vH \ r -*- ;' ii^-7f^:^-' --i. m - 1; iU5>w8- KtAv>vUvfc. i>0- Vicar of St. James's, Hatcham, and his allies are setting themselves to accomplish with regard to' jurisdiction in spiritualibus : — "Nor let us forget the sacred rights of those who minister in our chiu'ches and at our altars. What is the faithful parish priest to do if a man or a woman who has contracted one of these marriages present himself or herself at the Lord's Table ? Can> he administer to them those Holy Mysteries ? Would he not, too, be a traitor to God and His Church, whose law is clear on this point, if he ventured to do so ? And if the Civil Power should legalize such a marriage by its authority, would he not be charged with disloyalty to his Sovereign and to the Govern- ment of his country if he refused to do so ? He would be placed in a painful dilemma ; but his course is plain. He must obey God ratliet' than men. But it will be an evil day for England when the Civil Power engages in a conflict with the Church of God, and proclaims war against the ministers of God*" (P. 27.) There are many of the clergy who have as clear an idea of their principles as they have a strong resolve to abide by them and put them into practice ; and by consequence — unless the sad alternative of disestablishment be forced on — are certain to co-operate for the repeal of the Public Worship Regulation Act. As regards efficiency in practice and working, it has failed signally. Take the Hatcham case. My clergy of England are, is recorded in history, than that which has been practically offered to us by the two Archbishops, in the peculiar character of the appointment they have thought fit to make." — Chtist or Ccesar ? A Letter to the Bishop of Cliichester, by A. D. Wagner, Chancellor of Cliichester Cathedi-al, etc. (P. 10.) London: 1877. 12 Tlie Repeal of the Lord, as summed up by the Observer, an admirer of that Act : — It Ih difficult to fihnt our eyes to the fact that, practically, Mr. Tooth has had much the host of the dispute. Wlieu he was originally summoned to appear heforc the Com't, he treated the summons with contempt. When he was admonished and told to discontinue his illegal practices, he simply went on with them. When he was inhibited, he blandly disregarded the inhibition. When he was arrested and put in prison, and told that he could come out as soon as he would consent to pm*ge his contemjit, he replied that it was his intention to stay in prison for the re- mainder of his days. This resolute determination to be made a martyr of, reduced the Public Worship Act to a dead letter. . . . Mr. Tooth has no intention to be obedient in the future. He has been tm'ned out of his church, but he has asserted his prin- ciples ; and the only practical result of his imprisonment is a reductio ad absurdum of the doctrine of contempt of Court. Mr. Tooth has defied the law, and defied it successfully. (Feb. 1877.) The new law having obviously failed, the most reasonable policy for all parties is to labour for its repeal. Experienced politicians already allow the possibility of such a proposal; and several of the bishops would now no doubt welcome such a relief with earnest gratitude. Already their lordships have evidently learnt the needful lesson that a little reasonable independence at the Archbishop's private meetings at Lambeth — informal meetings, irregular, unrecognized by custom, and frequently mischievous — might be firmly and properly exercised. And, should they henceforth resolve that grave and mo- mentous steps in legislation shall only be taken after free and open public discussion in Convoca- tion, — the legal and authorised method and place, — such a resolution would hereby evidence their lord- ships' improved wisdom and increased foresight as legislators — Archbishop Tait notwithstanding. Public Woi^shijy Regulation Act. 13 Here let it be noted that the various Resolu- tions which are being passed in different parts of the country, — with an enthusiasm and unanimity which, to say the least, are remarkable, — all point either to the repeal of the Act or to the disestablishment of the National Church. " You may rely upon it," remarked Mr. Bright in his speech at Birmingham, in the summer of 1874, *Hhat Zeal will not, for all time, sacrifice Freedom even to keep the emolu- ments and dignities of the State Church." The writer of the '* Fourteen Reasons " against passing the Act, which were forwarded to every member of the House of Lords*"* in the same year, and which gave Archbishop Thomson such offence, maintained an exactly similar opinion, — an opinion expressed in the cry "Repeal or Disestablishment" which is now unfortunately shared by thousands* Hence the following weighty communication of Canon Liddon addressed to the President of the English Church Union : — The practical drift of the first resolution is the repeal of the PiibUc Worship Kegulation Act, and I for one think that this is one subject for which the Union might well work steadily, * In a public Letter which the Bishop of Winchester did mo the favour to allow me to address to him, entitled "Eecent Legislation for the Church of England and its Dangers," (London: Mowbray, 1874) I wrote thus: "I have very reluc- tantly (and with the truest and most unfeigned sorrow) come to a conclusion which makes me melancholy — that the passing of the Pubhc Worship Kegulation Bill has, to all intents and purposes, sealed the fate of the National Church of England. Its end as an estabhshment is certain, and cannot bo far off. It is absolutely impossible that on the new platform recently created by the Archbishop, and ajiproved by all the bishops but one, any Chiistian communion can stand for long." 14 The Repeal of the incessantly. That Act was the child, partly of passion, partly of panic, — of passion and of panic which, since the date of its passing, have largely yielded to reason and justice. It was avowedly pressed on Parliament as a party measure ; and the taint of partisanship will cling to it as long as it remains on the Statute Book. Of those who advocated it, some, at any rate, have since regretted that they did so ; and, as members of another Parhament, after the next general election, they might, without real inconsistency or loss of dignity, reconsider a false move in legislation. Certainly, if the Public Worship Act was intended to bring peace to the Church, it cannot be described as a success ; for it has aggravated previous dissensions beyond all our former experience. It has, to say the least, thi'own doubts on the historical continuity and on the religious authority of our ecclesiastical com'ts ; it has added to our controversial difficulties in maintaining the true claims of om- Church against her various assailants ; it has lodged scruples and fears in many a tender conscience which knew nothing of the kind before. It has created bad blood all round, and this in days when the circum- stances of the Chm'ch demand from aU sides new efforts after unity. But what Parliament has made Parhament can unmake, if it chooses to do so ; and it will be the fault of Chm-chmen if they do not employ such influence as they may have in promoting the repeal of a measm'e which threatens very serious