Page images
PDF
EPUB

has possessed, and may yet achieve even nobler things than she has presented to us. These three, however, Tennyson and the Brownings (as we may now call them), possess in common a peculiar aristocratic grace and refinement, never perhaps exhibited in such an eminent degree, save by the ever matchless Shakspeare; and a certain deep pathos is also common to them, together with a general reality, of a kind which is almost new to poetry. They are not devoid of faults; and are addicted in some degree to the use of a marked phraseology of their own, which may be thought conventional. But, after all, we scarcely know how to blame this, since we believe it is natural to them.

ART. VII-A Letter to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury on the Actual Relations between Church and State. By the Hon. RICHARD CAVENDISH. Suggested by Mr. Baptist Noel's Essay. London: Ollivier.

THE relations between Church and State constitute the great question of the present day, as they have for the last fifty years, and as they will probably for the next fifty. The adjustment of these relations, either by the entire prostration of the Church under the power and influence of a State altogether devoid of religion, or else by the liberation of the Church from many of those restraints which a Christian State placed upon her actions, will probably, sooner or later, take place. Whatever may be our views of the desirableness of maintaining those relations between Church and State which commenced with the Christianity of England, and which received their present shape at the Reformation, there is a party which must be consulted in the matter, and which holds no inconsiderable power; and that party is no other than the State itself. We may talk as much as we please of the duty of the State to be united with the Church. We may theorize away on the identity of Church and State, asserting as much as we please, that the State is imperfect if it be not another phase of the Christian Church. We may talk of the State possessing a conscience, and being bound to uphold the truth. But what, if the State is perfectly indifferent to all our arguments, and our wishes, and our theories? What, if the State lends itself to the views of a large portion of the community amongst us, who are always asserting that the State has nothing whatever to do with religion-that it has no business to support any Established Church-that it has no right to make a choice among religious systems-that its duty is to remain perfectly neutral-to discourage no error or unbelief-to leave religion to maintain and uphold itself-or to extend equal favour and power to all sects? We may protest against all this, and say that it is very wrong— very unchristian-and so forth;-but if it goes on notwithstanding; if it is a clear and positive fact, that the State is under the influence of such views, and not under the influence of such principles as we believe to be right—would it not be a very unwise proceeding on our part to ignore the facts of the case, and shut our eyes to the actual steps which are leading to the overthrow of all that we hold right and necessary?

And, again-By what modes and in what ways are we, as practical men, to produce an alteration in the present state of things, so as to avoid the ruin which it threatens to bring down on us?

The broad and simple facts of the case are these. The State, in the time of Henry VIII. and during the reigns of the Tudor and Stuart dynasties, i. e. up to the period of the Revolution of 1688, allied the Church to itself by the closest ties, with a view of governing the country by means of it. The State was so closely attached to the Church, that it interfered in its internal arrangements, was assiduous in promoting its efficiency, and endeavoured by statutes, and by all means in its power, to make the Church co-extensive with the nation. Failing in this attempt, through the intrigues of Romanists backed by foreign aid, and the turbulence of puritans and other sectarians which issued in a civil war and the subversion of the government, the State at length, in the reign of King William, adopted the principle of toleration (which James II. had sought to introduce for the benefit of the Church of Rome); and the Dissenters (with the exception of Romanists and Socinians) were freed from all penalties. Here was a very great change in the relations of Church and State. The moment that the toleration of Dissenters from the Church of England was conceded by Government, it was plain, that the State no longer could regard the Church as the sole instrument for promoting the religious welfare of the country and the security of the State. Other bodies were recognized at once as undeserving of blame, and as possessed of power. The State ceased at that moment to be connected as it had been with the Church. It had failed in creating uniformity: it was obliged to recognize diversity of discipline and creeds.

From that time the State became latitudinarian in its character. The latitudinarian Tennison occupied the Primacy. The latitudinarian divines were in favour. The State became indifferent to the order and discipline of the Church; and hence, on slight and insufficient pretexts, the Convocation of the Church of England was prohibited from exercising its functions. The bishoprics and other benefices of the Church were permitted to fall into the hands of the minister of the day, either as matters of private patronage, or with a view to sustain the interests of some political party.

