The Church of England, Its Catholicity and Continuity/Lecture 7
LECTURE VII
Growth of Church Life during the Last Sixty Years.
Last week I traced the history of the Oxford Movement, and to-night it will be my object to show how the Church of England has been benefited during the last sixty years through that Movement.
The Tractarians gave birth to a new spirit in the religious life of our country. I do not think that we can be otherwise than grateful for their work. As a result of it worship has become a greater reality to the people. Our services have been conducted in a more orderly and more reverent way than they were for centuries before that Movement began. The Tractarians brought to the front the essential teaching of the Church of England and saved the Church from falling away into a form of dissent. The first care of the Tractarians was, as we have seen, to teach the people the whole of the Faith of the Church. They chiefly desired to convince England of the Catholicity of the Anglican Church, and to bring into prominence those parts of the Prayer Book which had been neglected. They emphasized the observance of Saints' Days, showing how these taught some point of the Catholic doctrine. The Tractarians, I say, imparted a new spirit to the religious life of England and yet it was not new. It was the spirit which dominated our worship centuries ago, and which supported such men as Bishop Andrewes and Archbishop Laud. Since the "Tracts for the Times" were placed in the people's hands, we have made enormous strides for good in our method of conducting public worship. It was not until some years after the appearance of the Tracts that changes were made in the orderly way of conducting worship. What is now known as Ritualism was not then brought before the people's attention. Newman and his school did not go so far as to teach the nation the use of vestments and ornaments in daily worship. It was in their mind, however, to do this when they thought the time ripe enough for it. Dr. Pusey said that [1]"They shrank from caring for externals at the outset of their work, from introducing Ritual before doctrine had taken possession of the hearts of the people. It was like giving children flowers which would fade, wither, and die immediately. They had laboured rather to plant the bulbs which in good time would send forth their flowers flourishing abundantly and lastingly."
He said further: [2]"There is not the slightest difference between the Ritualists and ourselves. The sole practical difference is that we taught through the ear, and the Ritualists teach also through the eye."
For some time after the Tractarian Movement the services of the Church were very cold and unattractive. The growth of Ritual brightened them. The Rubric in our Prayer Book states that the services might be either said or sung. Choral services were therefore revived, and music was made a means of offering worship to God. The due observance of another Rubric was also brought before the people's notice. This Rubric ordered that the same vestments and ornaments should be used in Church as were in use in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI. It was, therefore, discovered that our Prayer Book orders that the clergy should wear the surplice and the hoods peculiar to their degrees in their ordinary ministrations, and that other vestments peculiar to the offce should be used in the celebration of the Holy Communion. The result of this was that a movement was started to abolish the black gown from our services and to put the surplice in its place. Greater attention was paid to the order of celebrating the Eucharist. Every part of the Church building was put to the use for which it was originally intended. The font was no longer allowed to be the receptacle of dripping umbrellas, or to be adorned with the worshippers' hats and cloaks. The altar was respected as a Holy Table, and it was considered sacrilege for the wardens to count their offertories upon it, as was often the case before. Of course it was very hard work to restore these decencies of worship, and many were the protests raised against it. Riots and law suits arose over the legality of the doings of some of the clergy. Some of you may recall a few of these troubles. When Tait was Bishop of London he had many difficulties to meet of this character. Before this, when Dr. Blomfield was Bishop he was distressed at the events which happened at S. George's, London, where King was rector. The rector used vestments in the Celebration of the Holy Communion, and an organized conspiracy was set on foot to interrupt him in his services. [3]"The rabble," says a writer, "unchecked by the Churchwardens, gathered strength; and Sunday after Sunday S. George's became a scene of rioting and blasphemy." … "The mob were masters of the situation, and held it for eighteen months, and the rector was driven from the parish." But these doings only served the purpose of a good advertisement. This brought the Ritualistic Movement more directly under the eye of the people, who in the end are bound to judge justly of all persecuted movements.
Opposition similar to this was raised to the new Movement at S. Alban's. The Dean of Westminster was sent to visit this Church by his old friend Bishop Tait, and he was to report on the doings there.[4] "Well, Mr. Dean," said the Bishop, "what did you see? " "Why, my Lord," replied the Dean, "I saw three men in green, and your Lordship will find it very hard to put those men down."