disaster in the future. . Now, My Lord, in order to appreciate the neces- sity for the repeal of the Act under consideration, it may be well to set forth at length certain leading objections both to its principle and details, which are very widely prevalent. These objections are felt quite as keenly by the great body of old-fashioned moderate High Churchmen as they can be by the noisier and less refined, but more unscrupulous, section led by the cheap Ritualistic newspapers. But first, let due consideration be had of the true spiritual character and office of a bishop in the Church of God, in order that the dire effect of the Public Worship Regulation Act. 15 Act in lowering this office may be more accurately appreciated. The bishop of every diocese, having received valid consecration, having been raised from the priesthood to the episcopal order by duly consecrated bishops, and having had imparted to him the highest fulness of sacerdotal power, — a *' character" implanted from the eternal high priest- hood of our Divine Lord, over which neither the bishop's own weakness or will nor the violence of men has power, nor Time nor Eternity can blurr nor remove, — still needs lawful jurisdiction for the exercise of that office. The most adroit lawyer is no responsible judge until he has received a formal commission and authority to fill the seat. No diplo- matist, however successful, can of his own mere motion act as an ambassador until he is duly and lawfully credited. So, by parity of reaso^iing, is it with a bishop. He needs a formal chair of juris- diction, a definite territory in which to exercise his powers of ruling in his Master's Name."^^ This power is divine, not human : it comes, not from kings, but from the King of kings. And in its exercise the bishop is ever guided by precept, canon, and ancient custom. Nothing is left to his own arbitrary will (if it chance to be arbitrary) ; on the contrary, he himself is as much guided by law and canon']* as the clergy and laity whom he directs and * The distinction between a bishop with jurisdiction and a bisho]) without may be seen by a comparison between Archbishop Tait and Bishop Jcnner. Both reside in the diocese of Canter- bury. Each is a bishop. One has jurisdiction there, the other has not. • , f What a remarkable contrast is this position to that of the bishops imder their own Bill ! In this latter they carefully 16 The Repeal of the governs. Through tho bishop, consequently, the Church rules, whose Head is Christ. Furthermore, if for awhile the bishop has volun- tarily delegated his office of judge in his own Diocesan Court to a lawyer learned in the law, surely what he temporarily entrusted he may at any time recall. And just as the monarch, the head of the State, gives power to the Chief Justice in the King's Bench Court, or in the Court of Chancery to the Lord High Chancellor, to judge in his name, so in the ecclesiastical sphere is it with the bishop. The judgment of the Diocesan Court is, by consequence, the judgment of the bishop, as the Chief Justice's decision is the judg- ment of the King. From such a judgment of a bishop there is, by custom and ecclesiastical necessity, an appeal to the archbishop of the province to which the bishop in question be- longs. But now all this is changed and over- turned. Traditions of twelve centuries are flung aside as worthless ; and there is a total break-down provided against being themselves compelled to obey *' the law." By its 'provisions they are, one and all, excluded from its operation ; and so tho Purchas Judgment, as regards the use of copes, they laugh to scorn. On any other question but one that is ecclesi- astical, and sth's up bad blood, it would have been simj)ly im- possible for the bishops so to have acted, or for either House of Parliament to have entertained, still less to have approved of their pohcy. Wliat would the British PubUc say to a parUamen- tary proposal to carry a trenchant measm'o, for instance, against commercial swindhng — apphcable, of com'se, to the whole country — from the operation of which all peers and M.P.s were excluded? Yet, in passing the Public Worship Begulation Act, the House of Commons, by 173 votes against 65, deliberately excluded the bishops from its operation. Public Worship Regulation Act. 17 and comjDlete collapse of even that skeleton-like, worm-eaten scaffold of sj)iritual jurisdiction which remained to us after the Tudor changes. Here are now set forth seriatim various valid objections to the Act under consideration : — 1. It has introduced entirely new conditions both for ordination and for holding a benefice to those which existed before it became law. Of old the clergy pledged themselves ^' so to minister the doc- trine and sacraments and the discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God " (The Ordering of Priests — Booh of Common Prayer). By the Public Worship Regulation Act ^' this Realm " has passed an Act against, or, at least, without, the consent of the Church in Convocation assembled — z.e., independent of, and not concurrently with, the Church. So that all clergy, unbeneficed as well as beneficed, and all candidates for ordination sufier a grievance because of this silent but effective and startlinof revolution concerning first principles. 2. The old Diocesan Courts of the Enoflish bishops — all but as ancient as Christianity itself — were inherently and essentially spiritual courts; as were likewise the two Provincial Courts (the Court of Arches for Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York for the Northern Province). And each Dio- cesan Court was as distinct from, and independent of, every other Diocesan Court, as they all were distinct from the Courts Provincial. In them the bishop was competent and had power to decide a question of law, with right of appeal. The Dio- cesan Courts, moreover, were courts of first in- B IS The Repeal of the stance — every priest cliarged witli an ecclesiastical offence had a ricflit to be tried and heard within the limits of the diocese to which he belonged.'" If the decision legally given in such a court was un- satisfactory to either party in the suit, an appeal lay to the Provincial Court of the Archbishop. Under the new Act, however, this is all entirely abolished as regards offences relating to the mode of conductinGT divine service. The diocesan is i^T^nored : diocesan ris^hts have now no existence ; (liere the laity suffer as well as the clergy) there is no Diocesan Court of first instance at all, and, furthermore, there are now no Provincial Courts cither. There is a new Parliamentary Court and Judge with Parliamentary jurisdiction from Corn- wall to Northumberland and from Kent to Denbigh- shire, — quite a different institution, and only two and a-half years old. 3. The Court of Arches and the Provincial Court of the York Province are now extinguished by Act of Parliament. Each of these ancient courts was a court recognized but not established by the power of the Sovereign. Each Archbishop had original jurisdiction in his own diocese, and no- where else. Nemo clat (juod non habet, A man cannot give what he does not possess. But in ad- * It should 1)0 noticed that a clergymau from Land's