^ I (i ^wm L I E. RA RY OF THE U N I VLRSITY or ILLI NOIS AN EARNEST PROTEST AGAINST SOME OF THE STATE M EN TS OF * his grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, MADE BY HIM IN HIS SPEECH ON INTRODUCING THE PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATIONS BILL. ^ BY THE REV. R. J. WILSON, Fellow and Tutor of Merton College, Oxford. For Private Circulation. AN EARNEST PROTEST, &c. His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury in intro- ducing his '' Public Worship Regulations Bill," prefaced his observations with some account of the supposed circumstances of the Church, justifying in his opinion the proposal of this measure. It is said that this part of his speech made some impression. It consisted mainly of an attack on Ritualists on several grounds ; and it is chiefly on the statements of the Archbishop made in this portion of his speech, that I venture to offer some observaiions. It is painful indeed to criticize what is said by one in so exalted a position as his Grace : but there is a real danger, lest it should be thought that Ritualists ac- cept the account of themselves and their practice that the Archbishop gives. It is only fair to oppo- nents, to friends, and to the cause of truth, to rebut erroneous charges, and repudiate groundless infer- ences. The charges and the inferences are none the less injurious and misleading, because they were made in the utmost good faith, I have nothing to say on his Grace's Bill : I believe it to be as bad as most are now inclined to allow it to be; and I trust it is doomed. I shall only deal with the prefatory part of the Archbishop's speech, in which he atten^.pted to justify a grant of arbitrary power. His Grace seemed no doubt genuinely alarmed at the state of the Church of England. With his strange misconception of the facts, this is not altogether surprising. And he naturally wished to convey this feeling of alarm to others : he must have known that his only chance of recommending so objectionable a mea^^ure, was by thoroup^hly exciting the fears of his audience and readers. The weight of the Archbishop's character and office would prevent the idea that the alarm A 2 4 was not well grounded. In such a state of feeling people might possibly be reconciled to a measure which otherwise they would certainly not tolerate. It was known that the measure was mainly to be used against Ritualists. It was important to shew that thence was the one danger, and that prosecu- tions would only be on one side : otherwise, the Bill might seem (as in fact it would be) only the com- mencement of a war of Reprisals. While Ritualists have abstained hitherto from prosecuting opponents, they might certainly, as a matter of duty, as well as of self-defence, try to enforce, under the new system, at least the decencies of rubrical observance and worship. I. Seemingly lest this danger should force itself on people's minds, his Grace after deploring past neglect, slovenliness, and irreverence, proceeded to say, '' I am willing to believe that all this has passed away." This is the belief, with which the Archbishop enters on a survey of the state of the Church. There is no carelessness, no irreverence, no neglect, no slovenliness ! All this has passed away. The Archbishop is willing to believe it. But will anyone who knows anything of parish upon parish in some of our country districts, to say nothing of our towns, and who only cares for the decency of worship, bear him out in his belief ? All irreverence has passed away ! What remains of the sacred elements for instance is always consumed '' immediately after the Blessing, by the Priest and such other communicants as he shall then call to him, who are reverently to eat and drink the same." It is never left to be consumed by the clerk, or the sexton, or treated even worse, thrown into the vestry dust-bin (see Guardian, April 29, 1S74). All neglect has passed away ! All churches throughout England have every facility for frequent Communion. There is daily Service everywhere as the Prayer-book directs. The Archbishop is willing to believe it i - MUC What standard does Archbishop Talt select if he can declare his wilHno^ness to believe that irrever- ence, slovenliness, and neglect, have passed away ? Willing he may be to believe it. It is most charit- able to the negligent, the slovenly, and irreverent. But what of the facts ? I dwell on this painful statement because it indicates something of the spirit with which the Archbishop contemplates the state of things within the Church. 