This proved to be very true. The Movement spread, and now it has too strong a hold upon thinking people, and on their affections, to be very easily destroyed. In our time we do not hear of riots and opposition for such trivial matters as called them forth in the infancy of the Movement.
Hand in hand with this desire for more reverent services in Church there went a desire for Church restoration. The fabric of our Churches had often been allowed to fall into a state of decay. One half of the wealth of the Churches was hidden. Beautiful frescoes had been covered over by the successive layers of the washers' brush and the plasterers' trowels. Valuable pictures were discovered on the walls. Brasses were repolished, and shone on the people's faces once more to tell them that they could read there the history of their parishes.
With this revival of interest in ecclesiastical building there came into existence in 1838 the Architectural Society, which was founded at Oxford for the improvement of Church buildings. Its object was to urge that new-built Churches should be erected with some idea stamped on them of the purpose for which they were erected. It kept the subject of Church building before the people's mind. The Church which Newman erected at Littlemore, and the new Church built by Hook at Leeds, show the spirit of the Society.
In 1846 the Ecclesiological Society was organised, which grew out of the Cambridge Campden Society. The object of this was to promote Christian art in Churches. It dealt especially with the decoration of Churches, their architecture and arrangement.
As time went on the need was felt for more services than had been held in years gone by, and with this there was a desire that shorter services than the Prayer Book contained should be authorized. So in 1867 a Ritual Commission was appointed to consult on the need of making alterations in our Prayer Book, and amending its Rubrics. The only result of this was that an Act was passed authorizing the clergy to have services in their Churches composed of collects culled from the Prayer Book, and a new lectionary was drawn up changing the lessons hitherto appointed to be read in Churches.
The spirit which had animated these changes ultimately infected the people, and it was often very difficult work for the Bisbops to soften the discontent which a section of the people expressed at the influence of the Ritual Movement.
In 1874 an Act was passed, called the Public Worship Regulation Act, chiefy through the work of Archbishop Tait. This Act, says Disraeli, was passed to put down the Ritualists. Whether this be strictly true or not it was aimed against the Ritualistic Movement, and it laid down how to deal with those who too zealously advocated its teaching. This Act would not allow of any alteration or addition being made to the fabric, ornaments, and furniture of the Church, unless lawful authority had been previously secured. Penalties were prescribed for the offenders. But the Act has not proved successful in its working, and many people consider that it has been a failure. It has been disapproved of by many of the clergy and foremost laity, and not long after it became law a Society was started, The English Church Union, in opposition to it, to uphold the cause of the Ritualists and to oppose another Society, The Church Association.
As the Church was stirred up to acknowledge its responsibility, other important movements came into birth in the Church of England. Many new Acts were passed by Parliament for the regulation of the Church's affairs. In 1871 was passed "The Incumbents' Resignation Act," through which clergymen were enabled to resign their cures and receive a pension from them if age, illness or lunacy incapacitated them for their duties. This Act was found to be unsatisfactory in its working, so that in 1887 an amended Act was passed to remedy its weakness.
In 1871 was passed "The Ecclesiastical Dilapidation Act," which aimed at preserving the property of our Churches. This imposed duties on every incumbent in England. It makes him liable to keep his parsonage or vicarage, as the case might be, in good repair, and if he fail to do this his successor can legally claim from him or his executors the cost of the necessary repairs.
In 1880 was passed "The Burial Laws Amendment Act." This made it lawful for anyone who was not a clergyman to use what service he pleased in even consecrated ground, and it freed the clergy from any censure if they used the Burial Service in unconsecrated ground.
In 1891 "The Tithe Act" was passed, which ordered that tithes should be paid in money instead of in kind as before. But by this Act the clergy have greatly suffered though they have been benefited thereby in other ways.
In 1892 [5]"The Clergy Discipline Act" was passed, a very important measure. Its object was to remove clergymen from their cures who have been convicted of crimes and misdemeanours. This law enacted that clergy convicted of treason and felony, who have been sentenced to imprisonment for the same, clergy who are proved to have committed adultery, or against whom a judicial act of separation has been made, shall be deprived of their livings and cures. This was a great step for the benefit of the Church, and already men have been justly punished through it. All these facts show what new life had come into the Church of England. But I have not finished yet.
I must now speak of another very important Act of legislation.
