Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1899. PARTY STRIFE IN THE CHURCH.

Evening Post, Volume LVII, Issue 32, 8 February 1899, Page 4

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1899. PARTY STRIFE IN THE CHURCH.

A cablegram received here yesterday states that in pursuance of the episcopal decision to regulate the ritual of the Church of England the Archbishop of Canterbury will hold a public court on the 14th instant, to hear any ritualistic clergy man who may desire to appear. This marks another step in the efforts being made by the Anglican ecclesiastical au thorities to heal the unseemly strife that has of late reached such a height in the Church. The pulpit, the press, and even Parliament itself, have been made the media for currying on a theological discussion that has only too often revived the intolerant polemics of a bygone age. From one point of view the renewed activity may be regarded as a sign of increased religious vitality Avithin the Anglican Establishment, and, if the warring factions can be reduced to order, the outcome of the present struggle may be found in the increased strength of the Church and its closer adaptation to the needs and aspira tions of the times. But, on the other hand, the religious intolerance that the present controversy has evoked may prove too bitter for the authorities to control, and the only result possible in such an event would be another great schism due to the complete severance of the two parties — Catholic and Protestant — that have lived together more or less harmoniously within the organisation since its reformation in Tudor times. The Church of England is unique among Christian sects in that it' has, since its separation from the Roman Communion, contrived to steer a middle course between the traditional Catholicism of Rome and the undisciplined individualism of the Reformation. As a natural consequence its members have consisted of various sections of moderate — not td say latitudinarian — Christians, who desired on the one hand historic con tinuity without extreme rigidity of doctrine or symbolism of worship, and on the other the exercise of rational independence without lawless license in the interpretation of doctrine and the manner of worship! In short, the English Church

was, like most things English, based upon compromise, and illogical as are its creed? and formularies — especially the Thirtynine Articles — it was fashioned so us to include within its fold both the Catholic who disliked the autocracy of a foreign Pontiff and the Protestant who feared the consequences of making every man a law unto himself in affairs of religion. In course of time the "Church, which to ihis day bears the impress of the politic Qu?en Bess, became a united body with postReformation traditions of its own, but the two parties never truly coalesced, and such disputes as have now arisen have been continual. The Protestant or Evangelical party that is now, ' at the questionable instigation of Mr. Kensit, beating the "Nq Popery " drum so vigorously, is the lineal descendant . of the Puritan element that played so lai-ge a part in the history of the Church during the Tudor and Stuart periods. The Ritualists and their High Church sympathisers represent the Catholic section that in Henry VIII. 's reign merely substituted Royal for Papal supremacy, in Charles I.'s days rallied round Laud, and, in later times, gave birth to Puseyism and issued its manifestoes in the now famous Tracts for the Times. The historical continuity 6f the parties is unbroken, and the struggle of to-day oeems to project its actors back into the past. Nothing could illustrate better the persistence of religious differences or the discord they constantly produce. We had fondly imagined that an age of tolerance was dawning, but it seems that the mists of bigotry can still narrow the horizon to the immediate neighbourhood of the individual. Leaving aside, however, the ethical and theological questions involvedsubjects more suited to the columns of a religious journal than to those of a daily newspaper — it is not uninteresting to irace briefly the history of the present controversy from the beginning of the so-called Catholic Revival at Oxford in the thirties. The Anglican Church was awakened from the lethargy of the Georgian epoch by the rise of Evangelicalism and the work done by Wesley, Whitfield, and the Methodists. For a time Protestantism ' was the active factor in the Church, and the old-fashioned High Churchmen who held what may be called advanced sacramental doctrines but had no love of ornate ritual sleepily went through the routine of their parish wo~k. The Oxford Movement culminating in Tract 90 was an appeal to the Catholic element in the Church, and it roused the party of tradition and sacramental doc-trines—-the sacerdotal party, it might justly be called— to energetic action. The leaven worked among the clergy, and in 1860 the English Church Union, an ultraHigh Church organisation, was established. About this time the religious activity of the Church was marked by the publication of " Essays and Reviews," the manifesto of the Broad Church party, which was neither Evangelical nor Catholic, but rationalistic in its tendencies, attempting to bring the Establishment intc line Avith modern criticism and modern social developments. This third party remained studiously aloof from the Protes-tant-Catholic controversy, but its sympathies were rather against tradition and formal doctrine. The Catholicising of the Church went on apace, and ritualistic symbolism modelled upon Roman and medieval " uses " crept steadily into public worship. , , , , It was about 1866 that the sacerdotal party, up to that time known as Puseyite, was called Ritualist, i It endeavoured to give a more imposing character to public worship by the use of vestments, incense, and other symbols expressive of the Sacramental doctrines it wished to inculcate. These practices were frequently censured in episcopal charges, both in England and in America. Ecclesiastical actions were brought against various clergy, such as Mr. Mackonoohie and Mr. Purchas. Petitions were sent in both for and against the Ritualists, and the excitement was much the same in the early seventies as it w at present. In 1874 an» Act called the Public Worship Regulation Act was passed principally for the suppression of ritual, a new Judge to try ecclesiastical cases was appointed, and several ritualistic clergymen were admonished, suspended, and even imprisoned. The offending denes for the most part refused to recognise the authority of a temporal Court in such matters, and so added yet another to the arguments advanced in favour of separating Church and State. Of late these cases had become less frequent, but in loW Bishop King, of Lincoln, was tried in the Archbishops' Court for ritualism, and only two of his pratices were condemned. The antagonism between the two parties was growing less and the Ritualists were distinctly gaining ground when the strife arose once more, and a loud protest is now being raised against the Romanising tendencies of the High Church clergy. The fact that there are occasional secessions from the ranks of the Ritualists to the Roman Church has aroused an uneasy feeling in the minds of Protestant Churchmen that the whole movement is Romewards. Excesses of ritual beyond the rubrics will probably be suppressed, but if either party in the Church carries its views too far a disruption must ensue. The English Church lacks the uniformity and the discipline of the Roman Communion, but it is, in spite of its weakness, a more strictly catholic organisation, inasmuch as it can embrace elements so various. Unless there is a certain amount of give and take on both sides the future of the Anglican Communion is not to all appearances a bright one. It may be that in its old form it has almost done its work, and that the present trouble may be the prelude to a more democratic institution in closer touch with the spirit of the age. __________•.