2. His Grace then commented on certain cere- monies, one or two of which were only used by the late Mr. Purchas. These consist mainly of bowing towards the Altar, Altar Cross, or Crucifix : making the sign of the Cross over the Water Cruet : kneeling before the Altar : the attendance of a lay clerk or acolyte : Processions : the use of Palms on Palm Sun- day : of ashes on Ash-Wednesday : the use of Lights: Vestments : and the use In decoration of the model of a dove. Now (to say nothing of the canons of 1640) his Grace is committed to bowing at the Name of Jesus and making the sign of the Cross, by the canons of 1603. We must kneel before the Altar whenever we eo to Communion, and at other times. Processions his Grace has to take part in contmually. Vestments and Lights were ruled to be legal by the eminent ecclesiastical lawyer. Sir R. Phlllimore, though the little court, consisting of the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of London, with only two law Lords, over-ruled him. (This was the Purchas judgment.) The use of palms and ashes Imply no doctrine at all. I do not mean to say that any pro- cession or ceremony In which his Grace takes part, is quite so elaborate, so well arranged, or for the matter of that, so solemn, as the ceremonies at Ritualist Churches. But I assert that to the prin- ciple of every one his Grace, as an English Church- man, is committed. Yet these he calls "dangerous In- novations." " These things," he says, " In other Com- munions have a sacred and solemn meaning. Those who do them hold the doctrines, more or less, which make such things sacred or solemn." This impHes that when we use these ceremonies, or some of them, that we hold doctrine in common with Roman Catholics, which we have no right to hold. What doctrine is it ? Let his Grace state what doctrine these ceremonies embody that English Churchmen may not honesdy hold : and he shall be contradicted forthwith. But do not let him create a vague impression that we are guilty of dishonesty, which the facts do not justify. Granting that these cere- monies are undesirable (and I allow that some of them perhaps always would be in some places) what doctrine does any one of them embody that an English Churchman may not hold, nay, to which the Church is not committed ? His Grace spoke of doctrines : It Is to be regretted he did not state 07ie, 3. He complains of the charge that those who wish to have the law obeyed are taking a party view. At any rate those who insist on enfoiring the law, are, I contend, partizans. I am not one of those, If there are any, who are glad to disobey the decisions of the Privy Council. I deplore the fact that the decisions have been what they are, because I believe, and know, that a great many very good people are scandalized by the seeming defiance of law which we are forced to exhibit. I should rejoice if the decisions were brought into accord with Church principles. I believe that they eventually will be, not by our giving up the main points in dispute, but by a larger number of Ecclesiastical Lawyers form- ing the Court. I have rejoiced when the decisions have been in favour of the Catholic interpretation of our Formularies and Rubrics. It is quite consistent to regret that one feels conscientiously bound to ignore the decisions of a Court, and at the same time to be glad that the points of opposition should be as few as possible, especially when a favourable decision shews a growing appreciation of our own principles of interpretation. And the sarcasms of those who charge us with playing fast and loose with the decisions of the Court, seem to me Ignorant and out of place. I lament the contradiction in this case of law and conscience. But the Archbishop and those who would enforce this Purchas decision of Archbishop Thomson, Bishop Jackson, Lords Hatherley and Chelmsford, at so serious a risk, seem to have a stricter regard for the letter of the law than the strictest lawyer. It is nothing to them that the Court has been allowed to have been (to say the least), singularly weak ; that judgment was given without any argument for the defence : that great legal authorities have questioned the goodness of the law on which the decision was based : that Lord Cairns said that the question might in a fresh case be re-opened : that the Court arrived at opposite decisions in the same matter in the course of two years. Again It Is a principle of English law, I know, to give an enormous weight to precedents ; and so, and unnatural authority to even wrong decisions, (and decisions may be wrong,) yet this principle Is cer- tainly not greatly in favour In other systems, and is not In accord, I venture to say, with the most enlightened views of modern j urists. llils is as nothing to the Archbishop and his friends. It is nothing that In the same case certain other vestments are pronounced illegal which are worn with universal consent : that various other practices supposed to be illegal are used every day, some by Bishops : that the decision in question has been Ignored with general approval by some of the most respected and moderate Clergy ; that it was protested against by 4,800 Clergy. It is nothing that the decisions of the Judges of Court of Arches, (for the most part learned ecclesias- tical lawyers,) have been in favour of * Ritualism/ 8 while it is the decision of the Judicial Committee, the members of which are often comparatively un- acquainted with ecclesiastical law, that have gone against Catholic interpretations of our Rubrics. It is nothing that this decision deals with the most intricate matters of detail, as well as affects the very deepest feelings of our nature. " All this is true," says the Archbishop, '' it is true that I tolerate every day