New-York tribune., 1901-12-02
cBTPCH ATTENDANCE N ENGLAND.

The decline in church attendance In England
Scotland and even Ireland has become so great
that the question Is up for discussion In every
religious gathering, and many OF the papers are
publishing numerous letters on the subject 1t
would. of course be too much to expect any
clear explanation of the decline In church at-
tendance, much less any certain remedy TOT
the same AS a rule, the writers touch only
the obvious features OF the case, and the RENE
dies they nropose are valueless for the simple
reason that they cannot possibly he applied, as
in the case OF one earnest parson who declared
that If all the people would only become I'M
pressed with the solemn duty OF going TO
church the vexed problem would at once be
solved And his discovery OF this momentous
fact appeared almost to make him happy
But If such suggestions individually con-
tribute little wisdom to the discussion in the
apqrepate they often throw much light on ques-
tions III ke that OF church attendance The let
ters Of which we have spoken, for instance,
show that the decline in church attendance mas
not been confined TO any one denomination or
church party High Low and Broad Anglcans
as well rs all the Nonconformlst bodies confess
to a falling off In attendance This Is the more
notable in the case of the High Churchmen, Tor
they have always maintained that n rituallStlc
service was certain to attract worshippers who
would be repealed by the coldness and baroness
of Protestant worship. The facts, however. DO
not seem to bear out this theory. The Rev Drs.
Spurcnon and Joseph Parker, OF London, two
well known Nonconformist ministers. nave
crowded churches every Sunday, though their
service is OF the simplest character. while IL is
said that some rtuallstlc churches. in spite of
the most spectacular ritual and hardly any
preaching. have plenty Of vacant pews or
benches every Sunday. 1t is. indeed, the opinion
of the vicar of st. Marys, Huntingdon Eng
land that the people stay away from the Angli-
can Church because its forInularies "brste
with archaisms." He thinks the Prayer Book
Is to many people a hindrance rather than n
! help, and he calls for a larger liberty in its
use; but he is as the voice of one crying in the
wilderness.
Another view brought out is that the Church.
and more especially the clergy, have always ar
rayed themselves against progress and science,
only setting themselves right when the people
have become too disgusted with them TO care
what they think. SO long this is the case,
declare many correspondents, there can be no
hope of retaining the allegiance of the people.
One dull witted or stodgy parsOn in commu-
nity solemnly cursing progress because he fears
1t might run athwart some hOary Church ira
dition may easily ALLEVIATE thousands of people
from the Church. And so far as the Church is
concerned, the pitiful thing is that such man
generally becomes champion for some belief
or opinion not at all essential to the Churchs
position. and perhaps really foreign to it. Pos
sibly the Church may some day pluck up cour-
age to say so. In the mean while the mischief
has been done, and the Church has suffered
once more not from its avowed enemies, but
from its unwise friends.
Stating the case broadly it may be said
thut n ppODlp refuse longer tn
go to church because they have ceased to be-
leve that they derive any benefit from church
going. Or. to put the matter somewhat differ
emily, they repudiate that conception of life
which bettles the present world and its
| Germs. To-day in their opinion, is infinitely
| more important than any possible tomorrow
beyond the grave. This really is the feeling
| that the Christian preacher must meet and con-
uuer II he would get the people back in church.