End, Wolverhampton, Northumberland, or any remote spot in the remotest diocese of England, may now be compelled to come to Lambetli Palace, bringing all his witnesses up to London, at a ruinous cost. Previously the clergy were tried in the com-t of their diocesan, which was commonly held in the ej)iscopal city. Public Worship Regulation Act. 19 dition each Archbishop owned the customaiy and salutaiy right of hearing appeals from the Diocesan Courts of his province. York, however, has no more to do with Canterbury in this particular than Canterbury has with Armagh, or Dublin with York. Each province is complete, as each diocese is complete, in itself — at once a type and portion of the Church of God. Archbishop Tait, therefore, can no more give jurisdiction to Lord Penzance in the diocese of Carlisle, for example, than he can appoint Dr. Kenealy to be Chief Justice of Ceylon, or make his own son Ambassador to the Shah of Persia. The idea is as impossible as it is ridiculous. Nor can the Archbishop of York legally and canoni- cally interfere within the limits of the Province of Canterbury by assuming to give the new Judge authority over Mr. Pidsdale. Illegal and irregular force, as now introduced, can only produce dire con- fusion and eventual chaos, as will surely be dis- covered. 4. The new Lambeth Judge has no sj)iritual jurisdiction of any sort or kind. What legal coer- cive jurisdiction he possesses and exercises by the instrumentality of Colonel Henderson, Bishop Claughton, and Messrs. Chubb and Sons, comes solely from the Imperial Crown, at the recent insti- gation of the British Parliament. The Public Worship Regulation Act, which first set up Lord Penzance, therefore, might equally well have given the office to the Chief Commissioner of Police, to the Judge Advocate- General, or to the Senior Magistrate of Lambeth Police Court. Any one of these officers would have owned equally *' spiritual'' jurisdiction. What the two Archbishops may have 20 The Repeal of the (lone in their deed of appointment of Lord Penzance, whatever it be, is spiritually valueless, bein^ null and void ; for they had no authority from the Church to do it. Their Graces' spiritual authority and power is canonical, defined, carefully guarded by precedents, based on the common law of Chris- tianity, and duly limited by a consideration for the acknow^ledged rights of their clergy and flocks. The Archbishops, therefore, have neither the power nor right. My Lord, to destroy, annul, or dispose of their spiritual trusts. Their jurisdiction was a high and sacred trust solemnly committed to them, to be faithfully used and carefully handed on to their successors in office unimpaired. They could no more give this (a spiritual possession entrusted to them for a time) to somebody else, than they could legally dispose of the manors^ lands, and the other temporal properties of their respective sees to their nephews and nieces. 5. The legitimate spiritual authority of all the English bishops is by the Act in question largely curtailed, and, as regards certain subjects, wholly extinguished. For the Public Worship Regulation Act expressly declares the legal incompetence of the bishop to act as judge in questions of Ritual, and removes his jurisdiction out of his own Diocesan Court, the Primate's out of the old spiritual Court of Appeal for the Province, and transfers it to a new and dilicrent Court set up by Parliament. The bishoj), by consequence, can no longer do what he promised to attempt — '^^;?^?iM and correct according to such authority as he has hy God's Word" (The Consecration of Bishoj^s — Book of Common Prayer) nor can he revise, modify, reverse, annul, or set FahUo Worship Regulation Act. 21 aside any decision of his new Parliamentary sub- stitute and superior. His hands are henceforth tied. For the future he is impotent ; and, whatever happens, must be silent. In such an one the office of a Christian bishop (as already set forth) becomes, My Lord, a nullity, a farce, and a scandal. 6. But, furthermore, supposing the Act tvere all that Archbishop Tait and his friends maintain it to be, can it be reasonable that the British Parlia- ment, now no longer exclusively Christian, should, wholly independent of the two Convocations, legis- late for the Church of England? Grant the principle in dispute; reply that "Parliament has such a right," and no one can predicate what may follow, or what may be further demanded of the clergy. Forty years ago an Oxford parson. Dr. Thomas Arnold of Oriel College — passing over the existence and tlie rights of Convocation — wrote that '' the whole constitution of our Church will be utterly confounded if Jews or any other avowed unbelievers in Christ are admitted into the Legislature. For then Parliament cannot be the legislature of the Church, not being an as- sembly of Christians ; and as there is no other Church legislature to be found under our actual constitution, the government of the Church will be dejure extinct, and its members will have to form a new one for themselves."'" As regards the extinc- tion of spiritual jurisdiction, his words have certainly been abundantly fulfilled; as will be made more evident by an exposition of the Whig theory of legislation for an Established Church from the lips of Sir George Grey, on the introduction of the SermouB by Thomas Ai'iiold, D.D., vol. iii., r» ^^3. 22 The Repeal of the Oaths Bill : '^ We have all ag:reed," remarked that statesman, ^Hhat every one, no matter what his religion is or may be, who is willing to take the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty has a right to sit in Parliament, and take part in all proceedings there, if he is qualified to do so in the opinion of those who sent him there."'" So much, therefore, as regards the six leading objections here set forth to the Public Worship Regulation Act. They by no means touch upon, much less exhaust, all that can be reasonably charged against that measure ; but they are suffi- cient to show how gravely the constitutional rights of the Church have been trenched upon and rooted up by it, and what considerable dangers to Church and State such a wide change is certain to create and expand. The Court of High Commission — which came to stink in the nostrils of right-minded Englishmen ere it was swept away — was certainly neither so wholly un-ecclesiastical nor so offensive as that of Lord Penzance, — facts which no special pleading can alter. If any country parson, sum- moned to a ruri-decanal meeting before presuming to give an opinion on the subject, will only procure a copy of the Act and study it carefully with refer- ence to himself, his position and his spiritual duties, there can be little doubt as to what judgment will ■'•■• This new position of affairs as bearing on the Court of Final Appeal in ecclesiastical matters, will have to be faced. No lay Privy Coimcillor, summoned to advise Her Majesty, need now be a believer in Historical Christianity except the Lord Chancellor. Can it be unreasonable for Chm-chmen to object to such a Coiu't? Would the Scotch Estabhshment recognize it? Puhlic Worship Regulation Act, 23 be pronounced by him on its character and powers. We do not deny that for its