THE MILES PLATTING CASE. [To THE Eorros or THE "SPECIATOR."1
beg to withdraw unreservedly what I said of the Bishop
of London, in a letter printed in the Spectator of February 10th. I find that in the cases which I had in view, Dr. Jackson was not responsible for the action by which the congregations were dispersed. I find, further, that a high opinion of his fairness and kindliness is held by men who differ from him on questions of ritual much more widely than the Spectator does. But you do not answer me on the main issue. Your argument has been that the Bishop of Manchester, in objecting to Mr. Cowgill's nomination, is breaking a treaty by which he is morally bound. This, to my mind, you have not proved ; but it is a grave charge, and should be.proved. A Bishop who moves on, disregarding alike popularity and unpopularity daring a strenuous episcopate of thirteen years, may frequently be mistaken in judgment,— will certainly be frequently charged with mistakes. But if he is accused of failing in respect to any moral obligation, it should be shown very clearly, first, that the assumed moral obligation binds him ; and, secondly, that he disregards it.
Dr. Fraser's allowance of the Miles Platting ritual, until the living was vacant and the nomination of Mr. Cowgill under- stood to be imminent, involves, you think, and I agree with you, the protection of the disputed ritual under a new incumbent. But I differ from you, when you infer that it involves the acceptance of Mr. Cowgill as that incumbent. The only object that I can see for the change of curates was to bar Mr. Cowgill's claim upon the incumbency. To your suggestion that by dis- missing Mr. Cowgill the Bishop scattered or intended to scatter the congregation, the answer is plain. No congregation can be dispersed by an interim arrangement between the deprivation of one incumbent and the institution of another. And as to the difficulty of finding a suitable incumbent, Miles Platting is a living of £300 a year, with a rectory house and a generous patron. It is not an eligible place of residence, but neither is St. Peter's, London Docks, nor many of the parishes in which Ritualism has entrenched itself. The last thing which a Ritualist may expect to be accused of is that he is afraid of bad air or a
low population.—I am, Sir, &c., J. S.
[We do not understand our correspondent's point. We thought the Archbishop of Canterbury's action right, and Bishop Fraser's action inconsistent with and antagonistic to it. —En. Spectator.]
Previous page
