RITUALISM AND PROSECUTION. R ECENT events seem to show that we
are on the eve of another dreary period of Church controversy, in which Ritualism and the civil law, the authority of the Bishops and the liberty of the individual conscience, comprehensiveness and purity of discipline, will be the old and well-remembered watchwords. Steps have been taken within the last week to prosecute three East End clergymen, one of whom is a well-known philanthropist, for alleged contravention of the canons of Church dis- cipline in the ceremonial use of incense and the mode of celebrating Holy Communion. Meantime the ubiquitous Mr. Kensit, as we learn from the newspapers, has flown to the East End on the first hint of prosecution, and has been disturbing a meeting in Shoreditch addressed by the Bishop of Stepney. Simultaneously with this attempt to revive an old crusade, the Archdeacons of London and Middlesex have sent to the Times a letter addressed to the Bishop of London, beseeching him to discountenance the series of prosecutions and pointing out the fatal unwisdom of any violent course. With the view expressed in this letter we are in the fullest agree- ment, and we sincerely trust that it will approve itself to the Bishops assembled this week in conclave at Lambeth. The Archdeacons dissociate themselves from any sym- pathy with the abuses, which have made the threatened proceedings possible. They point out that the experience of the last thirty years tends to show that prosecution aggravates the very evils it is intended to cure. It gives notoriety to people who may be merely foolish, it in- evitably attracts popular sympathy to the wrongdoer's side, it creates a disputatious and uncharitable atmosphere in the Church which prevents any real settlement of differences by a clear statement of their basis, and it strikes a severe blow at the all-embracing and catholic character of the Church of England which to many is its most precious attribute. " We think the disobedience of a few," the Archdeacons write, " a less evil than a general time of excitement, recrimination, and the possibility of steps hastily taken and repented at leisure. We are aware of the peculiar and inherited difficulties of the Church of England, and we are hopeful that by patience, forbearance, and a general consent brought about by reasonable dis- cussion, a way out of these difficulties may ere long b3 discovered." Meanwhile, to further these great ends, they desire that the Bishop of London should use his veto to stop the proposed prosecutions.
The legal significance of this veto may be briefly stated, as it is a subject on which there is considerable popular confusion. Under the Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874, the prosecution must be instituted by the complaint of three parishioners, upon which the Bishop has three courses open. He may quash proceedings by stating in writing his opinion that the case should go no further ; he may pronounce judgment by consent ; or he may transmit the whole matter to the secular Courts. The present prosecutions, we understand, are not to be con- ducted under this Act, probably because the three parishioners were not forthcoming, but under the Church Discipline Act of 1840. In this latter case the initial complaint may come from one person, who need not be a parishioner ; and the same three courses are open to the Bishop, with a few minor differences, as under the Act of 1874,—veto, judgment by consent, or a reference to the civil Courts. The Times raises the question whether or not the Bishop possesses a veto under the Act of 1840, and the matter is not perfectly clear, for Section VII. is askwardly worded ; but some such veto may be implied from the context. The Commission which the Bishop appoints decides on the prima -facie evidence, and then the Bishop may declare for or against the wisdom of further proceedings. It is to this right of veto that the Arch- deacons' letter appeals. The legal right of prosecution resides in the Bishop ; it lies in his discretion to set the machinery of the law in motion. We join with the Archdeacons in hoping that the Bishop of London and the episcopate generally will discourage such prosecutions. It is not a question of High Church or Low Church, or any theory of doctrine in Church_ government. We ourselves have no sympathy with Ritualist extravagances, and though in certain forms Ritualism has its meaning, there is much mumming and millinery which is beyond the comprehension of any sen- sible man. We perfectly understand that many honest Churchmen feel indignant at what they believe to be an insidious attempt to sap the foundations of their Church, and clamour for punishment and repression. We under. stand and sympathise with such an attitude ; but we repeat that to invoke the powers of the law is not only bad policy for their own party, but a ruinous precedent for the Church as a whole. We have often given our reasons for this view, and we may enumerate them again. In the first place, the Church of England in its historical character is based on a compromise, and it owes its significance as a national Church to its power of including many who differ among themselves on inessential points, and unite on certain cardinal doctrines of theology and Church government. Much liberty of opinion within certain plain bounds has always been its aim, and it has given room within its walls for many wide differences and opposite tempers of mind. It was based not on an isolated doctrine ; it was not born in a revolt ; but it was the slow growth of years in conformity with the character of the nation, absorbing new ideas, adding to its territory, but keeping always in the last resort an unalterable standard of faith. If we narrow these limits and make it the Church of a party, then we lose our birthright. It is right that purity should come before peace, but let us beware lest this purity should be of so rigid and narrow a type as to make peace for the future impossible. Again, we must consider not only the nature of our Church, but the characteristics of our people. It is a much-abused argument, used often only to excuse weakness and defend scandals, but in a question of this sort it is an argument which demands consideration. Any hint of persecution will raise foolish men to the rank of martyrs, and secure them a devoted following, when, had they been left alone, their follies would have reaped their natural harvest of oblivion. Did the prosecutions of the " seventies" in any way further the cause of the moderates ? It is a significant fact that in the present affair the various Protestant societies, the official opponents of the extremists, are holding aloof, for they doubtless know how little such action can further the cause they have at heart. The ordinary churchgoer, who hates extremes in ritual, will inevitably sympathise with the extremist if there is any hint of persecution, for his attitude to the clergy is still respectful, and while he may dislike their doings, he none the less dislikes outside interference. That many good men have been exasperated beyond endurance by certain abuses is no doubt true, and all must desire to see some check placed upon ritualistic innovations. But let the controlling power come from within, let the supervision be ecclesiastical, and let not a difficult question be pre- cipitated to an unwise and violent climax. An abuse is an abuse and should be corrected, and some sort of super- vision is certainly desirable. The Bishops can do much if they please. They can act as the new Bishop of Liver- pool is doing, and in churches where ritual is carried to an offensive height they can refuse to preach or license assistant clergy. There are a thousand ways in which ecclesiastical supervision may be exercised. Doubtless they irritate the extreme party more than prosecutions, but that after all is not our concern. We wish the Church to reform its own abuses within itself, to keep its bounds at the same time as wide as possible, and to refrain from giving its foolish members the honour of public prosecu- tion.
It is very easy to be extreme and consistent. It is much harder to show that tact and forbearance and incon- sistency which make up practical wisdom. In certain institutions a sweeping policy may do good ; but the Church is an organism so entirely by itself that its affairs can be managed by no narrow rule-of-thumb. There is a doctrine which we forget too readily in our rapid genera- tion, that only that survives which has in it some element of eternal truth. If ritualistic extravagances appeal to a necessary and neglected element in the religious conscious- ness of England, which we do not for a moment believe, then they will stay whatever our efforts to prevent them. If not, let us neglect them, or control them only so far as to allow the ordinary man to worship in peace, and they will assuredly disappear. In the difficult region of spiritual things a kind of laissez-faire seems to us the truest wisdom.
Previous page
