TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE RITUALISTS IN THE CITY.
Public Worship Regulation Act is beginning to produce 1. thecrop of difficulties which we expected from its work- ing. We differed from many of the strongest of the ecclesi- astical Liberals in disliking the Bill, and in agreeing with Mr. Gladstone that it did not and could not work with the degree of elasticity which is desirable in a National Church ; and now a good many of the strongest supporters of the Bill are discovering, to their own discouragement, that the first case in which the Act is likely to result in something like severity of punishment, is a case in which the clergyman who transgresses its provi- sions appears to be supported by his Churchwardens and almost the whole of his flock, so that hardly any layman can be found to say that his own conscience is hurt and his rights as a Christian violated by the eccentric caprices of the Vicar of St. James's, Hatcham. This is, to say the least, a very un- fortunate incident of the affair, and one on which the Vicar very naturally and fairly lays a great deal of stress. When severity be- comes necessary in matters of this kind in spite of the fact that the victim is, if not a strictly conscientious man,—which the Rev. Arthur Tooth very likely is,—at least one who will appear to half those interested in his proceedings to be a strictly conscientious man who is a martyr to his eccentric sense of ecclesiastical and religious duty,—it is of the first importance that that severity should be justified by the imperative duty which the State owes to other persons injured by his pro- ceedings. Now in a City church where the congregation is found to appreciate all the ecclesiastical millinery and trifling, as it appears to us, which the Vicar sup- poses it to be his duty to adopt and sanction, it is hardly possible that any one can be very seriously wronged by the proceeding. Such of the parishioners of St. James's, Hatcham, as disapprove of all this gaudy ceremonial, and find their prayers interrupted and their souls disturbed by the outward bustle and parade and by the symbolic inculcation of what they think false doctrine, can certainly find, and apparently do find, another church to worship in more to their mind amongst half-a-dozen other neighbouring churches. The grievance to others, therefore, in this case cannot be very serious, and if only on that account, one would hardly wish to see severe measures employed against the clergyman who can maintain at least plausibly, possibly with complete truth, that the only changes he makes in the later traditions of our Church of England worship, are made for the devotional advantage of those who habitually worship in his church, and that they heartily enter into and appreciate these changes. If such novelties as Mr. Tooth's had been practised in a rural parish where half or more than half the parishioners look upon them as semi-pagan, semi-Romanist acts of idolatry, there would have been the highest justification for enforcing, even by severe measures, against the incumbent the rule of wor- ship to which the parishioners had been all their lives accus- tomed ; and we should have felt no compunction in such a a case in advocating the most rigorous enforcement of the law. But as it is, the consequences of rigour would be very different indeed. We can conceive nothing more unfortunate in policy than to permit Mr. Tooth, if such be his wish, to manoeuvre the Ecclesiastical Court into making a martyr of him ; and if he be, as seems likely enough, simply a crotchetty but thoroughly earnest priest, intent on doing what he believes to be his duty in the least ostentatious way, it would be still more unfortunate to make a martyr of him, for if he be this, his character must be well known to many of those around him, and a certain enthusiasm would, in all probability, be kindled for the patient victim of the law.
