A CURE FOR ANGLICAN ILLS

New Zealand Tablet, 1 November 1917, Page 10

A CURE FOR ANGLICAN ILLS

(By J.F.S., in the Glasgow Observer.)

A long article from the pen of a beneficed Anglican clergyman recently appeared in one of the most widely circulated provincial "dailies," and the outspoken honesty of the writer deserves careful consideration, not only from his co-religionists, but from all who detest shams, however sanctioned by the ruling powers and a long tradition of evil. The particular circumstance that has roused this good parson's desperate ire is the fact that Mr. Lloyd George, by education a Welsh Calvinist, as Prime Minister has in his hands the patronage of every see, every deanery, and some other ecclesiastical offices in the Established Church of England. The fact of royal or other secular appointment to such positions has, of course, been common in the Catholic Church ever since by the conversion of Constantine the Great the Christian faith found in a Roman Emperor a supporter instead of a persecutor. But these appointments, however arbitrary and undesirable they may often have been, were at least made by Catholic potentates, and in theory (and usually in practice) subject to the approval of the Apostolic See. Until late years, too, Anglican bishoprics and a number of preferments have at least been filled on the nomination of a Sovereign or a Prime Minister who was officially a member of the Established Church. Now and then a sincere Anglican King like Charles 1., or a sincere Anglican Minister like Mr. Gladstone or Lord Salisbury, no doubt brought his conscience, instead of mere political expediency, to bear on the choice he made. But now the gruesome fact emerges (which Catholics have all along known was inevitable) that a man of any religion, except the one Divine faith, or of none at all, may have these appointments in his hands and distribute them as he will. We are not sure, however, that were we Anglicans we should not prefer such a Nonconformist as Mr. Lloyd George as dispenser of our patronage to such nominal Anglicans as Sir Robert Walpole or Lord Palmerston, with their scandalous record of episcopal nominations. It seems, however, not only an intolerable insult to the Established Church (which should, however, be used to State contempt and tyranny by this time), but an absurd and hateful burden to lay on a Nonconformist or Agnostic Minister. What can such a statesman know or care about the interests of what is to him merely a sect with which: he has • no concern? .... The writer of the article points out that there are other officials who dispense ecclesiastical patronage, and the possibility of even a

Jew having to i exercise the very' doubtful privilege. And he gives forcible expression to the abiding Anglican complaint that Anglican doctrine and discipline is at the mercy of a Parliament consisting largely of Catholics (who, jwe may assure him, would be the last to interfere with such matters), Presbyterians and Nonconformists of all kinds, Jews and Agnostics. Poor Church of England ! We cannot but give her our sympathy, however plainly we see that all these abominations are inherent in her very being. The creature of the State, she must submit in all things to the will of the tyrant that brought her into existence, whatever form his tyranny may take in changing ages. What is her remedy ? Our excellent parson finds it in Disestablishment, which he is certain will give her the freedom that a spiritual body ought to have. For this he is quite ready to face Disendowment, thus showing a sincerity that must command our respect. Then all ecclesiastical preferment will be in ecclesiastical hands, and all will go merrily for the Tudor-made society that has so long usurped the place and the titles of the real Ecclesia Anglicana. Will anything of this kind result from the Disestablishment which is sure, sooner or later, to be her fate ? The experience of the far larger part of Anglicanism, which is not connected with the State, as in Scotland, America, and the British Dominions beyond the seas, do not afford any great hope in this direction. In no part is there real freedom, because nowhere is there real authority. Compromise on vital matters, absence of any court of appeal to decide between diametric contradictions on a hundred points, complete loss of discipline, tolerance of open denial of such foundation facts of Christianity as the Virgin Birth and Resurrection of our Divine Lord all these open sores exist everywhere, and will not be healed by Disestablishment. The evil lies far deeper. When will our good friends open their eyes to see that to break away from Catholic authority is to lose the peace and security of Catholic freedom— that the appointment of bishops and other highly-placed clergy of a Statemade Church by a Nonconformist Premier is but the just Nemesis for revolt from the pastoral rule of the Vicar of Christ.