In the year 1836 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were incorporated, and the influence of the Church to-day is very largely due to their efforts. Parliament ordered that the Commission should be made. It authorized the Commission to set about a redistribution of the Church's wealth. The end of this was to benefit the Church, but we should remark that Parliament had to appropriate private property to accomplish this aim. We must remember that the Church of England, as a body, has no wealth at all. The wealth in the Church belongs to separate parishes and is the property of each parish. No parish has a right to interfere with the property of other parishes. But to proceed, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners set about their work to redistribute the the wealth in the Church. Upon inquiry it was discovered that there was great inequality in this respect. First consider the case of the Bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury had ₤18,090 a year. The Bishop of Durham ₤19,480 a year, while Llandaff had only ₤1,170, and Gloucester only ₤700. It was found that the Bishops and Cathedral dignitaries altogether carried off fully one-eighth of the whole money in the Church. The evils of this were very great. Because some dignitaries were poorly paid, compared with other men, there were pluralities, that is to say, that the same man would hold two or more offices to enlarge his income. A Bishop, for example, would sometimes be a Dean as well. The same inequality was discovered in the livings of vicars and rectors. Eleven livings had only ₤10 a year each, while a few were as much as ₤7,000 a year. It was to amend this state of things that the Commissioners were incorporated. A series of Acts of Parliament were passed to help the Commissioners in their labours. There was the "Pluralities Act." This aimed at providing a clergyman for every parish in the country. Before this the same man would often be the holder of two or more livings that he might receive an adequate income. But now it was decided that each parish, as far as possible, should have a vicar of its own, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should provide the necessary funds.
There was also brought into existence the "Cathedral Act," in 1840. This Act empowered the Commissioners to make the redistribution of the Church's property. [6]"Under this Act some 360 Prebendal estates attached to the Cathedrals of the old foundation; and the corporate incomes of all the Canons beyond four in (with a few exceptions) all the other Cathedrals; and the revenues of the separate estates of Deans and Residentiary Canons as distinguished from corporate revenues; and the proceeds of sinecure rectories, were appropriated and entrusted to the management of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners." Out of these revenues the Commissioners now pay fixed stipends to the Bishops, Deans, Resident Canons, and Archdeacons. The money left after this is done they give as they think best to other objects in the Church. As a result of this they have greatly improved 5,000 benefices in the country.
In 1836 there was passed the "Episcopal Act," by which was effected a re-organization of the Dioceses in England. This led to the founding of the Bishoprics of Manchester, and Ripon; Gloucester and Bristol were united as one See. You remember that the Bishopric of Gloucester was very poor. Since then, and not long ago, Gloucester and Bristol have again been made two separate Dioceses, and suitable stipends have been provided for the Bishops. The Bishoprics of Bangor and S. Asaph were also amalgamated. There was no change made in the number of Dioceses in England by this redistribution.
Another important source of strength to the Church of England was the revival of Convocation, whose duty it is to discuss the work of the Church, and to deliberate on matters of interest and common difficulties. This was revived in 1852. It had not met before this time for 130 years. Bishop Wilberforce was the great moving spirit in this important matter, who was at Oxford during the Tractarian Movement, and who was one of its supporters. As early as 1844 an attempt was made to revive this disused branch of Church life. The reason given for its revival, as expressed by its supporters, was "for increasing the efficiency of the Church."
In July, 1851, the House of Lords decided that Convocation should be reopened again, and Wilberforce gave a powerful speech in its support, but, unfortunately, Archbishop Tait was against the Movement. That was one of his great mistakes, and he lived long enough to acknowledge this. It was in 1852, on November 1st, that Convocation met for business, but through the Archbishop's opposition, who was president of it by virtue of his office, nothing was accomplished. There was brought under discussion a Bill before referred to, for the "Discipline of the Clergy." In 1860, royal letters were issued authorizing Convocation to proceed to business. That Convocation was allowed to meet again has proved to be one of the great blessings of the Church in modern times. It has been a safeguard to the Church's doctrines. It kept in check the sweeping changes of the Broad Church party. It represented the opinions of the great body of English Churchmen, and its decisions on important matters are not to be lightly estimated. One of its first important acts was to give its opinion on a book, Essays and Reviews, which at that time agitated England. This book consisted of Essays written by several Churchmen and it contained, to say the least of it, doctrines dressed up in a new garb. If it taught the old doctrines of the Church at all they were represented so as to lose much of their old significance. Convocation considered the subject of its heterodoxy or orthodoxy. In 1864 the Upper House condemned it, and in this decision the Lower House agreed by 39 against 19 votes. It was decided [7]"That this Synod having appointed Committees of the Upper and Lower House to examine and report upon the volume entitled Essays and Reviews, and the said Committees having severally reported thereon, doth hereby synodically condemn the said volume, as containing teaching contrary to the doctrine received by the United Church of England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church of Christ." It was acknowledged, we should remark, that all parts of this book did not merit censure.
