, or new teaching of any kind. The Church, for them, if they belong to it, is the Church of England, not a sect. They will bow their heads under each violent wind of doctrine as it comes; in their hearts they know that fashions change, and that the old Church has already weathered many storms. Perhaps the most probable secession will be from the extreme wing of the Latin party. To judge by their utterances, they are living in a fool's paradise, persuaded that the country is rapidly becoming Catholic, in their sense. When they awake from this dream, the very thin trickle of Roman converts which flows year by year may become a more copious stream. But, on the other hand, those may be right who think that the Catholic reaction has already passed its climax, and experience seems to prove that secession from a religious body is usually a mistake. The Nonjurors and the old Catholics were not saved from failure by the high character and ability of their leaders. Even the Free Churches of England, numerous and powerful as they are, seem to be on the downgrade; they were most prosperous while their chief supporters (the shop-keeping class) wielded political power. Signs are not wanting that the Anglican Church may have another opportunity of leading and representing the religion of the English people.

The question," What does the Church of England stand for ?” must, of course, be answered. It can be answered only by considering what it has stood for since the Reformation and before it. It has been-in intention, and sometimes in fact-the Church of the English people. This is the principle upon which Hooker most insists. "There is not any man of the Church of England but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth; nor any man a member of the commonwealth, which is not also (a member) of the Church of England." The Royal Supremacy had very little to do with the seventeenth century figment of the divine right of kings; it meant that there was to be no dual control in any section of the commonwealth. The king-or, as we should now say, the law-was to be supreme in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil. There was to be no appeal to any tradition or authority outside the realm. In 1792, Burke (quoted by Mr. Fawkes) asserts the old doctrine again.

« AnteriorContinuar »