purpose it was most carefully and adroitly drawn. Those who proposed and framed it knew exactly what they Avanted, and compassed precisely that which they desired to secure. But they evidently mistook the principles and underrated the powers, — possibly some dis- believed in the integrity and honesty/'* — of the clergy of the second order. And this because perhaps some of them, to use a homely simile, ^' measured other people's corn by their own bushel." When the Archbishop of Canterbury, as was reported, remarked that ''the English clergy, because of their large stake in the country, would endure a deal more squeezing than they have yet had,'' it is possible that his Grace really knows less of them than either he might or should. Englishmen are notoriously backward at understanding a principle, or realizing its importance. They are won by com- promises, and seem to admire that which in practice is found to work well. But the novel principle of this Act, alien to their character, is being gradually ■'' The following episcopal flowers of rhetoric in describing these Eitualistic clergy are culled from the newspapers : "Disloyal and aggressive" (Canterbury). "A dangerous and law-disregarding section " (York), " Neither honest nor open " (London). " Servmg the interests of Eome " (St. Asaph). "Dishonest and untrustworthy" (Durham). "Where is their integrity?" (Peterhorou;iJi.) [Ritualistic] "books, dangerous in their tendency and dishonest in thch teaching" ( Hereford j. "Opposed to the faith of the Primitive Church" (Lincoln). "Wanting in that regard for om* mother which we expect" (LichMd). "Eebellious and self-willed" (Carlisle), etc., etc., etc. 24 The Repeal of the unfolded before their eyes and pressed upon their understandings — so that a pkiin issue and a delibe- rate judgment cannot for long be avoided. Spe- cious arguments for giving the Act a further trial'' may no doubt apjDear in abundance : three such, from high and interested quarters, may be briefly dealt with ; but neither specious argument nor special pleading can eventually postpone the unfortunate but true issue before us, —'' Repeal or Disestablish- ment." * One such has just been mcade by the Kural Deanery of Burford, in the diocese of Hereford, embodied in a Petition to Convocation, from which the following is an extract. In the reform of the Act, wliich those who sign it evidently anticipate, the following conditions are laid down : — I. That the approval of the Crown by sign manual should not be required for the appointment of his Provincial Judge by each of the Metropohtans of Canterbury and York respectively, as by sec. 7, clause 1, of the said Act : II. That the consent of the Ai'chbishop of York to the appointment by the Archbishop of Canterbury of his Provincial Judge should not be required; nor, on the other hand, the consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the appointment by the Archbishop of York of his Provincial Judge, as by sec. 7, clause 2 : III. That under no circumstances should the appointment of the Judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbmy and York be vested solely in the Civil Power, as by sec. 7, clause 2 : rV. That the canonical authority of bishops over matters of Ritual observance within their own diocese should not be interfered with, as by sec. 9, clauses 4, et scq.: V. That in hearing and determining questions arising before him, the judgment of a bishop should not be subjected to external dictation, as by sec. 9, clause 3 : VI. That the clergy of the Church of England ought not to be possibly brought by the Civil Power under a new jurisdiction to which they have never consented, as by sec. 7, clause 2. Puhlic Worship Regulation Act. 25 Here, three points for consideration, embodied in certain ad captandum retorts and replies by those who are the aUies of the authors of the Act, may be briefly dealt with in order. (1.) The first is that Lord Penzance's Court is the same court as the old Court of Arches, and that his lordship is the lawful and actual ^^Dean of the Arches." (2.) TJie second is that, under the new Act, the per- sonal authority of the bishop is certainly as great as it was of old under the system which has been abolished : and (3) the third point is that, whether these facts be so or not — whether the law be just or unjust, wise or foolish, right or wrong, constitu- tional or the reverse, — the clergy are bound to sub- mit to it. I. The New Lambeth Court cannot be the same Court as the Court of Arches, because -by the seventh section of the Public Worship Regulation Act the two Provincial Courts are entirely destroyed. Of old, for those courts, each Archbishop freely chose his Official Principal : now neither Archbishop can choose him, each being controlled by the other, and so efficiently bound in action and neither free. This is more than manifest by a further provision in the new Act. For if the joint appointment of the " barrister-at-law who has been in actual practice for ten years," be not made within six months ^* after the passing of this Act, or within six months after the occurrence of any vacancy in the office," then '' Her Majesty may by letters patent appoint some person ... to be the Judge." Thus the Court is not the same ; the Judge is different, and appointed in a manner never heard of in a spiritual court ; the jurisdiction is different, and the mode 26 The Repeal of the of procedure is altogether new. Moreover, when Lord Penzance was jointly appointed to be Judge of the New Lambeth Court, he was not, and could not have been made Judge of the Arches' Court : for that office was then filled by Sir liobert Phillimore ; nor could he have been then made Judge of the Chancery Court of the York Province, for that post was also filled by Mr. Granville Harcourt- Vernon. On the resignation of these two Judges, Lord Penzance, if at all, succeeded solely hj virtue of a Parliamentary enactment : while pro- ceedings taken before his lordship are by the Act " deemed to he taken in the Court of Arches." II. It has been asserted by no less a personage than Archbishop Tait that the spiritual authority of the bishop has never hitherto been so prominently marked."" Here are his Grace's words, extracted from a report of his Charge delivered in the autumn of 187 G: ''It has been alleged that it [the new Act] would interfere with the bishop's authority. He believed, on the contrary, that the bishop's authority had never been so distinctly recognized as it was in the Pubhc Worship Eegulation Act." And again, as showing how this is : " The very first step was that the bishop should be consulted, and that he should say distinctly to the parties, * On this iioint let the reader consult the 20th, the 2Gth, and 83rd of the Tlm-ty-Niue Articles : also the Canons of 1571, 1575, 1585, and 1597 ; the Eoyal Injunctions of Edward VI. in 1547 ; the Constitutions of Cardinal Pole in 1555 ; the Koyal Injunc- tions of Elizabeth in 1559 ; the Advertisements of 1564 ; Whitgift's Articles of 1584 ; and specially the Canons of 1603 (more parti- cularly Canon8^92 — 114, inclusive). Public Worship Regulation Act. 27 'Do you intend to abide by my decision '?' If tliey replied in the affirmative, the