THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARCHBISHOPS.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
am sure that every one who is anxious for the peace Of the Church will thank you heartily for your leading article of May 13th on the Archbishops' jurisdiction. The letter of Canon Dugmore quoted in the Times of the same day, stating that he intends to submit himself unreservedly to the Arch- bishops' decisions on Ritual matters,- will to very many be a welcome comment, by anticipation, on what you have said. I am afraid " Templar " and I am hopelessly at issue as to the effect of the judgments in the Maconochie case. I diffet from him entirely as to the grounds on which Mr. Maconochie Was acquitted by Sir R. Phillimore, and I cannot, therefore, accept his "test." But you have already kindly allowed me to express my views as to this at length, and I will not ask you for more space to discuss the matter. Perhaps, however, I may be allowed a few words in reply to your correspondent's second complaint against me, as he (no doubt unintentionally) entirely misrepresents me. I never suggested, as "Templar" says I did, "that the Archbishop is not, though the Bishop is, bound by the proviso, 'So that the V same be not contrary to anything contained in this book." I merely called attention to the fact that the proviso does not in terms refer to the Archbishop. Looking to the history of the clause, it was not likely that it should. The directions in the first Prayer-book of Edward VI. stopped at the words "in this book," and contained no mention of the Archbishop. The clause as to the Archbishop was added in 1552 as a separate sentence cut off from what had gone before by a full-stop, and it has so appeared in all the subsequent Prayer-books. I do not infer from these circumstances that the Archbishop is not bound by the limitations of the proviso, but I do infer from them that the Archbishop's authority, contemplated • in the preface, is of a different 'naturefrom that of the Bishop. It is, I submit, what Sir R. Phillimore called it, "a provision for controlling the exercise" of the Bishop's discretion. " Templar " seems to think that the function of the Archbishop is advisory or directory only, and without legal force. But if so, why was the clause as to the Archbishop added at all It did not require any special pro- vision to enable the Bishop to submit himself voluntarily to his ecclesiastical superior. "Advice or directions" is not what the Bishop is to go to the Archbishop for. He goes for the " resolution " of his doubt, and it is difficult to see how he can obtain this unless the Archbishop can give him a legal and final decision. Your correspondent. speaks of the."legal absurdity," which he appears to attribute to me, of "supposing that the Legislature intended to give power to the Archbishop to overrule" the decisions of "the Courts of Law and set aside their own handiwork." I, for one, never supposed anything of the kind. As the Prayer-book was a new document when the clause referring to the Archbishop was first enacted, there were in the nature of things no existing decisions of Courts of Law upon it for the Archbishop to overrule. And I confess I see no absurdity in supposing that it was the intention of the Legislature that all Ritual questions which should atise on this new book, within the limits of the proviso above quoted, should not come before the ordinary ecclesiastical Courts, but should , be referred. to the Bishop personally, with, a final reference, if he is in doubt, to the Archbishop. • There is nothing unreasonable or improbable in this: The compilers of the Prayer-book evidently, from their preface, thought that they had sufficiently provided for every possible case. But they recognised that "nothing can be so plainly set for but doubts may-arise in the use and practice of -the Same." And they, therefore, as I submit, further provided that if by chance they kid left any difficultie,s unsolved, these were to be sent for final-solution to the Archbishop. t That•the Ritual tinestions involved. have assumed larger proportiOns than may have been, originally contemplated cannot affect the co.nstruction of the -provisions referred to.---I am, Sir,
Previous page