the wearing of black stoles in defiance of the law. It is true that not three Bishops on the Bench and only one Dean use the Cope in their Cathedral as this same decision orders : but if you use the eastward position, if you use the vestments and the lights which the eminent judge Sir R. Phillimore decided be to legal, then you are a violator of the law, an archical, immoral, and I must get some tyrannical instrument to coerce your conscience." I submit that it is not unfair in such a case to charge those who in this way wish to see the law obeyed with being partlzans. (See Note.) 4. His Grace must have succeeded in further alarming his audience by making use of the bug- bear confession, and the still more alarming bugbear, the confessional box. The abstract is alarming enoueh : the concrete is still more terrible. He did this by quoting a paragraph from a newspaper, the Church Herald. This paper suggested that confessional boxes should be set up in our Churches. Here was indeed an alarming proposal. I am not going to enter into the question of Confession at length. But I assert without fear of contradiction, that an English Clergyman is acting quite legally, if he hears a confession every day, whether the person confessing be man, woman, or child. In hearing confessions he is doing not only what he is legally justified in doing, but that in doing which he has the greatest of English Church- men to support him. I do not contend that con- fession should be obligatory : I contend it should not. I say nothing about Its frequency. I am quite aware that it is a very dehcate means of spiritual grace that has been and may be misused. I am most anxious that the feeHngs and rights of husbands, parents, and relatives should be consulted in this matter to the very utmost. But these are not the questions. The question is, is this perfectly legal practice to be used ? And I say that the experience of those clergy, who know most of the hideous wickedness of our great cities, say that it ought to be used. Those, too, who know most of our young men and boys confirm the view. The Archbishop, it is true, if I remember rightly, said that if school-boys went to confession, they would have to invent sins to confess. But this implies such a marvellous ignorance (coming from an old schoolmaster like Dr. Tait,) either of school-boys or of sin, that I am constrained to accept the opinion of others rather than that of his Grace. I am driven, by what I hear of the moral and spiritual state of our people, and by what I know of the benefits of going to confession, to believe that we must make use, as generally as our Church permits, of this as of other means of grace. That being so, does the Archbishop mean to say, that If you are to hear confessions (as legally you may, and morally you feel bound to do,) It Is not better to hear them in church, with a partition between Priest and penitent, for the convenience of both parties, than in a vestry, or a private room ? Or is It really come to this, that though you may and must use confession, you had rather do it In a hole and corner way, than In the way most convenient and most beneficial ; so that you should be able to half-persuade yourself that after all confessions are not heard, or that the Church of England does not quite recognise confession. Can anything be more pitiable than such a desire for self deception ? Can any one knowing that the Church does recognize lO confession, recommend us to act In this manner? Surely you had better face the facts, feehng quite assured that even if you were to see a confessional box set up in a Church, it would not be absolutely necessary to go into it. At any rate you will not put down Confession, by prohibiting a Confessional box. ■, 5. His Grace's next means of exciting alarm against us was by reference to Altar Cards. I have dealt with this matter separately. He charged us with cowardice and desecration of Holy Communion on the ground of our invoking Saints In these Altar Cards. Whether this would be a sufficient ground for a charge of cowardice and sacrilege, I am not prepared to say. But as a matter of fact the Cards in question do not contain a single invocation. The prayers have ample justification from the authorities and principles of the English Church. His Grace had not seen the Altar Cards, yet he used them as a means of exciting additional alarm against us, charging us with offences of which we are innocent. The bolt has been shot : the effect produced. But have we not been unjustly treated ? 