Page images
PDF
EPUB

BLACKWOOD'S MAGAZINE.

No. MCLX.

JUNE 1912.

VOL. CXCI.

CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.

"If you raise the question of the Church in Wales, you raise the whole question."—Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, March 9, 1886.

in a capacity to realise all the facts." In the teeth of these admitted facts, would it be wise statesmanship to destroy the existing Establishment, even if it had been proved that the adherents of the Church of England include less than half the inhabitants of Wales?

However, in the case of Wales

has not been made out, for in 1905, the year of the great religious revival in Wales, the "all-inclusive" total of the

IT is urged that the Church in Wales ought to be disestablished because it numbers among its adherents less than half the inhabitants of the Principality. Even if this allegation had been proved, it by no means follows that the premises would justify the conclusion, for, as Lord Macaulay pointed out long ago, "the the "argument from numbers" effective strength of sects is not to be ascertained merely by counting heads." It is admitted that the Church is the largest religious body in Wales; that it is an active Church; that in many rural parishes it provides the only minister of religion; that its members are increasing, while Nonconformity is on the downward grade, and, whether the Church of England is disestablished or not, that no other religious body in Wales is competent or willing to undertake the obligations of a National Church. "Wisdom," it is said, "consists VOL. CXCI.-NO. MCLX.

four dissenting bodies amounted to 1,032,254, and, with the addition of a further 100,000 to include smaller denominations, the total strength of religious bodies other than the Established Church was in that year approximately 1,140,000. Since that date the figures of the Nonconformist denominations show that their numbers have decreased, although in 1911 the population of Wales had increased to 2,442,000. In these

3 E

circumstances, how can it be asserted, with any regard to accuracy, that the Church of England numbers less than half the population of Wales? In one one way the respective strength of the several denominations can approximately be ascertained, namely, by taking a religious census of the people,-a course consistently, and probably wisely, opposed by the enemies of the Established Church. In the absence, therefore, of accurate statistics, the issue must be determined not by guessing numbers, but by considering the principles which underlie the establishment of a National Church. For this reason, the meaning and effect of the attack which the Radical Government has launched against the Church of England in Wales is seldom appreciated. The promoters of a movement which has for its immediate object the disestablishment and disendowment of the four Welsh Dioceses are wont to remind their hearers that they have "no quarrel with the Church of England."

Mr M'Kenna, speaking at the Queen's Hall on January 25, 1912, said: "Again and again we must insist that our proposal is limited to severing the political tie between Church and State in Wales"; and again, "In dealing with disestablishment, let me say at once that I shall confine myself strictly to the case in Wales." Such asseverations are both inaccurate and disingenuous: inaccurate, because twenty-four parishes in England are included in the scheme of the

present Bill; and disingenuous, because Radicals believe in the nationalisation of Church property with just as much sincerity as they believe in the nationalisation of land, but in each case they are content to see "nationalisation proceed by easy stages." They desire the dismemberment of the Church of England as a whole, but rather than disclose their ultimate objective for all to see, they endeavour to veil their scheme by attacking, in the first instance, the Welsh Dioceses. This may be good tactics, and no one denies that Radicals are "wise in their own generation," but in truth, the principles under which the rights, privileges, and possessions of the Church of England are secured apply with equal force not only to the Church in Wales or in England, but to all religious Establishments, and it must always be remembered that so soon as the outworks are carried an assault upon the main citadel will surely follow, and the attack upon the Church as a whole will be based upon the precedent and fortified by the principles which will have been created by the dismemberment of the four Dioceses of the Church of England in Wales. The unity of the Church has been complete for eight centuries. Upon this matter every historian is agreed, but if authority is necessary, it will suffice to recall the words of Mr Gladstone: "As regards the identity of these churches, the whole system of known law, usage, and history has made them completely one.

at all.

There is a complete ecclesi- mention the threatened disastical, constitutional, legal, establishment of the Church and I may add, for every practical purpose, historical identity between the Church in Wales and the rest of the Church of England. I think it is practically impossible to separate the case of Wales from that of England."

[merged small][ocr errors]

The questions which fall to be decided are, ought the Church (1) to be disestablished, (2) to be disendowed?