As it is, however, the unfortunate result of that ill- conceived and unfortunate measure, the Public Worship Regulation Act, that the first serious collision between our ecclesiastical authorities and the Ritualists seems likely to occur in relation to a church where it is quite possible to believe the victim to have been doing what hurts no one's conscience, and what gratifies the religious feeling of his parishioners, we do hope that special care may be taken not to deal more harshly than is necessary with the culprit. Law is law, and however unfortunate the law may be, it is not to be thought of that Mr. Tooth should go on violating it with perfect impunity. If his conscience is really so sensitive that he cannot conform to the conditions laid down by the State for a Church which is supported by the State, be should leave it. There is nothing to prevent his censing every article used in divine worship, lighting as many candles as he pleases, placing them where he pleases, and putting on what garments he pleases, in a Voluntary church, supported by worshippers who approve and desire such ceremonial. But it is somewhat too much to contend, first, that his imperative duty requires him to do these things ; and next, that it equally requires him not to retire from the position of an English vicar, whose revenues are provided out of the property of the nation. Still, his offence being rather a malum prohibituna than a malum in se, one would not like to see him made a martyr to his eccentric sense of duty, either on his own account, or on account of those who will be sure to get an access of enthusiasm for this nonsense out of any martyrdoms of which they can boast ; and for both these reasons we trust there may be no needless talk of imprisoning Mr. Tooth for contempt of Court, of which he has already, we suppose, been guilty in his absolute defiance,—or as he objects to that term,—in his absolute disobedience to Lord Penzance's sentence, first of inhibition, and then of suspension. It is true that we have had to im- prison the Keighley Guardians for committing a somewhat similar offence, through scruples also said to be conscientious,— we mean their defiance of the State law respecting vaccination. And we take it that the Keighley scruple against vaccination and the Ritualist scruple against the omission of lighted candles, chasubles, and incense, are scruples to be ranked in the same plane of highly artificial conscience. Still,. there is this necessity, for rigour in the case of the vacci- nation rebels which does not exist in the case of the Ritualistic rebels,—that the former, by their scruples, endanger the health of the whole community, of those who obey as well as of those who disobey the law ; while the mischief of the Ritualistic rebellion is almost entirely confined to those who take part in it, since it is not easy to suppose that the example of disobedience in a matter of this kind can be very catching. Therefore, though it was essential to have recourse to imprisonment in the case of the Keighley offenders against the Vaccination law, it is not equally neces- sary, and if not necessary, then certainly not desirable, to have recourse to so strong a remedy in the case of offenders against the Public Worship Act. We can have learnt nothing at all from all the history of the last three hundred years, if we have not learnt this,—that the mildest conceivable mode of punish- ing any breach of law committed in the name of religious conviction, is the best.
Now, it appears to us that there is a much milder mode of dealing with Mr. Tooth under the Public Worship Regale,- tion Act than the course of committing him to prison for con- tempt of Court, and so making a martyr of him. Under the thirteenth section of that Act, " obedience by an incumbent to a monition or order, of the Bishop or Judge, as the case may be, shall be enforced, if necessary, in the manner prescribed by rules and orders ;" and under the nineteenth section, her " Majesty may by Order in Council, at any time either before or after the commencement of this Act, by and with the consent of the Lord High Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of Eng- land, the Judge to be appointed under this Act, and the Archbishops and Bishops who are members of her Majesty's Privy Council, or any two of the said persons, one of them being the Lord High Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice of England, cause rules and orders to be made for regulating the procedure ,and settling the fees to be taken in proceedings under this Act, so far as the same may not be expressly regulated by this Act, and from time to time alter and amend such rules and orders." Only such rules and orders, or the amendments in them so made, must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for forty days before they acquire their final validity ; and such rules or orders would be annulled, if either House addressed the Crown against them. Still, any rules and orders so made would be valid until so annulled by Order in Council in consequence of an address of either House. So that there is nothing to prevent Lord Penzance taking action at once with the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice, for better securing the obedience of Mr. Tooth to the orders which have been as yet set at defiance by Mr. Tooth. Probably the best way would be to take power to shut the church up, in case he will not quit it,—it is said he has taken his bed into the vestry, and never leaves the building,—and so render it impossible for him to break the law by performing divine service in a manner contrary to law. When by this means Mr. Tooth is got rid of, the Bishop has full power under the Act o sequestrate the profits of the living, in order to pay a snbstiti.te till Mr. Tooth makes his submission ; and if that does not happen within three years' time from the date of the first in- hibition, the living becomes vacant, and a new incumbent may be appointed. In this way, as it seems to us, the law could be enforced with even less that would look like persecution thin in the case of the Keighley Guardians. And with this, those who wish to secure the maximum of ecclesiastical liberty must rest contented. However desirable it is that there should be as much freedom of conscience as possible in the community, there is a point beyond which infractions of the law cannot be permitted ; and this point seems to us to be reached, when a Guardian of the poor resists so wholesome a sanitary provision as the provision for vaccination, or when a Ritualist clergyman makes it a point of conscience to introduce into the worship of the Church prostra- tions and odours and radiant dresses, to which the sober ritual of the Church, as interpreted for the time by the best legal authori- ties, gives no sanction. The law may not be the wisest law in the world, but if the law, such as it is, be not enforced, the authority of the law itself suffers. Indeed, no section of the nation ought to be more jealous for the authority of the law than that section which has generally interpreted in the most rigorous sense the Apostolic injunction to obey in all things lawful the civil rulers, even though those civil rulers were, in the time of the Apostles, pagans, and not Christians,—an injunction, therefore, the force of which certainly could not well be lessened by the transfer of power from authorities like the Roman magistrates to authorities such as the Lord Chancellor and Lord Penzance.
Previous page
