CANON MACCOLL ON THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC.* CANON MAcCom. was summoned
by the Ritual Commission to give evidence before them, and was examined and cross- examined for five days. It was a great, and, to the best of our belief, a well-deserved, compliment. No man has studied the subject with which the Commission were occupied more carefully.. But it seems that the witness was not satisfied with the treatment he received, and he now publishes this volume to set himself right. A book by Canon MacColl is always a valuable addition to the literature of the subject with which it is concerned. Yet we cannot help feeling that it would have been better if he had waited a while, and possibly given himself the opportunity of modifying some of the comments which he has made. He had, of course, to ask permission to publish his evidence, and this was granted on the condition that it should not appear till the Commission's Report was formally presented. But would it not have been as well if he had waited till he bad himself seen the Report ? It is agreed on all bands that this document is very moderate and equitable. It has the immense advantage of having been unanimously adopted, a thing which, in view of the different standpoints occupied by individual Commissioners, was hardly expected. Whatever may be thought of the recommendations, no one can doubt that the Report is of such a tone and temper as to make for peace. But Canon MacColl brings a very grave charge against certain members of the Commission. He does not expressly name them, but he names those whom he exempts from his censure. He begins, indeed, by saying that he is sure that the Commissioners "intended to be perfectly fair" ; but when he goes on to declare that some of them "seemed to forget the purpose for which they were appointed," this purpose being "to inquire impartially into facts," and further remarks that they "seemed less intent on getting at the plain facts and forming an independent judgment on them than on finding evidence in support of a foregone conclusion," he practically says exactly the opposite. A man who is "intent on finding support for a foregone conclusion" does not "intend to be perfectly fair." Canon MacColl's action is, we think, to be regretted, first, because the Commissioners so attacked cannot defend themselves, and secondly, because when a • Th.) /Royal Commission and the Ornaments Rubric. By the Bev. Malcolm MacColl, D.D. London: Lougmo.us and Co. [12$. 6d. not.] generally satisfactory result has been reached, it is better to., say as little as possible about the processes by which it biet been attained. Cross-examination cannot be carried on with- out friction, and friction generates heat. But the heat passe* away when the causes cease to operate. It is nothing leas than deplorable to renew it, especially when we remember the subject of these differences. Already there is only too much in Church history to turn the saying, "See how these Christians love one another!" into the bitterest of ironies. We cannot attempt to analyse the arguments by which Canon MacColl supports his views of the ornaments rubric. They seem to us very powerful. On certain points be scores distinct successes against his opponents. It is true that different views have been maintained by men whose judgment we are naturally inclined to respect, and all the more in view of the circum- stances in which it was arrived at,—Bishops Creighton and Ridding, to name two only. Still, we think that the array of facts and dates which the author of this volume marshals in support of his theory cannot easily be overthrown. On the other side we have the fact that the "ornaments" were actually disused,—we are told here that they were disused because they were destroyed, and destroyed because they were valuable. And we also know that the reformers who objected to vestments were practically concerned with the surplice. The alb, the cope, and the tunicle scarcely appear in the controversy.
But the ornaments themselves—they include, besides those already mentioned, the paten, chalice, corporal (altar cloth), pastoral staff, chrisom in baptism, and ring in marriage—are of no great intrinsic importance. The far-reaching inference which is drawn from the rubric is of the greatest moment- This inference, as it is most broadly stated, is this: the rubric legalises the ornaments of church and minister as they were in the last years of Henry VIII.; these being legalised, we have also to accept the doctrinal system which was then established. Now the King remained up to his death an unflinching adherent of Roman doctrine in all points except Papal supremacy. Some changes he permitted, or even encouraged, in the form of worship, especially in the larger use of the vernacular. But the " Ffenrician Theology "—the phrase is used by divines who would be commonly classed with Canon isfacColl —was substantially Roman. Henry's political interests led him in the direction of friendship and alliance with the Protestant Princes of Germany ; he did open negotiations with them, but theological differences barred any real agree- ment. Perhaps the most obvious proof of this statement is to be found in the Statute of the Six Articles, which was still in force when Henry died. (The "Six Articles," which it may be convenient here to give, were transubstantiation, com- munion in one kind, celibacy of priests, vow of chastity, private masses, auricular confession.) Canon MacColl feels the awkwardness of this fact, and says that though the Act remained on the statute-book, it was "in a greatly modified form." Now what does this mean ? The doctrines and the penalties by which they were sanctioned remained the same. If any one denied transubstantiation, he was liable to be burnt ; if he questioned any one of the other five, he lost his property for the first offence, and was hanged for the second. So far there was no modification. But the Act had always been found a most inconvenient one in practice. There is extant a long list of the charges which were brought under it in the first month of its existence. A volume which Bishop Stubbs found generally accurate says that eight hundred persons were imprisoned in London alone. For this evil a remedy was sought. It was provided by 35 Henry VIII., c. 5, that no charge could be brought except by twelve men on oath, and no offence be taken cognisance of after an interval of a year. And further, the accused was permitted to recant if he would. But, continues Canon MacColl, "I believe that no prosecutions took place under the statute after 35 Henry VHF, c. 5." This is an extraordinary statement to be made by a writer who seems to have all the dates and facts of the time at his finger-ends. Anne Askew was burnt on July 16th, 1546, a little more than six months before the King's death. Three other victims suffered with her, and for the same offence,—the denial of the first of the six Articles. Anne Askew's was no common wie. The Roman party had, after their first experience of the working of the Act, been unwilling to enforce it. Foxe records but few convictions under it. But the accusers of Anne Askew were fllintjat: higher, game :•: -they.•.hoped to involve the Queen. 'ThItiiltsithWeattsa of- the torture to'which she was subjected. It–this this; to • find himself foiled by her firmness, that so iri_fdriated- Chancellor Wriothesley. The story is one of the niciit significant; as it is one of the most interesting, in English -Church history—Anne Askew, who tells her own
. .
story; reminds us of St. Perpetua—and Canon MacColl, who knows everything that happened in those times, has never *rct of it, or has forgotten 411 about it. Perhaps he will be a little More indulgent in future to the errors of others.
'With. much that our author says about comprehension we are in full sympathy. We cannot conceive the Anilican Church without Canon MacColl or his likes. • Still, a line must be _drawn. We cannot have the Reformation abolished by the inferences which may be drawn, with whatever logical force, from a rubric ; and the rights of individual worshippers must-be safeguarded. In great towns things right themselves in a way, or, at the worst, give opportunities of escape ; but in'etnintry parishes. the tyranny of the parson is sometimes very hard to bear. What is to be done ? Certainly we must ncit:diniinish the power of the Bishops. Whether Canon MadColl agrees with us so far, we know not ; we fear that he will Part company with us w,ben we add that the power Of the Bishops means,ns things are ordered now, the power of the laity.
Previous page
