differ even in matters of public worship, and all tastes should have scope, within reasonable limits, in a national Church. Let therefore a wide latitude be conceded where clergy and congregations are of one mind. Above all, let us have charity; let us mutually seek points of agreement rather than of difference; let us try to understand one another's meaning and aims, and let us cease to call each other names and impute dishonourable motives. And then, perhaps, we may see, even on the near horizon, the foregleams of the day when Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.' For indeed I believe that there is far more real unity among us than appears on the surface; that under varying phraseology we often mean the same thing. A terrible responsibility lies on any who deliberately or heedlessly help to widen instead of closing the breach. It seems to me impossible to follow carefully the history of the Church of England through all its vicissitudes without recognising the hand of a guiding Providence leading it by devious ways towards a predestined end. The striking passage in which the Ultramontane De Maistre gave expression to that feeling has often been quoted. 'If Christians,' he said, 'are ever to be drawn towards each other, it seems that the initiative must come from the Church of England. Presbyterianism was French in its origin, and was consequently marked by exaggeration,' and lacking in adaptability. But the Anglican Church touches us with one hand, and with the other touches those whom we cannot reach.' And therefore this uncompromising Papalist saw, and had the candour to avow, that the Church of England is very precious' as a mediator in the reunion of Christendom; and he compares her to one of those chemical intermediaries capable of uniting elements which are mutually repellent.' ' Let us beware then of putting obstacles in the way of God's purposes. Little as they know it, those who would sever the Church of England of our day from the Church which, with all its faults and shortcomings, has played so great a part in the development of our nation from its origin till now, are doing their best to defeat that destiny which an alien and opponent discerned among the omens of her future. The English language and the AngloSaxon race are overrunning the world,' says Cardinal Newman in one of his charming Essays. Let us then be patient meanwhile and try to bear one another's burdens.' He that believeth shall not make haste.' Spartam nactus es, hanc exorna. 1 Considérations sur la France, ch. ii. 553 CHAPTER XIII THE LAMBETH DECISIONS1 THE high personal character and ability of each of our Primates, not less than their exalted position, claim for their recent decisions the most filial and dutiful consideration on the part of their clergy. Those immediately affected by the decisions are only the few who pleaded before their Graces at Lambeth, and in a secondary degree those who practise the usages which their Graces have pronounced illegal. But the whole Church is affected by the reasons on which the Archbishops have based their decisions. Out of various courses which were open to them it seems to me-if I may presume to say so-that they have chosen the one which makes the duty of obedience unnecessarily hard. If, declining the task of legal and historical criticism, they had entreated the clergy, in view of the present distress and for the sake of peace and the welfare of the Church, to discontinue the liturgical use of incense, till a more propitious I use the word 'decisions' here and elsewhere in the popular, not technical, sense. The Lambeth decisions have not, and do not profess to have, any legal value. 2 I say nothing about lights in processions, which stand on quite a different basis from incense and reservation. season, and left the diocesan in each case to regulate the practice of reservation for the communion of the sick, it is probable that such an appeal would have secured universal submission. Obedience might have been unpalatable and painful to some, but it would have presented no difficulty to conscience, nor raised any question of principle or conflicting duties. As it is, the Archbishops have entangled themselves unnecessarily in the meshes of an argument which is entirely historical and legal, and entitled on that ground to no more authority than belongs to its intrinsic value. The appeal which they make to the clergy is addressed less to the conscience than to the understanding, and thus claims the assent of the intellect to the validity of an historical conclusion rather than the submission of the will to a godly admonition from those who are entitled to give it. To obey a godly admonition is one thing; to admit the accuracy of an historical conclusion is quite another. Submission may be a duty in the one case, and a betrayal of duty in the other. It is of course the duty of the clergy to receive with all deference and dutifulness the appeal which the Archbishops have made to them at the close of their historico-legal arguments; but those arguments challenge the honest criticism of all loyal Churchmen, for they make assumptions and lay down principles and canons of interpretation which go far beyond the usages in debate, and may, if we silently acquiesce in them, seriously damage the historical position and Providential mission of the Church of England. I propose, therefore, to examine, with all respect and reverence, the grounds on which their Graces have based their decisions. And I begin with some preliminary observations. 1. The Archbishops have not condemned the liturgical use of incense or reservation of the Sacrament for the communion of the sick as things evil in themselves; on the contrary, they commend both usages in the following words : We are far from saying that incense in itself is an unsuitable or undesirable accompaniment to Divine worship. The injunction for its use by Divine authority in the Jewish Church would alone forbid such a conclusion.1 Similarly as to the question of reservation. The Primate, after admitting that the practice had the full sanction of the Primitive Church, says : This shows that such a practice was quite consistent with the Christian faith, and there was nothing in it that was wrong in itself. In addition to this the Canon of Nicæa is quoted which requires that care should be taken that the dying shall not be deprived of the Communion before death. And it may justly be said that this puts an emphasis on the importance of a practice which facilitates the communion of the sick.2 The Primate indeed thinks that there were, and are, 'other modes by which the canon could be observed,' which of course is true in general, but does not invalidate his Grace's admission that the The Archbishops on the Liturgical Use of Incense, p. 13. |