bishop's decision could not be appealed against, but was absolutely binding, unless it contradicted the law." Of this, and much like it of the same kind in the Charge in question, may be said that such proposed pro- cesses are an outrage on Reason, Justice, and Truth, — opposed to the first principles of jurisprudence, inherently absurd in themselves, and obviously opening the door for the display of personal injustice and secret tyranny. If Chancery suits, for example, were to be managed by such a method as this. Law would soon become a laughing-stock. Order be abolished, and Justice brought into contempt. For here we have, instead of the exercise of authority by a judicial process in open court, as decreed by the Canons, an arbitrary process in cainerd, — from which there is absolutely no appeal whatsoever. More- over, an accused clerk does not want private advice, secret counsel, personal warning, or artful persuasion ; these he can get, if he should desire them, from the parish beadle. What he demands and expects are right and justice before a constitutional Judge in open court, in accordance with canon and custom of Holy Church.*'' If the study of the Civil Law ■'- It should be particularly borne in mind that, under the PubHc Worship Ecgulatiou Act, this cannot now be had ; for the requisite machinery does not exist. The bishop's spiritual character is ignored (in all cases concerning public worship), his spiritual office efficiently suspended ; sphitual admonitions (in open court) cannot henceforth be given, and by consequence the clergy appear to be released from then- effect. The pastoral staff is laid aside, while crowbars are obtamed and Colonel 28 The Repeal of the had not been so utterly neglected* by all but a few (Doctors' Commons has been long ago, first shut up and then razed to the ground), such extraordinary j^rocesses as those of which the Archbishop approves could never have seen the liorht. The land of dark- o ness is their true home. HI. The sum and substance of the Bishop of Lincoln's advice to his clergy with regard to the New Law is summed up in one brief and pregnant sentence of his lordship's '^ Letter to Canon Hole," — "To resist such authority [as that of Lord Penzance] is to resist God" — a statement which strikes me as the most startling and alarming I ever read. Coming from such a quarter, it demands grave consideration ; but I much doubt if the pro- position will be either acceptable or accepted in the long run. At the time I write there are few signs Henderson is called in, to enforce Parliamentary jurisdiction, with the connivance and approbation of one of our Fathers-in- God. * Here is a needful warning on this subject from the pen of Burke: "I remember that in one of my last conversations with tlie late Lord Camden, we were struck much in the same manner with the aboUtion in France of the law, as a science of methodized and artificial equity. France, since her Revolution, is under the sway of a sect whose leaders have deliberately, at one stroke, abohshed the whole body of that jurisprudence which France had pretty nearly in common with other civihzed countries. In that jm-isprudence were contained the elements and principles of the law of nations, the great ligament of man- kind. With the law they have, of course, destroyed all seminaries in which jurisprudence was taught, as well as all the corpora- tions estabhshed for its conseiTation." — Two Letters on the Proposals for Peace ivith the Piefjlcidc Directory of France, etc., pp. 95, 96. London : 1796. Public Worship Regulation Act. 29 of such acceptance. Tudor j)rinciples of Church government are as much out of date and defunct as the Tudors themselves, and it may be reasonably doubted if the ecclesiastical principles of the Kesto- ration concerning the Regale are exactly those which will command respect and receive implicit obedience now. The time has gone by for proposing that the infallibility of National Churches should become an article of faith. If, in regard to England, Lord Penzance be the logical result of such a *^pious opinion" or ^^dognia," I fear it will not at present obtain general acceptance. This kind of patching and tinkering will be of little avail ; this borrowing of old clothes from King Henry VIII. and Bishop Sanderson to give a much-required appearance of respectable antiquity and ecclesiastical aroma to the ex- Judge of the Divorce Court) sitting in Lambeth Library, had better be left alone. It will serve no good purpose and impose upon none. The most curious and life-like figure at Madame Tussaud's has neither blood nor breath. The policy of a considerable section of the clergy — if not the flower of them — will undoubtedly be that which the Vicar and Rural Dean of Rugeley sets forth in the following letter in the Guardian of March 7th :— The clergy at the Keformation promised not to legislate without the sanction of the State. Tell me when the clergy promised to allow the State to legislate in thmgs sphitual without their sanction. For this is what has been done. A Bill seriously affecting the Presbyters of the Church, and none others directly — not the Bishops and not the laity — has been forced through Parliament against the remonstrances of the Presbyters. What must be done ? Many of the latter feel that the Act was passed in an unconstitutional manner, and has 30 Tlie Repeal of the made au nuconstitutional change. For, say what wo will, a Judge appohitcd by the Archbishops with the ^consent of the Crown, and who may bo appointed by the Crown alone, is a very different official from Judges appointed by the Archbishops without asking leave of the Crown at all. What, then, must be done? The Bishop of Lincoln replies, " Agitate to get the law altered." But how ? Who will alter it, or get it altered for us ? Convocation ? But Convocation is not allowed to legislate with- out the sanction of Her Majesty and the consent of Parliament. Parliament ? But Parliament is now composed of men of all religions and of none, and would be very little likely to listen to Convocation. The Bishoj)S ? But it w^as the Bishops, in whose appointment the clergy have been deprived by the Civil Power of the voice which once belonged to them, who forced the Act through Parliament. What, then, must be done ? '' Obey the law," says the Bishop of Lincoln, '' when it is not contrary to the law of God." But, to my mind, it is contrary to the law of God to allow the State to encroach on the province of the Church, and to the spirit of Christ to avoid suffering by submitting to it when it does so. So far as ritual is concerned, I would gladly see power given to the Bishops to prevent violent changes from being forced on unwilling congregations ; but not even the di-ead of Disestablish- ment will induce me to acquiesce m first one sHght encroachment upon the rites of the Church being made and then another, until the Church has become, like the Army or Navy, a mere depart- ment of the State. And if this be my determination, it seems to me that nothing is left me but to do what the Bishop implores us not do do — viz., to offer a stern, j^cissive resistance to all ecclesiastical laws jiassed hi/ the State without the consent of the clerijij