As a result of the revival of Convocation there was also a revival of Conferences and Diocesan Synods, to which the clergy, and in the first case the laity as well, are invited to discuss questions of importance to the Church. The value of these meetings cannot be too highly spoken of, both as aids to settling difficult problems referring to the Church and as means of intercourse among the clergy. They enabled Churchmen to feel more than they ever felt before, that they belonged to a great organization, and the clergy were by these means acquainted with what went on in other parishes than their own. The first Church Congress was held at Cambridge in 1861, and the second one at Oxford.
Another order of clerical meeting was held in 1867, for Bishops only. The first Pan-Anglican Council was held at Lambeth. These meetings had the same objects in view, the efficiency of the Church. Archbishop Longley started them. At the first Council which he called together there were 76 Bishops present, and they discussed an important work which had attracted much attention. I refer to the work on the Pentateuch, written by Colenzo, Bishop of Cape Town. In this book Colenzo denied the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, and many statements in it showed that he could not accept the doctrines of the Church. He said that the clergy could no longer use the Baptismal Service as it stands in the Prayer Book, because he considered that it had historical inaccuracies. The teaching of this book was considered by the first meeting of the Bishops, and they entirely disapproved of it, and, as Mr. Hore says, [8]"They implicitly condemned two of its most prominent errors," viz., the denial of the inspiration of Holy Scripture and of the Godhead of Jesus Christ.
An encyclical letter was then sent out by the Bishops to the world, giving an account of their deliberations. In the year 1868 another Pan-Anglican Council was held, under the Presidency of Archbishop Tait, and more than one hundred Bishops were present, and these Councils have been held periodicaliy ever since.
With the increase of Church life in England there was need of more Bishops to cope with it. It was felt that every Bishop should have personal knowledge of the whole of his diocese. Many of the old dioceses were far too large to allow of this possibility. New dioceses were therefore formed. In 1876, St. Albans was made a separate See again, and in the same year the diocese of Truro was founded. In 1878 an additional Bishop's Act was passed; and, as a result of this, the See of Liverpool was formed in 1880. Newcastle was cut off from Durham in 1882. The See of Southwell was formed in 1884. Wakefield was also made a diocese. An Act was passed, as we said before, in 1884, to separate Gloucester and Bristol. The separation has now been made.
The movement for forming new bishoprics was not confined to England alone. With the growth of the Catholic revival, a greater impetus was given to missionary work, and Bishops had to be sent abroad to govern dioceses. Within the last sixty years the missionary spirit has spread rapidly. This part of its work the Church in times past had not attended to. Archbishop Laud had a scheme in hand, in the reign of Charles I., to found dioceses in America, to counteract the work of the Pilgrim Fathers, but it did not come to anything. However, during this century the missionary movement has advanced by bounds and strides. The Colonial Episcopate has been enlarged, and in 1840 ten new Sees were formed. We must not forget in this connection the good work done by the Church Missionary Society, whose duty it is chiefly to carry the Gospel to the heathen, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, whose work chiefly is to carry the Gospel to our Colonies.
In speaking of the renewed life of the Church during the last sixty years, we should remember what it has done for the cause of education. I do not intend to detail the work in this connection, but it has not been behind the Dissenters in this duty, as statistics will clearly show, although it is a favourite saying of some men that the Church desires to keep the people in heathen darkness.
I desire to refer more especially to what the Church has done, partly as a result of the Tractarian Movement, for the cultivation of theology.
