BISHOP KNOX, writing in “The Record” (21st June), says:—”We have cause for unspeakable thankfulness to Almighty God that the House of Commons has reaffirmed the Protestantism of Great Britain. This is an issue of importance to the whole of Christendom, one that involves spiritual consequences of the highest moment. It lies far deeper than controversies about externals of worship. It involves the relation between God and man, and the whole significance of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Not that the problem presented itself in this form to most Members of Parliament—perhaps only to a comparatively small number. But there was vividly present to all the antagonism between support of the Bishops and distrust of the Bishops, and the distrust was due to belief that the sympathy of the Bishops was with Anglo-Catholicism, and that Anglo-Catholicism meant repudiation of Protestantism.
“How true this instinct was, Sir Thomas Inskip’s startling revelation of his negotiations with the Archbishop made very evident. It is needless to say that the offer of Sir Thomas, backed by Sir Wm. Joynson-Hicks and the Lord Chancellor, to withdraw opposition if Perpetual Reservation were abandoned, had no support from myself or from any organisation with which I was directly or indirectly connected. But the fact remains that the offer was made, and that it was refused by the Archbishop, acting no doubt with the cognisance of the Bishops. There is no secret that the real object of Perpetual Reservation in the Church is ‘adoration,’ or in other words, ‘worship of the Sacrament.’ Here we have the plainest and most direct form of opposition between the underlying principles of Protestantism and Romanism, and a victory for Perpetual Reservation, even with the rubrical safeguards suggested, must have entailed in course of time the negation of Protestantism. The provisions for the same kind of worship, apparently overlooked by Sir T. Inskip, in the Alternative Communion Office could not have failed to have the same effect, and that in a form more forcibly pressed on the attention of congregations. We have reason to be profoundly thankful to God that the offer was rejected. At the same time, the fact that it was made and was rejected justifies overwhelmingly the action of the House of Commons, and creates a situation of supreme difficulty for the Bishops and for the Church at large. It shows that the Bishops as a whole felt themselves unable to resist the pressure of a demand for return to a practice distinctly mediæval and distinctly Roman. So long as the Bishops are under this control, they cannot be guides or rulers of a Protestant Church. They must now be aware that Great Britain will not accept a non-Protestant Church, and they have before them a choice between a break with the Anglo-Catholics and a break with the nation.”
* Though this article though being crushed out in our last number is now somewhat belated, we give it as it contains some interesting information.—Editor.
“The English Churchman,” commenting on Sir Thomas Inskip’s speech, says:—”We are deeply indebted to Sir Thomas Inskip for the part he took in the great debate. . . . But we must say that there was one rather distressing statement in his otherwise most valuable contribution. He said—’With the concurrence of the Home Secretary and the present Lord Chancellor, I went to the Archbishop of Canterbury and told him that, with whatever influence we had, we were prepared to assent to a Measure passing through this House provided it did not include this Perpetual Reservation, which is the keystone of the system. In his wisdom the Archbishop of Canterbury perhaps thought that offer unworthy of further consideration. It was honestly made. I believe if the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor and myself—I hope the House will not think this is taking too much upon us—had expressed that opinion, I believe that we should have had enough of our hon. friends to go with us to ensure the passage of such a Measure through this House of Commons.’ We can easily see the significance of that statement—and the extent of the concession which it would make to reactionary revision. It is by no means likely that those three distinguished leaders were acting in accordance with the wishes of their followers. But in any case we think that they might have consulted them before going to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Perpetual Reservation is not the only departure from God’s Word and the principles of the Reformation which the Deposited Book would allow or enjoin, and it would still be impossible for many of us to endorse it even if that were left out. We regret the necessity of alluding to this on our day of deliverance, but we fear the revival of this proposal and of the consequences that it might have.”