New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-08-12
FEDERATION IN Tue ENGLISH CHURCH.


The recent speech in the House of Lords by
DR.. Temple the Archbishop Of Canterbury. on
federation has excited widespread attention,
and deservedly so. In the course of a debate
on the Church Lord Portsmouth asked the
Prime Minister if he was prepared TO put in
force a resolution adopted some time ago to
the effect that If the Bishops could not keep
order in the Church further legislation by Par
lament would be necessary. The question, of
course, had reference to the recent agitation
against ritual and to the reported determination
of some Anglican clergymen to disObey the
Judgment of the Archbishops against certain
practices. There has always, indeed been
widespread diversity of belief and practice in
the Anglican Church. and the necessity for the
widest liberation has generally been recognized
by its leaders. But this latitudnarian attitude
of the Church. as it is called, dlspleases the
strict Churchmen of all schools. They believe
that the Church should authoritatively decide
every disputed question Of doctrine and ritual
that comes up, and then proceed to expel from
membership every one who refuses to accept
its decision. In theory this is a short and easy
method of procedure, but. as every intelligent
man knows, it would speedily disrupt the
Church. which would resolve itself into a num-
Der of little sects, each claiming an exclusive
divine commission,
DR.. Temple Is, however. too much of states
man to have any sympathy with such policy.
Whatever we are to do" he said, when Lord
Salisbury requested him to reply to the ques-
ton Of Lord Portsmouth, I'VE ought to take
care that we do not narrow the Church of
England. 1t rests upon the right and duty of
private judgment. which requires that men
shall conscientiously accept her teaching. 1t
''is based upon the superstition that men shall
think for themselves. You cannot have
Church where the basis is of this character and
Eat the same time say that diversities of
"opnion are not to be allowed. The one inevi-
"tably follows from the other. There must be
"a wide diversion of opinion If the Church of
England is to hold her place" Then he went
on TO say that in his opinion the Bishops would
be able by the exercise of a wise tolerance to
deal with all disputed questions that might
arise
Formally this utterance Is an admon1ton
addressed equally to both the parties that are
contendng for mastery in the Church. But in
point Of fact 1t bears most hardly against the
Anglo-C Catholics. For 1t asserts the right Of
private Judgment which they deny, and which
moreover, is really the fundamental tenet of
the Protestant party in the Church. So long as
the policy of the Archbishop remains the policy
of the English Church Professionalism will be
the dominating tendency in the Church, DO
matter how strong ritualism may happen to be-
For, however much rituallsm may grow, its
growth will be inconclusive If the Church Off
cially declares that the doctrines which 1t
regards as fundamental are merely matters Of
opinion as to which good Church members may
be allowed to differ.
The Anglo-Catholic party is also handicapped
In another way. The system of doctrine and
ritual for which it stands is really a sort of
mosaic pieced together with more or less skill
by its leaders, but lacking any official eccle-
siastical imprimatur. Various rites, ceremonies,
customs and teachings have been dug up from
different ages of the Church and arbitrarily
declared part Of the Catholic deposit of faith
by the leaders of the Catholic movement But
no Pope or council has ever passed them,
and, though a sort of uniformity of doctrine and
ritual has grown up in the Catholic party, it
really rests nothing more substantial than
the ipse dixit of its leaders. whose principle
has been that antiquity proves the truth of a
doctrine or rite. Obviously, however, that
principle is fraught with danger; for a Jealous
Protestant might unearth some doctrines and
ceremonies that no good AnglO-CathOlic would
stand for Besides, the Catholic movement
| being the work of individuals in the Church.
and not of the Church itself, 1t is the outcome
of the very right of private judgment which in
Professionalism it severely condemns
|