in Convoca- tion, and, if needs he, to snffer the loss of all thinf/sfor offenmj it. Another letter, from tlie John Bull of March 3rd, signed ''An Elector of Oxford. University," deals with the subject from a somewhat different, and more from a political, point of view, touching also upon the Ecclesiastical Fees Bill. It serves, however, to show how deeply men feel on the subject : — Lord Penzance has fallen upon Conservative Churchmen like a bomb, and every one runs his own way to escape the Public Worship Regulation Act. 31 explosion. There is little cliancc of reunion till the shell is taken away. I have studied the Public Worship Kegulation Act perhaps as closely as any one, and I have no doubt its operation and intent is to extinguish the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, diocesan and provincial, and to substitute one national Common Law Com't in its place. Lord Penzance is no more an Ecclesiastical Judge now than he was when at the head of the Probate and Divorce Court, and I have little doubt that Mr. Tooth's imprison- ment was illtyal. He would probably have obtained his release by hahcos cnr2)i(fi if a continued incarceration had been better for the^ cause of Ritualism. The Ecclesiastical Offices and Fees Bill is another blow at the clergy; adding insult to injury by intercepting the long- promised reduction of clerical burdens to apply the excess in j)ayment of Lord Penzance. This odious job can never pass the House of Commons unless the Government take it up ; but why the Government should sell the clergy to a Whig Primate and Peer, it is not easy to explain. Perhaps, in paving the way for Disestablishment, they recognize the poetical justice of giving back the University seat to Mr. Gladstone. That is what it is coming to. The clergy may continue to bear, as they have for forty years, the delay of justice, in releasing them from the gripe of the bishops' officials. They may submit, with a bursting heart, to the cynical tyranny of adding Lord Penzance to the shameful list of their plunderers. But one thing they will never submit to : they v/ill never be the creatm-es of an Act-of- Parliament Church. When the gentlemen of the House of Commons have brought the Estabhshed Chm-cli to an institution devised after their own heart, they will have got the one thing which all true Chm'chmen, in common with all true Dissenters, hate with a perfect hatred. The clergy will not secede, as these j)urblind politicians deshe, and surrender their churches and life interest to more pliant instruments : they will hold then* own and simply disestablish the Church. We are often told that if Disestablishment comes it will be the fault of the clergy. Wliy are the people who repeat this truism as a formidable warning so anxious to make it a duty and a merit in the clergy to dises- tabhsh the Church ? From these it follows that some few, at all events, cannot, as they openly state, and will not, 32 The Itej^eal of the accept the proposition of the Bishop of Lincohi, and, unUke too many, regard the Faith as a trust neither to be halved, impaired, obscured, nor bartered away. Erastianism tliey detest and abhor. True to their Master, they will have none of it. On the pait of certain Church officials who sun themselves in the smile of the exalted, judging them by their words and actions, Erastianism seems to be a mere convenient cloak for a scornful rejection of Historical Christianity and all that religious Eng- lishmen used to hold dear. Even as a theory, no one out of Bedlam helieves in this degrading Eras- tianism. Your lordship may remember Mr. Glad- stone's true and expressive description of it. * Why, therefore, the old and well-loved English Constitution should be seriously damaged or sus- pended for the sake of giving unchecked dominance to a shallow school of Church politicians is beyond the comprehension of many to understand. Advise your royal Mistress, My Lord, if you think it wise and well, to bestow upon such Erastians bishoprics, deaneries, and other positions of influence in the Established Church ; but at the same time and at ■-•' *' I take no notice of the system termed Erastian. It can hardly, so far as I see, he called a system of or concerning religious thought at all. Its centre of gravity is not within the religious precinct. ... If we follow the Erastian idea, it does not matter what God we worship, or how we worship Him, provided we derive hoth helief and worship from .the Civil Euler, or hold them suhject to his orders. Many most respectahle per- sons have heen, or have thought themselves to he, Erastians ; hut the system, in the developments of which it is capahle, is among the most dehased ever known to man." — From " Com-ses of Religious Thought," in the Contemporanj lieview of June, 1876. Public Worship Regulation Act. 33 least recommend Her Majesty graciously to tolerate in "the inferior clergy," — the backbone and main- stay of that institution, — a belief in the Three Ancient Creeds/^ and a resolve not to deny or betray anew the Lord Who bought us by giving the things of God to Coesar. Otherwise Christianity must die out in the Establishment, and the mixed multitude of which it is composed will necessarily, and in no distant future, revert to a godless indifferentism. The bishops, then, apart from Convocation, having shown themselves incapable of legislating wisely on the ancient basis of the Constitution in Church and State, (for seldom has '' confusion been made worse confounded" than by this unprece- dented and disastrous measure, which their lord- ships recommended) it remains to consider what can be done. The relations between Church and State have been so seriously and needlessly strained of late, that any further legislation in th(3 direction of that questionable policy so urgently and even passionately recommended by Archbishop Tait, will no doubt produce a serious disruption sooner than some people expect. The short and easy method which his Grace, when a tutor of Balliol College, * At a meeting of the Upper House of Convocation, Arch- bishop Tait, in the presence of many of his suffragans, made the following startling declaration: "We [the Archbishop and Bishops] do not — there is not a soul in this room who does — take the concluding clauses of the Athanasian Creed in their plain and literal sense." This confession of unbeHef, reported in the (iuardian of Feb. 14, 1872, was made five years ago ; since which time, as far as I am aware, no bishop has repudiated the assertion of the Primate. It seems to follow, consequently, that those bishops who heard the statement agree with bin Grace. C 34 The Rejyeal of the adopted for the expulsion of Dr. [then Mr.] Ne^vinan from the Enghsh Church was, alas ! too successful thirty years ago, because of that eminent man's sensitive souL It will not, however, answer now, as the bishops well know. Other persons, not quite synchronizing with the Archbishop in Church politics, Welshmen as well as Englishmen, claim, and seem resolved to exercise, an equal right with his Grace to remain faithful members of the old National Church, and to be free from new condi- tions of membership, violent constitutional changes, and rude charges of