6. One more ground of complaint I will notice, and it is this ; the use the Archbishop made of some hasty utterance of Mr. Stanton in favour of Disestab- lishment. *Tt is well," he said, "that we should know what are the views of those who follow practices such as those condemned In the case of Hebbert V. Purchas." I am not personally acquainted with Mr. Stanton, but I have the very best means of knowing him to be a most devoted clergyman. Still he will pardon, and agree with me, If I say, that his * obiter dicta,' whether on Morals, Politics, or Dog- matics, are not considered authoritative amongst Ritualists. Can the Archbishop really mean that because Mr. Stanton said something strong In favour of disestablishment, therefore Ritualists as a body are in favour of that measure ? Can any inference I r be more unjustifiable ? Yet what statement could have been better calculated to alienate the House of Peers from the Ritualists than to say that they were as a body in favour of disestablishment ? There is probably every shade of political opinion amongst them. But to say that Ritualists as a body are in favour of disestablishment is surely a marvellous in- accuracy of speech. It is no pleasant task to criticize statements which if made by any one holding an office less venerable than that of the Archbishop, could only be charac- terised as strangely reckless ; but in the interest of truth and religion this had to be done. His Grace ma)'', if he thinks fit, express his approval of the proceedings of the Bishop of Durham. He may also consider the feelings of ct^rtaln lay- men In the Diocese of Durham as typlcil of the state of feeling throughout the country. The existence of such a body as the English Union Church, consisting only in small measure of Clergy, and to vv^hich It Is notorious that a great many Rituahsts do not care to belong, hardly confirms the view. Neither does the strength and Increasing power of RItudism itself. No sane man supposes that Ritualism v/ould spread and grow stronger as it does, If It were not largely, and zealously, supported by the laity. His Grace appealed to moderate Anglicans to support him In this matter. I venture to believe they will not resjDond to his appeal. They know too well the aid they have received from those who are in every essential at one with them, though they may not agree in all externals. They know that It has been often by t!\e aid of these half-recognised auxiliaries that they have won the battles for which' they have long b^en contending, against sluggishness, indifference, and Latltudlnarlanlsm. They know that they both look back with reverence, and trace their spiritual ancestry, to the same great names in the English Church — to Keble and Bishop Wilson, and 12 Nelson, and Ken, and Cosin, and Sherlock, and George Herbert, and Bishop Andrewes. They will not by supporting ' heroic' legislation risk alienating the sympathies of all the Ritualists, driving some clergy into lay Communion, and some weak brethren into the arms of Rome. They will not at least do so in answer to the Archbishop's appeal. For when they have dis- counted his Grace's assertion about the cessation of neglect, and slovenliness; taken a calm view of what the lazu is ; thought about v/hat ceremonies mean; examined Altar Cards for themselves ; deliberated on the confessional question with common sense, not religious hysteria; and asked their Ritualistic friends what they think about disestablishment, they will naturally ask themselves what reason they have for deserting their friends and joining their foes. The answer will be : none. The Archbishop complains in his speech of the insubordination of Ritualist Clergy. A great deal of this means nothing but a refusal to accept the Purchas Judgment, which by an unfortunate acci- dent, most of the Episcopate have taken as their sole interpreter of our Rubrics, and to which they attach at least an exaggerated weight. Yet there is, no doubt, a want of some authority that shall direct and control our efforts. The Catholic movement would be the better for the leeltlmate oruldance of the Episcopate, and those feel this most who have taken most part In it. But the Archbishop and Bishops cannot be surprised if we do not look reverently to them for guidance, or regard their monitions as godly, when their sole guide in Ritual is the Privy Council, their sole remedy for want of discipline is in secular legislation : which they recom- mend too, with such statements as those which his Grace's speech contains. After all, what we call the Catholic revival, whether it meets with approval or not, is a very great fact, and it is made up of very com- 13 plicated phenomena. By the Catholic Revival I un- derstand the renewed sense of that continuity of Church life exhibited alike in worship, in discipline and in doctrine, which, though almost broken by the force of Puritanism, it was the glory and one of the essential principles of the English Reformation, (as History shews,) providentially to conserve. Of course it has weak points; but it has a great hold on the present generation of young Church- men, the strong-minded and strong-bodied, as well as others. It comprises a vast amount of the energy, self-denial, devotion, and ability of the younger Clergy. It is depressing to find that the Archbishop, at any rate, shews a complete inability or unwillingness to understand, or try to understand, the drift of what I must call at least an important movement. He is utterly at sea as to what it means, what it does, what It feels, or what It desires. There was an unfortunate dictum lately given that the Church of England, as by law established, allowed the greatest variety of opinions, but that it Insisted on uniformity of outward observance. If such were