NON-EPISCOPAL CHURCHES 23 Episcopalian body can possibly be any part of the visible Church of God at all. This sermon stamps the Tractarian Movement from its commencement as narrow-minded and bigoted, and void of true Catholicity. The whole sermon was a glorification of the clerical order at the expense of the State. It is refreshing to turn from such assertions as those of Keble to the broad-minded and Christian charity of Dr. J. B. Sumner, Archbishop of Canterbury, who, replying to the Brighton Protestant Defence Committee, on October 13, 1851, said: "It would as little represent my sentiments, as it would ill become my station, if I should be suspected of undervaluing the perfect constitution of the Church of England. It is our great privilege to enjoy apostolical discipline, together with apostolical doctrine. But we do not disparage these advantages when we acknowledge our conviction that foreign Protestants who teach apostolical doctrine though not under apostolical discipline, may yet be owned of God as faithful Ministers of His Word and Sacraments, and enjoy His blessing on their labours."1 And there was surely much wisdom in what the late Duke of Argyll (a Presbyterian) said at a meeting in London in May 1851:-" Remember too," he said, "that in after times, when influences come to operate upon the character of the English Church, similar to those which you are dreading now, in the latter end of the reign of Elizabeth, and of the succeeding Stuarts, then was the time when there was a withdrawal of sympathy from the other non-episcopal communions. You will find as an historical fact that the feeling of sympathy with other Protestant communions, non-episcopal, was coincident with the best and most Protestant times of the Church of England, whilst the withdrawal of that sympathy was coincident with times when Romish tendencies and Romish influences began to invade that Church." 2 It seems to have been forgotten in the present day, that many of the leaders of the Tractarian party were 1 Guardian, October 29, 1851, p. 761. 2 Guardian, May 14, 1851, p. 348. from its very birth favourable to the entire separation of the Church of England from State control. Mr. F. W. Newman tells us that, on one occasion, when he visited his brother, Dr. Newman, at Birmingham, soon after the Colenso Case was ended, the future Cardinal said to him : "When in 1833 we met to start the Tracts for the Times, we thought it only prudent to be frank to one another, and we all submitted to free questioning on every important subject: among them, the Union of Church and State. To our astonishment we found that, one and all, we desired entire separation. The book on Scotch Episcopalianism (ascribed to Archbishop Whately) had converted us.' 'Is this a secret ?' asked I. 'Not at all,' was his reply, 'tell it as widely as you choose.""1 I do not wonder that Mr. F. W. Newman adds, in relating this anecdote :-" I am amused to find, that while the clergy were looking to the Puseyites as their defence against the formidable Dissenters, those very Puseyites were on the side of the foe." In his Apologia, Newman admits that Whately fixed in his mind "those anti-Erastian views of Church polity which were one of the most prominent features of the Tractarian Movement," and that his work on Scotch Episcopalianism "had a gradual but a deep effect" upon his mind. And yet, on August 14, 1833, Mr. R. H. Froude was able to announce that Newman had agreed to a declaration containing the following clauses" IV. We protest against all efforts directed to the subversion of existing institutions, or to the separation of Church and State; V. We think it a duty steadily to contemplate and provide for the contingency of such a separation." Mr. Froude added:-"Keble demurs to these, because he thinks the union of Church and State, as it is now understood, actually sinful." The Rev. William Palmer, of Worcester College, Oxford, who was for several years a leader of the Tractarian party until its rapid 1 The Early History of Cardinal Newman, p. 37. 2 Apologia, pp. 69, 71. A Collection of Papers Connected with the Theological Movement of 1833. By the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Percival, 2nd edition, p. 12. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 25 progress towards Romanism alarmed him, states that at the commencement of the movement "there was some difference of opinion on the question of the union of Church and State, which some of our friends seemed inclined to regard as an evil; while I (and perhaps another), was desirous to maintain this union." 1 This statement shows that only one or perhaps two of the party were in favour of the union of Church and State. Mr. Froude himself seems to have anticipated a separation, and to have looked forward to it with hope. Writing from Rome, March 16, 1833, he remarks:-"To be sure it would be a great thing to have a true Church in Germany; in Scotland it seems to be thriving, and if the State will but kick us off we may yet do in England." In the following August Froude wrote to another friend mentioning that a sermon which he had written had met with strong approbation from an unnamed gentleman, and adding : "2 "My subject is the duty of contemplating the contingency of a separation between Church and State, and of providing against it, i.e. by studying the principles of ecclesiastical subordination, so that when the law of the land ceases to enforce this, we may have a law within ourselves to supply its place." 