THE DEAN OF PETERBOROUGH'S PROPOSAL.
IT would be idle to profess any knowledge of what the letter signed by the Dean of Peterborough and Mr. Teignmouth Shore, which we print in another column, really means. A few days back, Mr. Teignmouth Shore was dwelling on the entire unpracticability of the Dean of Peterborough's proposal, and correcting the mistaken im- pression that it had been considered by Churchmen in Council. Now we have the Dean and Mr. Shore apparently in complete agreement as to "the principles on- which Churchmen in Council' has been founded, and the line of action which it has adopted," and signing a letter jointly in order to "prevent further confusion." In our minds, we confess, it has not had the desired result. Instead of preventing confusion, it has created it. Until now, we seemed dimly to understand that the Dean of Peterborough wanted one thing, and Mr. Shore another. Now, as they have thought it expedient to put out a joint letter, we are left to suppose that they have agreed either to want the same thing, or to want nothing at all. In the first case, we are left uncertain which has given way. In the second case, it seems scarcely necessary to explain the fact to a public meeting. For that meeting, however, we are willing to wait—puzzled, but patient.
We also print two other letters, one from the Dean of Wells, giving his reasons for rejecting both the proposals we spoke of last week, and one signed "A Liberal Church- man," accepting Mr. Teignmouth Shore's proposal, but giving it a very different meaning from that which Mr. Shore probably intends it to bear. The Dean of Wells has nothing to urge against the Dean of Peterborough's modus vivendi in principle. On the contrary, he grieves that he cannot bring himself to believe that it is "within the limits of possibility at the present time." We are but too familiar with this form of regret. Nothing is more common than to find good men admitting that this or that reform would make the world ever so much better than it is, but declaring in the same breath that they cannot bring themselves to believe that it is "within the limits of possibility at the present time." Why do they not try the experiment before giving it up as hopeless ? The first condition of success in this instance would be the adoption of the Dean of Peterborough's plan by the Lower House of the Southern Convocation. In this House the Dean of Wells has a seat. Why did he not wait to write his letter to us until after he had done his best to bring the Lower House of Convocation to take what he owns to be " a great step towards mitigating the evils of our time ?" He is not alone in his estimate of the Dean of Peterborough's plan, and, we are sorry to say, he is not alone in giving up the battle before it has been fought. If every Evangelical or Broad Church man who tells his friends that he wishes the Dean of Peterborough's plan could be carried out would say publicly that he hopes it will be carried out, an appre- ciable step would already have been taken towards its adoption.
That several of the Dean of Wells' difficulties would disappear if they were really faced, we have no doubt. To begin with, the "one thing" which the Dean regards as "absolutely certain about the Ornaments Rubric," appears quite uncertain to a number of people whose opinion is worth something. They read the history and wording of the rubric as conveying that very idea of a maximum and minimum which to the Dean of Wells seems "altogether alien from it." When, therefore, the Dean argues that "you cannot turn the tightest of red-tape into an elastic- band," it is at least possible that what he mistakes for red-tape has really the very elasticity the absence of which he laments. If that is so, we have got rid of the initial objection that the Dean of Peterborough's proposal "attempts an impossible transformation." It may only be impossible because those who wish it will hesitate about attempting it.
The two chief obstacles which the Dean of Wells men- tions are based on what we imagine to be a misconception of the proposal he is criticising. Of course Convocation has no power to declare that to be legal which the Final Court of Appeal has declared to be illegal ; and equally of course, if Convocation did make such a declaration, the Court would treat it as wastepaper. We have never sup- posed that the Dean of Peterborough's proposal could be carried into effect without the sanction of Parliament. But if, as we believe, that proposal is the most obvious, if not the only way of preventing disputes which threaten the existence of the Church of England as an Establishment ; and if, as we also believe, the present Parliament is anxious to maintain the Church of England as an Establishment, where is the impos- sibility of persuading Parliament to consent to the proposal ? The Dean of Wells answers this question by anticipation. The proposed maxima and minima of ritual, he says, must be incorporated in the Bill, and what chance is there of carrying such a measure through the present House of Commons ? None at all, we freely admit. But why should the proposed maxima and minima be incor- porated in the Bill ? So far is this from being necessary, that to attempt it would be open to all the objections to which a new Ornaments Rubric based on the principle of comprehensiveness is open. The chief merit of the Dean of Peterborough's proposal is that it recognises the impossibility in the present state of the Church, of bringing the two extreme parties to agree upon a compre- hensive rubric. It says in effect :--` There are two conflicting intepretations of the Ornaments Rubric. One has in its favour the apparent meaning of the words ; the other has in its favour the authority of the Judicial Com- mittee of the Privy Council. We do not ask Convocation or Parliament to decide between them ; we only ask that compliance with either reading of the rubric shall exempt a clergyman from prosecution.' Cases may be imagined in which a clergyman might exceed the maximum conceded by one interpretation, or fall short of the minimum secured by the other. Such cases, however, might very well be dealt with in the ordinary course of law. No reasonable Ritualist contends that he may go beyond what was per- mitted by the authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward VI.; no reasonable Evangelical contends that be may disregard the A.dvertisements of Queen Elizabeth. In the improbable event of a clergyman's being guilty of either of these errors, he would receive so little support from his own party that he might safely be left to bear the consequences of his eccentricity. "A Liberal Churchman" has a very simple solution of the ritual difficulty. It is to concede all the points in die- puts to the anti-ritualist party. It is true he professes himself "unwilling to give a triumph to either of the extreme sections of the Church," but as at the same time he approves of "a new rubric embodying the simple and familiar dress that has so long prevailed among the clergy in general," he does, as a matter of fact, give a complete triumph to the party which is opposed to Ritualism. This apparent inconsistency is explained by what, in our opinion, is a radical misapprehension of the position of the High Church party. That party, says our correspondent, "is very far from being extreme, and is almost as averse to advanced Ritualism as is the Evangelical ;" and from this he infers that it would be quite willing to see Ritualism put down. It is not the first time this mistake has been made. Lord Beaconsfield set the example, with disastrous results, in 1874. The premisses of "A Liberal Churchman" are substantially accurate. The High Church party is not extreme, and it does not like advanced Ritualism. But it is a long step from not liking Ritualism to being willing to see Ritualism stamped out ; and this long step, as we are convinced, the High Church party is not pre- pared to take. The reason of its unwillingness is the con- verse of the reason given by "A Liberal Churchman" for rejecting the Dean of Peterborough's solution. It is "fatal," he says, because it involves "a distinct recogni- tion of what is, in the eyes of many, a false doctrine." In just the same way," A Liberal Churchman's" solution would be "fatal," because it would be held to involve a denial of what is, in the eyes of many, a true doctrine. If we are right in our reading of the ecclesiastical situation, this is the view that would be taken of a new rubric embody- ing the simple and familiar dress that has so long pre- vailed among the clergy in general, by numbers who never have worn any other dress, and, unless they are driven to it, never will.
Previous page
