FROM time to time in our Notes and Comments attention has been called to happenings in the ecclesiastical and theological worlds that are anything but encouraging to those who believe in the truth of God as it is presented in the Scriptures. We do not mean to say that the doings or utterances of a number of extremists should be taken as the standard by which to judge the denomination to which they belong, but we do hold that the views and opinions of these extremists if tolerated only, to say nothing of being supported, range the denomination to which they belong on the side of error. No church or denomination worthy of the name, and professing to be a witness for Christ in the world, will tolerate her paid servants to teach what is clearly in contradiction to her received standards. Discipline in the State, in the home, and in the Church, though too often flouted in our day as a relic of the past, is too precious a weapon to be thoughtlessly relegated to the lumber heap of cast-away things, and the Church that is willing to cast discipline of a scriptural kind to the four winds of heaven in the name of the broader charity, more pleasing to the delinquents and the world, is forgetful of her God-given privileges and rights. In the present amazing welter of matters ecclesiastical the Church of England has received prominent attention in the press—even our Scottish leading dailies have devoted considerable space to the happenings at various Church of England Conferences. This may to a certain extent be due to the publicity given to the debates in Parliament on the Prayer Book. But apart altogether from this the Church of England is the most powerful national Church in the British Empire, and when we say the most powerful we use the term in its worldly connotation, not in its spiritual. It is not simply a denomination but a Church recognised by the Parliament of Great Britain. Its doings and its decisions, therefore, have an interest to the nation at large. The question whether the Church of England is fulfilling the functions of a true Church of Christ is a question on which we do not enter at present, our main purpose is to show that she is tolerating a system of things within her borders that would be regarded as sheer anarchy in the State. Take for instance, the decision of the Bishops to allow the Rejected Prayer Book to be used notwithstanding the adverse decisions of the House of Commons, for though the Bishops certainly issue that permission with a qualification, the fact remains that the very men who occupy their positions on the Episcopal bench to the Crown are flouting the State in its legislative representatives in promulgating this decision. There is a possibility that this action of the Bishops may lead to the dis-establishment of the Church, for which many in England are crying.
Then in matters of doctrine there are what Patrick Walker termed right-hand and left-hand declensions. The Modernists are now a rather formidable body within the Church, and they are making themselves heard, not only at their own special Conference, but even in the Church Congress prominent places were assigned to such men as Bishop Barnes, Dean Inge, Canon Streeter, and Dr Major. In the Modernist Conference strong, and sometimes stupid, things were said. A young clergyman—Mr Allen—who has scarcely cut his theological teeth, spoke with all the dogmatism of an iconoclast smashing some of the beliefs that had hitherto been most firmly believed. But it was at the Church Congress held at Cheltenham that the Modernists came out strong, notwithstanding the vigorous protest of Lord Halifax at the English Church Union meeting. Canon Streeter, without a blush, stood up before the large gathering of churchmen and delivered himself after this fashion: “Modernists are a group of persons who, looking round on a civilisation that is likely to perish for lack of a religion, wish to offer it a religion which is intellectually a possible one. The Modernists believed that the Church should try to make its theology intellectually the best possible, and having done so, should popularise the results. “For the discussion of moral and religious questions,” added the Canon, “the younger generation of the class sufficiently educated to enjoy plays and novels and not wholly frivolous are largely dependent on writers like Mr Bernard Shaw and Mr H. G. Wells. and since so many people do go to Mr Wells for their theology you will, I think, agree with me that it is a matter for congratulation that, taken over a period of years, Mr Wells’s theology has steadily improved. Anyone who aspires to present these people with a theology which he believes to be superior philosophically or ethically to that of Mr Wells must imitate Mr Wells to the extent of thinking, writing, and preaching in the language of the contemporary world, and he must express himself in relation to its conceptions.” The Modernists are on a vain pursuit if they are out to satisfy the intellect. It is the heart that is the seat of the trouble, and no theology that begins with the head will be of any avail. The Holy Spirit in His divine work within we dare not ignore. And has it come to this that a dignitary of the great Church of England has, and advises others, to take Mr H. G. Wells, that writer whose vagrant imagination may do well enough in fiction, but which has no right to invade the more serious realm of history, to say nothing of theology. Dean Inge, while putting in a caveat against deifying evolution, has no difficulty in accepting it as an explanation of God’s marvellous universe. Bishop Barnes and Dr Major, head of Ripon Hall, Oxford, as thorough-going Modernists, had also a place assigned to them and read papers at the Congress. The Congress started badly in the presidential address, when Dr Headlam, Bishop of Gloucester, expressed regret that no representative from the Roman Catholic Church was present. When one reads such utterances, is it any wonder that a feeling of dismay steals over one. No doubt the leaven has been at work for years that is now manifesting its presence. This Magazine has always taken a keen interest in the struggle waged by the Protestant party in the Church of England against the Romanisers and its effort to keep our people enlightened as to the happenings in that Church is to let them know the evil fruits reaped from small beginnings of departure from creedal statements and solemn ordination promises. What the end may be no one can foretell, but we cannot help feeling for the great number of God-fearing people within that Church who are at their wits’ end what to do. Viewed from our standpoint, their course is plain and clear, viz., to make it undubitably clear to those in authority that if such disloyalty to the truths of God and the Reformation attainments are tolerated then there is no other course open to them as loyal Christians and true Protestants but to take the drastic step of separation from the Church of England. At some later date we hope to have an opportunity of reviewing the religious and ecclesiastical situation as it affects Scotland, the land in which we have a more immediate interest.