3 Although, as we have seen, early in August, Newman had agreed to a protest against efforts being put forth for "the separation of Church and State," yet, on the 31st of the same month, he wrote a letter to an intimate friend, Mr. J. W. Bowden, in which, by contrast, his doubledealing is clearly revealed: "Not," wrote Newman, "that I would advocate a separation of Church and State unless the nation does more tyrannical things against us; but I do feel I should be glad if it were done and over, much as the nation would lose by it, for I fear the Church is being corrupted by the union." 4 1 Narrative of Events Connected with the Tracts for the Times. By William Palmer, edition 1883, p. 103. 2 Froude's Remains, vol. i. p. 302. Ibid. p. 323. Newman's Letters, vol. i. p. 449. What the Tractarian party, as a whole, seemed to desire in the relations of Church and State was, perhaps, accurately expressed in No. 59 of the Tracts for the Times, dated April 25, 1835, and written by Mr. R. H. Froude. It pleads for "State Protection" for the Church, and protests against "State Interference" with its concerns. The early Tractarians were alarmed at what seemed to them the increasing encroachments of the State on the province of the Church. They believed that the Government of the day were in favour of a Revision of the Liturgy with a view to a comprehension of Dissenters within the pale of the Established Church; and they were certainly made extremely angry by the publication of Dr. Arnold's pamphlet on Principles of Church Reform, which was issued from the press early in 1833, and obtained a very large circulation. It created a great sensation by its daring proposal to "extinguish Dissent" "by comprehension." Apart from the main object of the pamphlet, it contained several expressions which must have been peculiarly distasteful to the rising party of Sacerdotalists. In it Dr. Arnold declared that Christianity "has provided in the strongest manner against superstition and priestcraft "; and he expressed himself as "ashamed" of "the petty tyranny of Laud"; affirming that "the mischievous confusion of the Christian ministry with a priesthood, that anything can be lawful for a Christian layman which is unlawful for a Christian minister," was "a most groundless superstition." 2 3 "I may be allowed to express an earnest hope," wrote Dr. Arnold, "that if ever an union with Dissenters be attempted, and it should thus become necessary to alter our present terms of communion, the determining on the alterations to be made should never be committed to a Convocation, or to any commission consisting of clergymen alone. . . . Laymen have no right to shift from their own shoulders an important part of Christian responsibility; and as no educated layman individually is justified in taking his own faith upon 1 Principles of Church Reform. By Thomas Arnold, D.D., Head Master of Rugby School. London: B. Fellowes. 1833. 2 Ibid. 2nd edition, p. 11. • Ibid. p. 62. 3 Ibid. p. 20. DR. ARNOLD ON CHURCH REFORM 27 trust from a clergyman, so neither are the laity, as a body, warranted in taking the national faith in the same way. If ever it should be thought right to appoint commissioners to revise the Articles, it is of paramount importance, in order to save the plan from utter failure, that a sufficient number of laymen, distinguished for their piety and enlarged views, should be added to the ecclesiastical members of the commission." 1 I do not wonder that such assertions, and such proposals, made the Tractarians furious with Dr. Arnold. It must be admitted that there were valid objections against certain portions of his scheme of Church Reform. What he really aimed at was to turn the Church of England into a kind of ecclesiastical Noah's Ark, in which its inmates, however, would remain untamed. A plan for including the orthodox Nonconformists only in the Establishment would no doubt have secured the support of many members of the Church of England. In the reign of William III. a scheme of comprehension was drawn up by a Royal Commission, consisting of the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Winchester, St. Asaph, Rochester, Carlisle, Exeter, Salisbury, Bangor, and Chester, and a large number of lesser Dignitaries and Divines; but unfortunately it was eventually defeated. Dr. Arnold's scheme was far more Latitudinarian than that which was proposed in the reign of William III.; for it aimed at including Unitarians and Romanists also; and treated Christian doctrine as a matter of little or no importance. "Might it not be possible," asked Dr. Arnold, "to constitute a Church thoroughly national, thoroughly united, thoroughly Christian, which should allow great varieties of opinion, and of ceremonies, and forms of worship, according to the various knowledge, and habits, and tempers of its members, while it truly held one common faith, and trusted in one common Saviour, and worshipped one common God?" 2 As to Quakers, Roman Catholics, and Unitarians, Dr. Arnold admitted that their "differences appear to offer greater difficulty" than those amongst ordinary Dis 1 Arnold's Principles of Church Reform, pp. 80, 81. |