Within the period under discussion many theological colleges have been started for the education of the clergy. It was a saying fifty years ago that a gentleman made the fool of his family a clergyman, but such a state of things is not possible now, even if it were true then. It is true that before the Oxford Movement the majority of the unbeneficed clergy were chiefly distinguished for their theological ignorance. The general training they received was a University education, and the standard of education then at the Universities was nothing like as high as the standard is now. The lack of theological knowledge on the part of the clergy was for a long time deplored. It was rightly thought that no man should take Holy Orders who had not made a special study of the subjects on which he was expected to be an authority. It was to meet this deficiency that theological Colleges were started, and many of the clergy of the present generation have had a course of training at them after they had taken their degrees at the University. Some clergy have gone to them who have had no University training, and they are far better equipped for their work of life than some of the old clergy who took an old degree without any theological training. Among the Colleges, whose work is what I have now referred to, we must mention S. David's Lampeter, Wells Theological College, S. Aidan's, Lichfield, Salisbury, Gloucester, Ely, and Truro. There is a splendid clergy school at Leeds. Ridley Hall, Cambridge, and Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, were started to teach theology. Colleges have also been formed for the education of foreign missionaries, such as S. Augustine's, Canterbury, and S. Boniface at Warminster. Church Missionary Colleges also exist at Islington, at Dorchester, and Burgh-le-Marsh in Lincolnshire. Theological knowledge is also given at King's College, London, and many men are ordained on becoming Associates of this College. Keble College, Oxford, must also be mentioned. It trains scores of our clergy. The Pusey House, Oxford, also does the same, and Selwyn College, Cambridge. Even in the case of those men who cannot go to these Colleges—and men who do pass through them also have the same test—a test of their theological requirements is made by the Bishops under whom they seek work. Every Bishop has theological examinations, which the clergy had to pass before they were ordained deacons, and again before they could be ordained priests. The standards in the examinations vary in the different dioceses.
In speaking of the renewed life of the Church in recent years we must speak on other facts. Since the beginning of this century 9,000 Churches have been built or restored.[9] Between the years 1840–1874—I do not know the figures since that time—as much money has been spent for building Churches as ₤24,403,261. There has also been a large increase in the number of clergy. At the beginning of the century there were about 10,600 parishes. Since then 2,700 more have been added to them. At the beginning of the century there were 10,300 clergy. In the year 1891 there were 14,603 clergy, and now the number is over 23,000. You sometimes hear it said to-day that it is a difficulty to find clergy. That does not mean that their number is less now than in days gone by, as these figures show, but it means that the Church is fully alive to its duties, and that it desires to provide additional clergy according to the increase of the population. In the year 1836 the number of curates employed by resident incumbents was 1,006, but in the year 1890 there were 6,457. This shows how the needs of the parishes of England in late years are better provided for by the residence of more than one clergyman in each parish.
From the following facts you can gather also that one of the old abuses of the Church is fast dying away. I mean the abuse of non-residence: that is the abuse of clergy drawing the stipends of their parishes without doing the work in them themselves. In 1836 there were 4,224 curates employed by non-resident rectors and vicars, but in 1890 there were only 228 men so employed. Look at these facts, and draw the inference that the clergy to-day are more conscientious than in days gone by.
Now for much of the good work done in the Church to-day we have to thank the labours of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. We must not forget, as Mr. Hore says of this corporation, that the work done by it is invaluable. [10]"They have constituted 3,079 new districts, they have augmented and endowed with ₤3,000 a year all parishes in public patronage which have a population of 4,000 or upwards, and have largely contributed towards the building of parsonage houses. They have endowed about 300 new benefices created since 1871; they have raised to ₤300 a year many parishes with a smaller population than 4,000; they have largely added to benefactions from private sources to increase benefices in private patronage, and they provide annually about ₤24,000 to meet an almost equal sum, for providing additional curates to the mining population. They have made grants amounting to more than twenty-three millions, of which ₤3,872,212 were from private benefactories to about 5,000 benefices." Through the Benefices Act of 1863 "the sum of about ₤25,000 has been added to the capital endowment of Churches."
Another movement for the benefit of the Church has been the appointment of Suffragan Bishops to help in the work of the Bishops of the dioceses. They can assist the regular Bishops by conducting Confirmations and consecrating Churches, and in the case of the Bishop's illness they can take his whole duties if so authorized by him. Suffragan Bishops were known as far back as the time of Henry VIII. But even with their help to-day all the needs of our densely populated dioceses cannot be attended to as they ought to be.
