THE RITUALISTS AND THE DECISION OF THE ARCHBISHOPS. Nv -E still
trust and believe that all but a very few of the extremists among the Ritualists will obey the decision of the Archbishops, and so prove to the world that their loyalty to the Church of England and to its episcopal organisation is really a matter of duty and conscience, and not something to be thrown off and repudiated the moment that it becomes personally irksome and disagreeable. If, however, we should un- happily prove mistaken, and if a large number of Ritualists should refuse to give up the liturgical use of incense and the use of moving lights, we have little doubt that their excuse will be that they are not really dis- obeying the Archbishops, but only the secular laws and decisions of which the Archbishops have imprudently made themselves the mouthpiece. In other words, they will seek to go behind the decision, and to pick to pieces the reasons and grounds on which it was based. This process has, indeed, already begun, and we hear of clergymen who would sacrifice everything to obey their episcopal superiors when they spoke in their true capacity, but who cannot obey decisions which are openly and avowedly based on Acts of Parliament.' Dread- ing the possibility of such arguments being used, we ventured so long ago as February 11th to urge the Primates when they gave their decision not to append their reasons, but to issue an order rather than to pronounce judgment. We may, perhaps, be allowed to quote our actual words. "We trust," we wrote, "that when they [the Archbishops] give their decisions they will give them in the shape of short, clear, and specific directions, and not in that of a reasoned judgment. That is, we trust that they will not give their reasons at length for deciding that a particular practice is or is not contrary to the law of the Church of England, but will merely state that the practice is allowed, or not allowed. The great object is to close debate, and to obtain obedience, not to open argument. Now, if the Archbishops state their reasons for coming to a certain decision, a hundred acute minds will instantly be at work to show that in such-and-such particulars the reasons are manifestly not sound." We went on to point out that the Bishops should act rather as the chief officers in a great service giving direc- tions as to the conduct of that service than as ordinary Judges. "The Archbishops, though very able men, are not trained lawyers, and have not the lawyers' habit of not saying a word too much and of keeping to the narrowest possible limits in a decision. The Archbishops, if they give their reasons, will not succeed in avoiding °biter dicta, and obiter dicta of a kind which may trouble Church waters profoundly. The pro- cedure will, in effect, be an ex parte application for the direction of the Court, and the decision, therefore, should be a simple direction, not a reasoned judgment. There is yet another ground, and one of policy, for disliking reasoned judgments. If the Archbishops give their reasons they are certain to be said not to be deciding according to the law, but in order to prevent a catas- trophe. That will no doubt be a perfectly unjust accusation, but it will be much easier to avoid it if the Archbishops simply say This is a practice which can properly be allowed,' or 'This is one which cannot be allowed,' and do not lose themselves in reasons which by the nature of the thing will only be clear to a few experts. What is wanted is a clear lead, not a disquisition."
It seems to us that this warning has been justified by the event. It is always a disagreeable thing to obey when obedience means giving up doing not only what one has been doing for a long time, but also what one has always argued one had a perfect right to do. Obviously, then, obedience, when required, should be made as easy as possible for those who are called on to obey. Now, in the present case, it is far easier for a Ritualist to obey his ecclesiastical superiors when they tell him that he must obey because it is their order, than when they tell him to obey because of such-and-such an Act of Parlia- ment. The clergyman who has been using incense, and who still believes he has a right to use it, will most natur- ally prefer to abandon the practice simply because he is ordered to discontinue the use by a person whom he holds to be competent to give the order. He does not then feel that he has been beaten in argument or forced to admit himself in the wrong. He simply obeys. But it is, we agree, no good to cry over spilt milk. The Archbishops have given their reasons, and those reasons are in danger of being used as an excuse for disobedience. The next thing, then, is to inquire how best this process can be stopped,—for we are not of those who think that the sooner the present users of incense can be ejected from the Church the better, and that their obedience is not a matter to be specially sought after. We believe in the essential wisdom, justice, and soundness of the Archbishops' decision, but we want to see it followed by all, and not, except in the very last resort, to have recourse to measures of coercion. In our opinion, the best plan now will be for the Bishops to notify the decision of the Archbishops to their clergy in the simplest terms and without reasons assigned, and then to base upon it a clear and peremptory order requiring obedience, given by the Bishop as Bishop, and in no other capacity. The episcopal order, that is, should set forth that since it had been decided by the Arch- bishops that the liturgical use of incense and of moving lights is not allowable in the services of the Church, the recipient of the order is ordered and required by his Diocesan, if he has made use of those practices, hereafter to discontinue them. An episcopal injunction of that kind would make it easier, not harder, for the Ritualist to obey, and would narrow down the issue, as it ought to be narrowed down, into the simple question of whether the clergyman is or is not willing to obey his Bishop. If he proved unwilling, and if, after due time had been allowed him for consultation and reflection, the recalcitrancy continued, then proceedings must, of course, be taken ending in deprivation. If, how- ever, the question which is kept steadily before the clergy- men affected by the decision of the Archbishops is,' Will you, or will you not, obey the order of your Bishop given you out of his episcopal authority, and dependent upon your obligations as an ordained priest ? ' we cannot bring our- selves to believe that the cases of deliberate recalcitrancy will be very numerous. What is wanted is to make the act of obedience as easy and as little wounding as possible, and not to unduly hurry the process. We must never forget that the clergymen to be dealt with are not only men who are acting from motives of conscience, but that they are also English gentlemen, and that English gentlemen cannot be ordered about as if they were French or German conscripts. They know the need- fulness of obedience and the virtue of obedience, and can and will obey ; but they must be given time, treated with due consideration and respect, and allowed to obey in the way which will least injure their amour propre.
On the whole, though we cannot deny that there is a certain danger of disobedience, and so of the necessity for enforcing the Archbishops' decision—that now the decision has been given it must be enforced we do not doubt for a moment—we still remain hopeful, and believe that the extreme Ritualists will submit. If, as we have said, the decision of the Archbishops, of which as yet they have no official cognisance, is put before them by the Bishops concerned as a plain matter of obedience, we cannot doubt that the result will be that which all loyal members of the Church of England desire. Our only dread, indeed, is that at the last moment Sir William Harcourt may by his hectoring and bullying force them into a position of unreasoning stubbornness,—a position totally illogical, no doubt, but one which men in a difficult place will often take up if they are spoken of, and to, in the tone used by the great self-constituted champion of Protestantism in his letter in Tuesday's Times. A more mischievous effusion than that letter, or one more likely to provoke disobedience, it is impossible to imagine.
Previous page