really the case, could anything be more discreditable to the Establishment ? Could anything be more hypocritical ? There may be much to be said for enforcing uniformity of beliefs In the Establish- ment ; for it Is our beliefs which make our lives. But to allow latitude of belief, and at the same time to enforce an unelastic rule of ceremonial, is a course that is surely irrational. It is said that such a course is to be followed for the sake of not offending those who differ. The aggrieved parishioner must indeed have strange feelings, if he is content to hear Confession, the Real Objective Presence, Eucharistic Worship, the Doctrine of the Sacrifice taught Sunday after Sunday, but cannot tolerate for a moment the eastward position. For the first grievance he can have no remedy, unless we alter the Formularies, and reverse the Bennett judgment, (for at least we H may preach what Mr. Bennett taught, and I am quite sure no one would wish to preach 77i07^e). For the second grievance, — the eastward position, — it is pro- posed to give this arbitrary power to the Bishops, and inaugurate an era of petty Htigation and constant persecution, diversified by sequestrations, imprison- ments, and secessions. Is it really thought that the rule of ceremonial should be narrower than the rule of Faith ? If, as is clear, the Establishment permits wide divergence of doctrine, is it wise, is it expedient, is it rational, to endeavour to force into a single mould the ex- pressions of all these divergences ? Does it seem desirable to make this your canon : In things important, laxity ; in things trivial, rigidity ? Yet this is what the Archbishop's proposal amounts to. And as to the extent of divergence, it may perhaps be asked '' Ouousque ? How far? How long?" Yet every one who takes the pains to inquire, would know that some of. our * extreme' Churches have reached the standard of ceremonial, beyond which they have not the slightest desire to advance, so that it may at any rate be said that we have realized the worst. And if it be contended that there Is an impatience to reach the advanced standard, v/here it is not generally desired, nay, where it is offensive, I reply that this danger would be less, if the constant excitement against Ritual were not kept up by organized and paid agencies, and If instead of half supporting this objectionable system, the Bishops were to recognise the principle that your rule of service should be at any rate as elastic as your rule of doctrine. Their monitions would then be far more weighty and far more respected. Yet it Is said that some of the Bishops have made up their minds to 'stamp out Ritualism.' They will probably find it a harder task than they in their want of knowledge of it suppose. At present they laugh i5 at the idea of an Incumbent having his living seques- trated, and doing anything rather than obey. Yet such results would infallibly follow, If the bill which a majority of the Episcopate are supposed to sup- port, were to pass, and be actually carried out. But most of the Bishops ' enter on the campaign with a light heart,' and some are occupied In the Upper House of Convocation in thanking the Archbishop for all he has said and all he has done. I allude to this to shew the ignorance, prevalent among the Bishops, of the real state of things. And it is this ignorance on their part which is the apology for any want of discipline on ours. We are grateful Indeed for being barely tolerated, where we beheve we are thoroughly in the right ; but whcit we want Is that more of the Bishops should shew that they are at least trying to understand what the Catholic movement means. They cannot be said to do so, when they blunder and misunderstand and uncon- sciously misrepresent at every turn. ]f we are to be stamped out, it would be a satisfaction to feel that those who perform this fatal operation should not do it in complete Ignorance of what they are about. But I do not think we shall be stamped out. There are better things in store for the Church of England. We may trust in our Lord's providential government of His Church : and perhaps among the present Episcopate there may be several who will learn to understand better, then to sympathize with, and so be able to control, the spiritual force that is ready to be put at their disposal. Till such time as they shall do so, we must wait patiently. i6 Note. That the Archbishop does not always take so rigid a view of the necessity of absolute compliance with the law, is shewn by the following extract from his speech in Convocation (Gtiardian, Feb. 14, 1872): *'Is it, or is it not true that if any complaint were made to any one of your Lordships against a Clergyman for omitting the Atha- nasian Creed, you would not proceed against him for violating the Act of Uniformity ; and if you thought it necessary to take notice of what he had done, you would do it in the lightest form, which the law allows ?" For at any rate this gross offence against Church Regulations, the Archbishop suggests some elasticity in applying the Law, y A. R. MOWBRAY AND CO., PRhNTERS, OXi'URD. ^ p^. ^^■'M '^'^. ^^^j;M|| ^< ■'^■^■L 'v^^^ *^>" ^