We must not forget other agencies of good in the Church. For instance, the great work done by our Sunday Schools, by the Society for Waifs and Strays, our Orphanages, our Temperance movements. We must remember the Church Army and the Church Lads' Brigade. We must remember too the noble work of the Sisterhoods in the Church of England. Here, gentle women, of gentle birth, devote all their labours to the cause of the poor and destitute. They are ready to go at a moment's notice by their self-sacrifice to rescue any poor starving or badly treated child from the horrors and the immorality of some miserable hovel. The Church's life to-day is so varied and so complex that it is impossible in one short lecture to show how it has been aroused within the last sixty years. But I have said enough, I think, to show you what a change bas come over the Church of England in this century. It is quite correct what a modern writer has asserted, [11]"It may be truly said that never has the Church been more efficient, never more beloved by Churchmen, never more beneficial to the State, never more liberal, never less formal, than it is in the present day. Everything around us bears witness to the fact; few, except political opponents and unbelievers, are found to dispute it. The tone and influence of the clergy, the zeal of the laity; Ruridecanal Synods, Diocesan Synods, Diocesan Conferences, Church Congresses; Guilds, Confraternities, Penitentiaries, Orphanages, Missions, Retreats, Quiet Days; the increased number and improved character of daily and Saints' day services, and of the Celebration of Holy Communion; the work of Missions; the spread of education; the tone of our Universities and Public Schools; the revival of Sufragan Bishops; the building and restoration of Churches; an improved style of Church building not unworthy of the best days of our Gothic architecture; the number of free and open Churches; the substitution of the offertory for pew rents; in a word, in every department of the Church, look where we will, the improvement is universal." These words by Mr. Hore ably support what I have already said.
One more thing we ought not to forget, and that is the influence of the Parish Magazine. Most parishes now possess their magazine. It is the means of spreading the knowledge of the Faith and keeping Churchmen au fait with the doings of their own parish. It is a source of great good. Not only in providing reading in otherwise idle moments, but in carrying a stray word to the heart of some idle or irreligious man. No doubt in hundreds of cases the magazine has led men to live purer, holier, and more Christ-like lives.
And now I have brought this Course of Lectures to a close. You who have followed them to the end know how much ground we have travelled over. You have seen the Church pass through many vicissitudes. You have seen it force its way through the attacks of the Romanists on the one hand and of the Puritans and their followers on the other hand. You have learnt this lesson: that the Church of England was not a new created thing of the Reformation, that it was not born of the will of bluff King Henry and his followers. But you have heard that it descended from Apostolic times.
The Church has always held that it was Apostolic and that its doctrines are the doctrines of the Apostles and the early Christians. In covering so much ground there may have been mistakes due to oversight. If you have discovered any I should be glad to know them. To-day the Church of England is stronger than ever it was before. It is more in touch than in days gone by with all classes of society. The clergy penetrate everywhere to homes of every class. It is the object of the Church now to leave no house destitute of the knowledge of the Gospel. The clergy taken as a whole were never more devoted than they are to-day. They were never more self-sacrificing. And taking the clergy as a whole they were never as well educated as they are to-day.
Before I close I want to speak upon another subject. The different schools of thought in the Church and the attitude of the Church to Dissent and of Dissent to the Church.
In speaking of the different schools of thought in the Church of England we tread on rather delicate ground. There are considered to be at least three parties in the Church. The Ritualistic or High Church, the Evangelical and the Broad Church party. If we speak of their numbers there can be no doubt at all that the High Church section is far the most numerous and the most influential. The Evangelical party is falling away. It has done a good work, but its weakness has been that it did not preach the whole Gospel but showed great zeal in enforcing one part of it only, viz., the doctrine of the atonement, while its tendency was to neglect other doctrines. The Broad Church party is too hostile to the importance of any doctrine to have any permanent influence. Because its policy is essentially a negative one it could not be expected to have long life. This party, while so busily engaged in discussing the importance or non-importance of creeds and dogmas, has generally reduced to a minimum its teaching about the Faith. It was the personality of the leaders of this movement in the Church which won people on its side rather than the message which it had to deliver. The fault of the Broad Church party has been that it did not think enough of the message of the Gospel which was entrusted to its keeping, and as its tendency was to lessen the importance of this there could be no life for it. For my part, I consider it is a mistake to labelled with any particular party name. We should call ourselves simple Churchmen. And we should be faithful Churchmen if we followed the Prayer Book in its entirety and not only in part. We should be Churchmen if we obeyed the rubrics and other injunctions of that book, and modelled our lives in accordance with their directions.