disloyalty and disobedience. The Archbishop's ally and shield-bearer, Dr. Ellicott, Bishop of Gloucester, will in vain recommend *^sorrowful separation and sad secession" to English Churchmen equally loyal to God's truth and Her Majesty's rule with his lordship. The Chairman of the recent Meeting at Cannon Street is very clear on this point, and he spoke as a representative man. Here are his words as reported : ^* Blind and foolish as was the fury of the Hatcham mob, much more foolish was their cuckoo-cry of ' Go to Kome ! ' That ivas the very thing ivMch they had not the smallest intent ion of doing ; and the wisdom of those who recommended it might be easily re-furbished." (Here the meeting cheered for several minutes, and vehemently shouted, " We ivont he 2^ut out.'") Although the present dispute mainly arose con- cerning the due interpretation of rubrics, it is no longer confined to that or kindred subjects. Now, My Lord, a far wider and more momentous principle is under consideration — that of spiritual jurisdiction and ecclesiastical authority. The discussion of these important principles cannot now be deferred. The Public Worship Regulation Act, 35 consideration of our jurisdiction, its nature, source, and limits, whether people desire it or not, (and many do not desire it) will speedily become a '* burning question " in the Established Church. In the meantime " Kitual,'' so called, is before us. Now, My Lord, the rubrics of the Prayer Book are obviously not exhaustive, and need to be revised and made clearer before it is wise to punish clerks for not strictly obeying them. Some rubrics are obviously obsolete ; others are notoriously ambi- guous; though the direction about the position of the celebrant at the Holy Table is plain enough — too plain for some people. For no amount of word- splitting (pardon the phrase. My Lord,) can make the well-known rubric, '^ When the Priest standing before the Table," mean either standing ^^ behind,' '^ upon" ^^ beside^'' or ^^ beneath'' it. And a§ to the Prefatory Kubric about the vestments, ^^ And here is to be noted," etc., let us read what one of the most learned and ablest scholars of the day^^ has so con- cisely and forcibly written on this point : — A very plain and simple note, so plain that he may run that readeth it ; so simple that a child who has heard of Edward the Sixth may understand it — encumbered by no reservation, watered down by no quahlication or alternative ; clear, precise, distinct, authoritative, affirmative, as the last Commandment of the Fnst Table, "Kemember that thou keep holy the Sabbath Day;" positive as the first Commandment of the Last Table, "Honoiu- * The Second Year of the Keign of King Edward the Sixth : The Altar Service of the Church of England of that Year, etc. Edited by William John Blew, M.A. London : B. M. Pickcrmg. 1877.. 36 The Repeal of the tliy father and tliy mother ; " brief, pithy, and prudent ; confirm- ing the past, du'ecting the futm-o. As was the church orna- mented, fiu-nished and provided with instruments and utensils for service, and as the ministers were vested m then- habits and otlicr appointments in the second year of King Edward the Sixth, which was the year one thousand five hundi-ed and forty- eight, so are the churches to be ornamented and the ministers *' th-essed " in this present year, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, by Statute XIV. Cai'ol. II. ; in other words, by consent of Convocation and by Act of ParUament, in the fom-teenth year of the reign of lung Charles the Second, being the year of our Lord one thousand six hundi'cd and fifty- two. "What was Church Law as to oi-naments of chm'chcs and orna- ments of the ministers thereof in 1548, is, and is to be, Chm-ch Law in 1877 and the years to come ; until, with consent of Con- vocation, and by Act of Parhament, the Statute of Uniformity in general, and this special enactment in pai'ticulai", be altered, waived, or repealed. (Preface, pp. 6, 7.) These two leading points — the position of the celebrant at Holy Communion and the use of vestments — as well as others, some of a less and some of a more important character, are to be soon *' settled " (as is said) by the Queen in Council. For myself, My Lord, I confess that I am a little surprised at the supreme indifference which appears to exist on all sides with regard to the expected decision in the Ridsdale Case. The leading Ritualists and the English Church Union, as is publicly asserted, will ignore it, whether it be for them or against them, — for they are now openly committed to a policy which relates as much to securing a new Court of Final Appeal in Ecclesiastical Matters as to the restoration of the abolished Provincial Courts ; and, in case of failure, to Disestablishment. More- over, if the forthcoming judgment be in their favour, it must by consequence be in direct and obvious Public Worship Regulation Act. 37 antithesis to previous judgments by which Kitualism was condemned. Contradictory and contrarient decisions of the same Court (for it is practically the same) will obviously possess slender interest — thanks to the confessed manipulation of former judgments by Archbishop Tait and others — and will certainly bind no man's conscience. Regarding public official action, each ecclesiastical person con- cerned must of course determine and act for him- self Union is scarcely to be looked for ; for Convo- cation is practically powerless, and individualism popular. Convocation, as your lordship will remember, was first discreetly manipulated and then silenced for awhile by William of Orange ; but his Dutch Majesty's doings ought scarcely to have become a Tory j)recedent for legislation apart from that body. Then, again, the Whigs of 1717 suppressed and shut up Convocation for more than a century, because they rightly feared its impending condemnation of the heresies of Bishop Hoadley : thus striking the English spiritualty officially dumb : but Conser- vatives of the present day. My Lord, (overlook the freedom of my remark) were not exactly called upon to emulate that unrighteous act ; which, however, as regards its unconstitutional character, (whether it be allowed or not) has been far out- stripped by the Parliamentary creation of Lord Penzance and his New Court, for which both Tory peers and commoners anxiously crowded to vote. For the silence of Convocation, until our own day, was obviously a far less evil in itself than the effective rooting up of spiritual jurisdiction in dio- ceses by the Pubhc Worship Kegulation Act, and 3 8 The Repeal of the the destruction of the old Courts of the Province. Tiie only parallel to the deed done which I can discover may be found in the grossest uncivilized usage of war, known as '^ secretly poisoning the wells." What, then, can be done or attempted ? what is politic ? what is possible ? and more especially, My Lord, what is right ? A short Bill, unconditionally repealing the Act in question, with all its new-fangled machinery, would be at once the surest and safest way out of the difficulty; for the more it is looked at by Churchmen the less it is liked. Neither tampering with nor tinkering it can alter its radical badness, nor make its living