Now the two questions are quite distinct in themselves, for the Church was not established by being endowed, nor was it endowed by being established, and yet, by a curious association of ideas, problems distinct in themselves are so constantly linked together in the minds of the people that the decision in one case would probably be held to cover and control the answer which has to be given in the other. Under these circumstances one would expect to find that the defence of the Church would be framed under both heads, but in point of fact this is not found to be the case, for supporters of the Church usually confine such observations as they make on the subject to an attack upon the disendowment proposals, and seldom, if ever,

It is an unfortunate error in tactics, and one which goes far to account for the lukewarm reception which usually awaits arguments urged in favour of the Established Church, although the reason why this course is followed, and why it is urged by many leaders of Anglicanism, is not far to seek. It lies in the fact that while, apart altogether from religion, the plain man can follow an argument based upon the spoliation of ecclesiastical endowments held under a possessory, if not a statutory title, of nearly a thousand years, it is hardly to be expected that laymen will place much store upon the continuance of the Establishment, so long as the principle which underlies the system receives only halfhearted support from many ecclesiastical and spiritual leaders. The truth is, that division among the clergy has created indifference among the laity, and has prompted the Church's defenders to leave in its scabbard the most potent weapon in their armoury, for a Church divided against itself cannot stand, and the dissensions by which those who should be its natural protectors are torn asunder have rendered a thousandfold more difficult the task of repelling attacks from Nonconformist and secularist quarters. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

The disendowment of ecclesiastical corporations which admittedly are carrying out their proper functions is, of course,

66

quite indefensible upon any ground either of law or of morality; but the appeal which arguments based upon rights of property would otherwise make is apt to lose force when urged in support of ecclesiastical corporations, for it seems almost repugnant to the lay mind that the clergy should place such great store upon retaining their merely material possessions; and so it happens that the defence of the Established Church based solely upon rights of property is property is seldom urged with conviction, and seldom received with marked enthusiasm. To the plain man disendowment merely means plundering the parson"; disestablishment means nothing at all; but by those who appreciate the purpose of a Church Establishment, a line of defence at once more cogent and more profound can be seen, a defence which is relevant both to Endowment and to Establishment, and which sees in Endowment the means whereby alone the principle underlying Establishment can be carried out, namely, that it is the duty of a Christian State to protect the resources of that denomination to which it has intrusted the obligation of providing the means of grace for all those who desire to receive them. Let the people understand how greatly they benefit under a National Church, and it will be found that a weapon far stronger than an appeal merely to protect rights of ownership has been placed in the hands of the Church's supporters: the scene of battle will veer from dis

endowment towards disestablishment, and the vital issue will be seen to depend upon the answer which is to be given to this question-Is it desirable that a State as such should recognise religion? Now there are two principles which underlie the establishment of a National Church, the second being consequent upon the first :

(1) The State as such should recognise that every national act should be a religious and a Christian act.

(2) As national character depends upon the character of the individual citizens, all parishioners should possess a legal right to receive the means of Christian grace through the ministers of that body which, in the opinion of the State, is best fitted to expound the true doctrine of Christianity.

Mr Disraeli, speaking upon the proposed Disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1868, said: "What I understand by the Union of Church and State is an arrangement which renders the State religious by investing authority with the highest sanctions that can influence the sentiments and convictions, and consequently the conduct, of the subject; while on the other hand it renders the Church-using that epithet in its noblest and purest sense

political, that is to say, it blends civil authority with ecclesiastical influence, it defines and defends the rights of the laity, and prevents the Church from subsiding into a sacerdotal corporation."

Who can doubt that the State as such should recognise

religion? It is of course objected that "the religion of a nation can be nothing else than the religion of the individuals who make up the nation," and that statement is true, if all that is meant by it is that the State is no more and no less than the sum of the individuals who compose it, but it is profoundly untrue if it means that the State as such should have no religion at all. Is the State through Parliament justified in promoting the intellectual, the moral, or the hygienic development of its citizens, and at the same time bound to refuse to recognise the value of a religious upbringing, and the paramount importance of education in Christian principles and piety? The truth is that a State can no more escape from religion than can an individual. Just as the man who lives a moral life is enabled to do so because he has inherited moral instincts which are the outcome of a thousand years of Christian principle and discipline (however strenuously he may assert that Christianity has in no way influenced his life), so it is impossible for a State to be wisely and morally administered unless its Government as such recognises those religious principles which underlie all right action.

No one denies that the State should interest itself in the physical development of the people. But is bodily health more important to a nation than spiritual wellbeing? Nay, even on the lower ground of political expediency, is it not desirable that the State as such should recognise the

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Are not the domestic troubles which harass our land due largely to want of sympathy and the absence among all classes of the discipline of selfcontrol and the sense of responsibility? What is the use of collective bargaining if agreements are not to be kept? What is the use of attempting to govern a people by means of a policy which sets one class against another? Individuals in their private capacity are fully alive to the moral danger ahead, and they are equally conscious that the spirit of sympathy and self-sacrifice can only be re-engendered by inculcating into the hearts of the people Christian ideals and religious principles. Is the State in its corporate capacity

« PreviousContinue »