When we come to speak of Dissenters in relation to the Church of England we find that they differ from us in essential and fundamental beliefs. The teaching of the Church as gathered from the Prayer Book is that the Church is Apostolic, that it is doctrinal, and that it is Catholic. But Dissenters differ from us on all these particulars. No Dissenter believes that the Church of England is of Divine origin, that it was the system of worship founded by our Lord, and handed down to us from His time with, of course, the necessary changes in organization suitable to changing customs. Dissenters think that they have a right to form a Church for themselves, and each of their bodies thinks that its own particular form of government is nearest to what Jesus founded. The fact is that the form of worship which they themselves most approve of, and which is most agreeable to their taste, is the form which they are apt to think to be most agreeable to the Word of God.
Dissenters again differ from us very much on matters of doctrine. The tendency of Dissent is to teach the non-importance of doctrine, as though it had a most important influence on right living. Of course they have and believe in doctrines. The Independents, for instance, profess most elaborate ones. You have only to see the trust deeds of their chapels and meeting-houses to be acquainted with them. But the tendency of their body is to ignore the doctrinal side of Christianity. Very few of the modern Independents believe in the doctrines held by their forefathers. It is the custom of some of them to preach about the non-importance of doctrines. There can be no brotherly unity, no close unity, between Dissenters and the Church until they acknowledge the doctrines of the so-called Apostles' Creed as a pledge of Holy Baptism, and of the Nicene Creed as a pledge of Christian faith and practice.
Then again, very few Dissenters will acknowledge that the Church of England is Catholic as distinct from Roman Catholic. They say it is Protestant. They say, in fact, what it has been the object of these Lectures to disprove, that it was made Protestant at the Reformation. But they can nowhere find it so described in its laws and formularies. The word Protestant is nowhere found in our Prayer Book, nowhere in the Articles. But quite the opposite. The Creeds tell us to believe in the Catholic Church. The Article of Belief is, "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," this is in both the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds; and in the prayer for all sorts and conditions of men we are asked to pray for "the good estate of the Catholic Church." Although the English Church protests against the errors of Rome, it was never Protestant in the sense that this word is often used to-day.
I never could understand why there was such a desire to make out that the English Church should be called a Protestant Church. It cannot be because there is anything very lovable or attractive in the term. For Protestants have been as bitter in their persecution as the Roman Catholics, though they have not been guilty as frequently as they of this sin. We saw in what way Cartwright, the Protestant of Protestants in England, would have been a persecutor. We saw what the Puritans' persecution did for England. And surely it is a form of persecution, if not something worse, that Dissenters, the Protestants of today, should wish to deprive the Church of its rights and endowments.
I should like to digress a moment here to speak of the subject of endowments. Many Dissenters believe that they have a right to them, for they say—Is not the Church a national Church? It is true that it was the national Church, and we hope it will be the national Church in the future. But it must be remembered that our endowments were given to the Church, at least, the greater part of them, when the nation had only one faith, one belief, one baptism, when no Dissenters existed. And these endowments were given to uphold this belief, this faith, and not to spread the principles of Dissent. The money that was given in those days long ago has been handed down for the same purposes by the successive generations. Dissenters can still enjoy this money, if that be their wish, if they profess the faith which it was originally left to maintain. If they dissent from that faith they are quite at liberty to form congregations of their own. We can respect them for their sincerity; but if they demand that the Church's wealth should be taken away and be devoted to other purposes than those for which it was originally given, for this we could not respect them. We should look on this as nothing short of robbery, and we should consider that Dissenters have no more right to misappropriate the Church's endowments than we have to ask for theirs. We should not think of going to a Congregational, a Baptist, or an Unitarian Chapel to demand, for the support of the Church of England, the endowments left to them for the support of their own particular opinions. We do not expect them, therefore, to come to us to claim our wealth. And we shall not allow them to take it unless they take it by stealth or violence.
But to return to the thread of our thought, Dissenters cannot be at one with us because they do not acknowledge the Catholicity of the English Church. They do not seem to grasp the idea that although the Church is a national Church, it is not a national Church alone, but it is the Church of Christ, the Church of all races and all ages. It is a Catholic Church because it teaches the same faith as was taught in Apostolic days by men who received that faith from Jesus. Among the primary teaching of the Catholic faith there is the belief in the necessity of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion and in a regularly ordained ministry. It is on the importance and meaning of these things that Dissenters differ from us.