At length a latitudinarian State, only attached to Protestantism by political motives, was acted on by the ideas which arose from the fermentation of the French Revolution. Hence arose the continued struggles of sectarian bodies, such as the Romanists, to subvert the exclusive privileges held by the Established Church;

or to gain an equality of status for themselves. Hence, too, the gradual relaxation of all those laws which had fenced in the prerogatives of the Church of England, and the diminution or withdrawal of the aid which had formerly been extended to Church objects. The whole course of the State in England, since the epoch of the French Revolution, exhibits the spectacle of a Government without any strong religious principles, acted on by the persevering energies and activities of certain classes for the advancement of their own designs. The State had no power of resisting these efforts, because it had no deep principle to fall back upon. It possessed no conscience of its own, and, therefore, could not consistently reject the demands of alleged conscience. It had relinquished the old principle which connected its support of the Church of England with its own religious tenets: the statesmen of the nineteenth century, into whose hands the power once exercised by the Sovereigns of England had fallen, were not, like the Tudors and the Stuarts, bound by their own convictions, or, at least, by their professions and their policy, to an exclusive support of the Church, as the way of truth. Fifty years have exhibited the steady progress of a latitudinarian State in the direction of evil, and not of good. The statesman of the present day, who might feel disposed to act on higher and more Christian principle, finds himself hampered by the precedents of 160 years. The whole course of legislation sets in one direction; the spirit of the age sets in one direction. Each statesman as he rises, bends before the current. We may, and sometimes do, for a time— nay, for a long time, arrest the progress of evil in one point; but it always succeeds in the long run. The State is steadily becoming more and more unchristianized.

This state of things does not arise from any specifically irreligious character amongst statesmen in the present day. When we look back upon the statesmen of Charles II., or on those of King William, or the Georges, we do not recognize in them any character, as individuals, which causes the statesmen of the present day to contrast unfavourably with them. Perhaps we may say that, at present, there is higher and purer personal character, and better individual intention, than in any former period; and yet, notwithstanding this, the whole policy in regard to Church matters, which has prevailed for the last generation or two, is decidedly and increasingly irreligious. The great cause of this alienation from a religious policy is the divided state of publie opinion throughout the empire, which the State reflects more and more; so that amidst contending forces, and directions, and impulses, the religious principle held in theory by the State

is gradually narrowed in its operation, and in many points relinquished.

To those who are really and sincerely devoted to the Church of England, as God's appointed instrument for conveying the blessings of the Gospel to this nation, the prospect before us is painful, and in many cases bewildering. Many men are unable to see their way through the difficulties presented by the existing union between a Christian Church and a State which is daily becoming more indifferent in religious matters. They see the State still in possession of the most momentous power over the Church. They see the nomination of all the Heads and Dignitaries of the Church directly or indirectly under the influence of the State. They see the Ministers of the day, who are more or less the representatives of the spirit of indifference and neutrality, invested with uncontrolled power in the selection of the Rulers and Guides of the Church. Can it be expected that statesmen will ever select bishops or dignitaries who, in their opinion, will be likely in any case in which the interests of the Church may seem to demand one course, and the interests of their political friends another, to give the preference to the Church's cause? What statesmen could be expected to seek for the appointment of such bishops as would regard their duty to God and His Church in the first place, and the welfare of the State in the second place? It would be unreasonable to expect from statesmen, to whom the interest of the State is the first consideration, to embarrass themselves or the State by the appointment of impracticable men, who were likely to give trouble by opposing themselves on religious grounds to the political projects of the day. The State possesses an enormous power over the Church in this respect: it possesses the power of neutralizing all effectual opposition to its designs from a united prelacy. It can always secure at least a division in the hierarchy. No matter how unanimous the clergy, and all other sincere members of the Church may be, the State can always manage to divide the hierarchy. It has nominated men of a certain class of mind; it has direct, personal influence over them. It can appeal to personal favours granted, and perhaps to promises and conditions made. It invests them with high temporal rank, and places them amongst the peers of the realm; and it is anxious to retain the spiritual peerage, because it is glad to have this pretext for retaining the power of choosing spiritual peers. Let that power escape from the State, and the Church would be no longer so manageable; it would have a will of its own, like other religious communities. It would be capable of union it would become an organized body with leaders, instead

« PreviousContinue »