and leading principle acceptable to any persons who are not already committed deeply to an approbation and support of modern Erastianism. For, as I heard an eminent Tory statesman recently remark, ^* it is certainly a little inconsistent that spiritual questions should be treated by the same body which legitimately enough deals by legislation with the overflow of the Thames, vaccination, and the sewerage of the metropolis. You cannot," he said, '^govern the Church of England by common law, apart from the spiritualty, without running the chance of undermining its very foundations." The Prime Minister and your lordship — without whose aid the English prelates would never have carried the measure — could hardly have realized fully what a revolution its new prin- ciples effected. The change from the old order to the new was soon made, as we all remember. — Facilid doceusus Avorui. Pahlic Worship Regidation Act. 39 The return is obviously not so easy. Sed revocare gradum supcrasque evadere ad auras, Hie opus, liiclabor est. Only let the required remedy be postponed, or left to the next Liberal Administration,* and then short and sharp work may be made of the diffi- culty. To our statesmen, therefore, I would say, Let both Prayer Book and Canons be at once completely * The xwpular "Liberal" idea of an Established Church is clearly and ably set forth in the Observer of April 8th — an idea which no doubt those Tories who voted for the Public Worship Eegula- tion Act equally accept as true ; but it is one with which it would be impossible for any clergyman with a shred of self-respect to coincide : " The true theory — that, we mean, which is i© accord- ance with the facts — is no doubt highly distasteful to sacerdotal views, but it has to be af&rmed, and affirmed decisively, in controversies like the present. An Established Church, in a Protestant country, under constitutional government, is neither more nor less than an organization for teaching and practising the rehgion of the majority. Parliament is the expression of the will of the majority, and therefore Parliament must be supreme. That is the system which has prevailed in this country ever since the course of its political history converted royal supremacy into parliamentary supremacy in all matters of government, temporal as well as spiritual ; and it is only on condition of the maintenance of this system that the majority wiU consent to tolerate an establishment at all. The sacerdotal idea of a church is that of a divincly-insph'cd organic body pro- nouncing authoritatively upon religious truth or falsehood. The Protestant idea of an establishment is that of a Church appointed to teach certain doctiines which, inasmuch as they are the doc- trmes of a majority of persons exercising their private judgment, must, by virtue of the first ininciplc of Protestantism, bo assumed to be true." 40 The Repeal of the revised by tlic two Convocations ; calling in experts, and taking time. The Constitution gives this riglit ; let not a Conservative Administration fear to secure it for those to whom it rightfully belongs. Here is an extract, embodying that right, from the '^Declaration" prefixed to the Thirty-nine Articles : '^ If any difference arise about the external policy concerning the Injunctions, Canons, and other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the Clergij in their Convocation is to order and settle them, having first ohtained leave under Our broad seal so to do : and We approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions ; providing that none be made contrary to the laws and customs of the land." Half the Canons of 1604 are notoriously obsolete, and the whole need to be thoroughly adapted to the wants of the present day. No other body is competent to do the work, and no Churchmen — not even the most self-willed — could refuse to abide by the results of such a labour. There is no other " way out of the wood." Any other alternative may well be dreaded. My final sentence describes a rival communion, and perhaps embodies a thought not unworthy of your lordship's consideration. Under the protection of Civil and Religious Liberty, and reasonably availing itself of popular principles, (doubtful enough in value) a Power has re-entered England, organized anew, which, let the truth be spoken, has never truckled to kings nor been subservient to peoples, which alike ignores the frowns of statesmen and the applause of multi- tudes. Prophets called in to curse it, sometimes, in their blindness and infatuation, bless it efficiently. Public Worship Regulation Act. 41 Accordine^ to the seers' calculations, it ousflit loner ao-o to have collapsed. The consummately-planned tactics of its foes, intended to check its progress, frequently serve only to swell its ranks and augment its influ- ence. If old and decrepid monarchies turn away from its presence, new and noble races welcome its advent. Unchangeable, unconciliatory ; with a sharply-defined Faith never obscured, and ancient spiritual claims never withdrawn ; ever acting with supreme wisdom in the Present, while reaching back to a grand Past in the Old World and onward to a glorious Future in the New, — it stands forth (even from an English Churchman's point of view) as a marvellous and magnificent example of His- torical Christianity. At once reviled and feared, hated and misrepresented, it has mapped out Eng- land anew, cannot be ignored, either by Church or State, by Archbishop or Chancellor, and summons the baptized to obedience. Certain specific preju- dices seem to have long lives and certainly die hard ; but others, again, are surely failing and fading away. If our spiritual leaders and guides turn traitors, or the National Church be corrupted at its once fair fountain-head by the corrosive poison of Erastianism, the pertinent question may well be asked — Whither will Christian Englishmen, in the future, turn their steps for revealed Truth and for religious Peace ? I have the honour to be. My Lord, Your Lordsliip's most obedient and Very humble Servant, Frederick George Lee. RECENT WORKS BY THE REV. DR. LEE. ON ECCLESIASTICAL POLITICS, 1. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND POLITICAL PARTIES : A Letter to the Eight Hon. Gatiiorne Hardy, M.P., &c. Second Edition. Price Is. Loudon : T. Bosworth. 2. RECENT LEGISLATION FOR THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND ITS DANGERS: A Letter to the Lord Bisnop OF Winchester, &c. Piice Is. London : A. R. Mowbray and Co, OTHER WORKS. 3. THE VALIDITY OF THE HOLY ORDERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND MAINTAINED AND VINDI- CATED. Pi'ice 16s. London : J. T. Hayes. 4. THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF PRAYER FOR THE DEPARTED. Second and Cheaper Edition. Price 10s. Gd. London : Daldy, Isbister and Co. 5. SERMONS, PAROCHIAL AND OCCASIONAL. Second Edition. Price 8s. Gd. London : T. Bosworth. 6. THE DIRECTORIUM ANGLICANUM. Fomth Edition, (Out of Print.) Price 12s. 7. THE BELLS OF BOTTEVILLE TOWER : A Christ- mas Story in Verse. (lUustratcd.) Price 4s. Gd. London : J. Parker and Co. 8. THE OTHER WORLD; or, GLIMPSES OF THE SUPERNATURAL. In Two Vohimcs. Price 15s. London : H. S. King and Co.