I would like to make a further criticism on the dissenting systems. The spirit of Dissent is quite opposed to the spirit of the Church, and in every way unlike it. The spirit of most dissenting bodies is this: I must find a form of religion that suits me. But the spirit of the Churchman is: I am contented with that religion which has been tried for ages, which has given consolation and help to millions of people who have gone before me. It is the spirit of the Churchman to sink his own preferences and partictular wishes for the sake of strengthening and increasing the efficiency of that great organization which has been such a powerful means of good. I am far from wishing to appear unkind in these remarks upon Dissent. See the truth of them for yourselves. I can only refer you to the numerous bodies of Dissenters—as catalogued by Whitaker, about 280 different sects in all—and ask you to inquire the cause of their birth. You will find in most cases it was due to the fact that their founders sought for a religious system which would suit their particular selves. They were not satisfied with tlne doctrines and customs in which they were reared, and were not contented to give their adherence to the Church. They, therefore, started fresh sects to correspond to their own ideas, and according to their own conceptions and interpretations of religious truth. It was through this spirit that the early Baptist movement split up into two or three separate sects, which differ from one another on some particulars, and that the original Methodist movement gave birth to four or five other separate sects. The same remark is true of other bodies. It is the spirit of Dissent, I say, which is wrong, and it is not calculated to lead to unity and peace. It does not consider that for the sake of the public good, for the sake of making public worship possible, it is quite as necessary that we should sink our private differences in minor matters as it is in our ordinary social relationship.
But I must now draw these reflections to a close. But before doing so I should say that we ought to have the greatest respect for the work of some of the Dissenters, though we must deplore that they do not see their way to throwing in their lot with the Church, for the sake of the common and public good. We regret that they try to weaken the forces of the Church. Still, our attitude towards them should be conciliatory. Our attitude to Dissent is well expressed in the Encyclical letter sent out from the Lambeth Conference some years ago:—
[12]"The attitude of the Anglican Communion towards the religious bodies now separated from it by unhappy divisions would appear to be this—We hold ourselves in readiness to enter into brotherly conference with any of those who may desire intercommunion with us in a more or less perfect form. We lay down conditions on which such intercommunion is, in our opinion and according to our conviction, possible. For however we may long to embrace those now alienated from us, so that the ideal of the one flock under the one Shepherd may be realized, we must not be unfaithful stewards of the great deposit intrusted to us. We cannot desert our position either as to faith or discipline. That concord would, in our judgment, be neither true nor desirable which should be produced by such surrender. But we gladly and thankfully recognize the real religious work which is carried on by Christian bodies not of our communion. We cannot close our eyes to the visible blessing which has been vouchsafed to their labours for Christ's sake. Let us not be misunderstood on this point. We are not insensible to the strong ties, the rooted convictions, which attach them to their present position. These we respect, as we wish that on our side our own principles and feelings may be respected. Competent observers, indeed, assert that not in England only, but in all parts of the Christian world, there is a real yearning for unity—that men's hearts are moved more than heretofore towards Christian fellowship. The Conference has shown in its discussions as well as its resolutions that it is deeply penetrated with this feeling. May the Spirit of Love move on the troubled waters of religious differences."
Let us be ever devoted to the Church of England. She has been the strength of millions; she has carried the Gospel to thousands of the fallen, the destitute, the poor. She has done a noble work, and there yet awaits for her a far nobler work to be done.
[13]"Bulwark of a mighty nation
See the Church of England stand.
Founded on the Rock of Ages,
Hope and Glory of our land.
Nursing Mother of our Freedom
Sowing Truth from door to door,
Watching o'er the young and aged.
Church alike of rich and poor."
The End
Printed by Curtis & Beamish, Ltd., Coventry
References
[edit]- ↑ Hore, Vol. II., p. 323.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Hore. p.338.
- ↑ Ibid, p. 340.
- ↑ See the Act in Blunt and Phillimore's Church Law.
- ↑ Hore, p. 376.
- ↑ Hore, p.382.
- ↑ Hore, p.392.
- ↑ See Lane's Notes for these details, and Hore's Vol. II.
- ↑ Hore, pp. 418, 419.
- ↑ Hore, pp.426, 427
- ↑ Quoted by Lane, p. 285.
- ↑ Lane, Notes, p. 264.