IN a Note in our last number we commented on the issue of Lord Halifax’s Notes on the Malines Conversations, and in doing so made reference to the “Daily Telegraph’s” statement that the official Report was held over until the Deposited Prayer Book should be submitted to Parliament. Evidently Lord Halifax’s action forced the hands of the responsible authorities, with the result that before our Note was in print the official Report was issued to the public. This Report (Oxford University Press; price 2s 6d) will give the public an idea of the barefaced treachery going on in the high places of the Church of England under the cover of secrecy. At the third meeting, held with the “friendly cognizance” of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Roman See, as were all but the first, there were present representing the Church of England: Bishop Gore, the Rev. W. H. Frere (now Bishop of Truro), Dr Armitage Robinson, Dr Kidd, Warden of Keble College, Oxford, and Viscount Halifax. Now, let us look at some of the findings of this traitorous movement for the betrayal of Church of England Protestantism. “From explanations given us,” says the Report, “it is clear that the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion are not the insurmountable obstacle in the way of an understanding between the two Churches which the Roman Catholics had feared might be the case. In fact, some Anglican theologians believe that those Articles are susceptible of an interpretation which would reconcile them with the teaching of the Council of Trent. . . . Furthermore, the Anglican clergy in assenting to these Articles are no longer considered bound, as formerly, to accept all and each of the propositions which they contain.” To all of which we would say that elastic consciences can twist more rigid things than the Thirty-Nine Articles, but that does not say that their ethical standard is above the casuistry of the Jesuit. It is deplorable to read such an utterance coming from men who profess to be Christians. It is further stated that agreement was reached “without much difficulty” upon the following among others:—1. In the Eucharist [i.e., the Lord’s Supper] the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are verily given, taken, and received by the faithful. By the consecration, Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. 2. The sacrifices of the Eucharist is the same sacrifice as that of the cross, but offered in a mystical and sacramental manner. 3. Communion in both kinds was once the practice of the whole Church, but in the West communion came to be limited to one kind for practical reasons dependent upon circumstances. Consequently, in our view, communion in both kinds is not a matter of doctrine, but one of ecclesiastical discipline. 4. That the Roman See is the only historically known Apostolic See of the West; that the Bishop of Rome is, as Augustine said of Pope Innocent I., President of the Western Church; that he has a primacy among all the Bishops of Christendom; so that without communion with him there is, in fact, no prospect of a united Christendom.
If one were not aware of the mentality of the Anglo-Catholic type of mind agreement with Roman Catholics on such points would cause the greatest amazement that it was within the bounds of reason for men belonging to a Protestant Church to come to such conclusions. Is it any wonder that the Archbishop of Canterbury, if we are to accept the “Daily Telegraph’s” statement, desired to hold over this Report until the Deposited Prayer Book was presented to Parliament, and is it any wonder after the Report has been published that it has caused a storm which may sweep more than the Corrected Prayer Book before it? If the Romanisers in their fawning attitude to Rome and in this matter the two Archbishops are not guiltless, are making fools of themselves in giving up the Protestant heritage of their Church for the empty bauble of re-union with the See of Rome, the Pope is in no hurry to abandon one inch of the arrogant claims of Rome, as was made quite clear in Pius XI.’s Encyclical. It is pathetic to read of the aged Lord Halifax, now fast approaching his 90th year, rushing off to Rome to see the Pope. Lying reports were circulated of this interview; the veteran Romaniser was reported to have received the blessing of the Pope, but the “Osservatore Romano,” the official organ of the Vatican, soon gave the quietus to these lies by unfeelingly telling the world that the Pope never blessed Lord Halifax at all. But Lord Halifax need not be too much cast down over this. There are more in heaven than all the Popes can number who got there without the papal blessing, and even in spite of it.
It may be in the overruling Providence of God that the Report of the Malines Conversations was kept until now; for there can be no doubt but its publication will stiffen the Protestant opposition to the Corrected Prayer Book which has been issued by the Bishops. The changes made in the ill-fated Deposited Book are not many or very important. It is very significant that some of the leading dailies are changing their attitude to the new Prayer Book, and it may be said here in passing that the manner in which the press, Scottish and English, supported the Deposited Book said very little for its spineless Protestantism. It is not the first time that controversy over a Prayer Book shook a kingdom to its foundations, and it looks like that the Bishops were given over to strong delusion in believing that the slight changes made in the Book will placate Protestants, or influence the minds of the Commons in the great issue. The “Morning Post,” which has shown more of Protestantism in dealing with this question than so many of its contemporaries, has an excellent comment on the bearing of the Malines Conversations in the present controversy and the utter uselessness of the Bishops’ changes in the Book rejected by the Commons. We take the liberty of quoting the following from one of its recent leading articles:—
“The official publication of even a partial account of the Malines Conversations has, in the last few days, given a fresh shock to those who fear that the foundations of the Protestant Faith in this country may be undermined. Indeed, the atmosphere in which the Amended Book must seek approval where it has once found rejection seems to us less favourable to compromise than was formerly the case; and we cannot avoid a regret that the perfectly legitimate action of the House of Commons was taken up as a gage of battle by the leaders of the Established Church. The issue, however, is now decided; and the conflict must end, within a period to be numbered in weeks, either by a new and more significant rebuff to the Episcopacy, or by the passage into law of a measure which, as it stands, will offend the conscience of a very large number of loyal members of the Anglican Church. From this dilemma we see no escape. Less heroic alternatives were possible. They cannot now be of any service, and it is useless even to discuss them.”
There can be little doubt that the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury has been disastrous to the Church of England. His friendly cognizance of the Malines Conversations, his whole attitude in the Prayer Book Revision Controversy, notwithstanding all the fair promises made to placate the Protestant opposition, is too manifestly pointing in one direction to calm the dark forebodings awakened in minds that wish well to the Protestantism of the Church of England.
Our interest in this controversy is not because we believe either in the use of Prayer Books in public or private worship, or that we have sympathy with the Episcopacy of the Church of England, but because we believe a battle is being fought out in the face of the world between the forces of reactionary medievalism and Protestantism, and we are keen enough as Protestants to wish that it would prevail and Anglo-Catholicism would be overthrown. This is much more than a denominational struggle in which the contestants might say to outsiders—”Attend to your own affairs.” It is a national question, and the battle is being fought out not in a corner, but before the eyes of the whole country.