WHAT IS A PRIMATE ?
11DRIMUS inter pares." This was the phrase by which 1. the older Anglican divines were wont to describe 'the position of an imaginary Pope in an imaginary Church. If the Bishops of Christendom could be gathered to- gether in one room, they were willing that the Pope ,should always be the first to leave it. As the concession was not valued by the person to whom it was offered, it has dropped out of sight, or rather it has been taken for home instead of for foreign use. It expresses with tolerable accuracy the kind of honour which the suffragans -of Canterbury and York pay to their respective Arch- bishops, and by a process of extension, the Anglican Bishops in the Colonies to their respective Primates. The distinction has very little ecclesiastical, and except in -one or two cases, still less civil, sanction. It is bard to say for what it stands, or what rights it confers. There us a notion occasionally to be met with that the Arch- bishop of Canterbury stands to the English Bishops in :somewhat the relation in which a General stands to the commanding officers of the battalions constituting his brigade or division. As the Colonel is supreme in his ,regiment, yet must obey the orders of the General, so the Bishop is supreme in his diocese, yet must -obey the orders of the Archbishop. No place is left in this theory for the Archbishop of York, nor is any distinction made between the Bishops in the two Provinces. They are all alike assumed to be subjects of the See of Canterbury. It is needless to .say that the law knows nothing of such a state of things as this. It is true that a Bishop on his consecration takes an "oath of due obedience to the Archbishop." But it is "to the Archbishop and to the Metropolitical Church of N."—to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that is, in the Southern Province, and to the Archbishop of York in the Northern Province. The Archbishop of Canter- bury, indeed, is " Primate of All England," while the Archbishop of York is only " Primate of England." But we do not know that any precise sense has ever been assigned to the word "all" in this title, and the other circumstances of the two Sees point to a perfect equality 'between them. Each Archbishop has his own Convocation -and his own Archiepiscopal Court, and in modern times at .all events there has been no instance of an Archbishop of Canterbury claiming any jurisdiction within his brother- Archbishop's Province. It is not only the mutual relations of the two Arch- bishops that are thus left in uncertainty. It has never, we believe, been clearly laid down to what precise acts the " oath of due obedience " pledges the Bishops who take it. An Archbishop seldom issues any commands, and if he did he could have no assurance that any regard would be paid to them. Indeed, the fact that the Archbishop had been moved to put them forth would in itself be a reason against their being obeyed. Commands, when they relate to serious matters, are meant to make men do what other- wise they would not do. It is easy to understand why, with an Episcopate composed of so many discordant ele- ments as are sometimes found co-existing in the English Episcopate, an Archbishop might have all the will in the world to give some very positive orders to this or that Bishop. But the Bishop, on his side, would probably have all the will in the world to offer an equally positive re- sistance to the order given, and there is no known means of compelling him to obey it. The Lincoln case, indeed, may seem to give some countenance to this high view of the Archbishop's authority. But, in fact, it does not do this. The Bishop of Lincoln was not cited before the Court of Audience to answer a charge of disobedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop's function was simply judicial. It was alleged that the Bishop of Lincoln bad offended against the laws ecclesiastical, and the function of the provincial Court of Audience was simply to determine whether he had really done so. We are very far from saying that the power to do this is not a very important element in an Archbishop's position. His is the one authority that can be invoked to try a Bishop for errors relating to doctrine or ritual, and we know that in the case of the Bishop of Lincoln the possession of this power enabled Archbishop Benson to render a conspicuous service to the peace of the Church. Still, this is quite a different authority from that right of giving orders to the Bishops, which is vaguely attributed some times to both Archbishops, but more generally to the Archbishop of Canterbury alone. This has a place in the popular imagination, but nowhere else.
And yet the popular imagination is not altogether wrong. There is some substance behind the shadow, though it be not of the precise character which is supposed. An Arch- bishop of Canterbury does hold a place in the Church which is distinct not only from that of any suffragan Bishop, but also from that of the Archbishop of York. He has no ecclesiastical superior—no one to whom any question can be taken for further consideration. His decisions may remain in operation, but they will not be set aside by any other. In this sense they make an end of controversy. Those who regret his rulings do so with the knowledge that they are going their own way, and that they must bear the responsibilities which devolve on people who go their own way. Again, the Archbishop of Canterbury is the official representative of the Church of England. At times individual Bishops may have greater reputation in the Church, but a Premier will not go to them in the way that he will go to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The influence of such an individual Bishop will ordinarily be exercised, not directly in the Govern- ment, but indirectly on the Archbishop, and it is the Archbishop's opinion that will eventually be communicated to the Government as the opinion of the leaders of the Church. Moreover, the Archbishop necessarily holds the first place in every episcopal gathering. If these gatherings are expressly summoned with a view to taking action of some kind, the decision is probably that of the majority, and then the Archbishop may be outvoted. But it is only occasionally—perhaps very occasionally—that episcopal meetings take this formal character. Far more often they are convened for consultation, for ascertaining the drift of episcopal opinion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury's attitude will often have great force in determining that drift. There is a story that a Bishop was once asked why he had assented to some archiepiscopal utterance with which in private he was known not to agree. " Why, you see," he is said to have replied, " it is not thought the thing to contradict the Archbishop." Probably the story is an invention, and no Bishop ever said anything of the kind. But all the same it embodies a feeling which we may well believe is a common one. The Archbishop is always on his own ground. It is in his house that the Bishops meet, it is at his table that they afterwards dine, it is he who will have to state the outcome of their deliberations to the world, supposing that there is any outcome to state. Each of these advantages may be small in itself, but they have a cumulative value which is not to be despised. Of course the amount of this value will greatly depend on the character of the particular Archbishop. If he has knowledge, resolution, temper, and the faculty of guidance, it will be very great indeed. If his object is simply to avoid difficulties, to escape the responsibility of making up his mind, to provoke as little resistance as possible, and generally to lead a quiet life, it may be as small as even he can desire. Formerly Prime Ministers were generally credited with the wish to find men of this stamp to fill this great office. Certainly, if this was really their object, they were singularly successful in attaining it. From Tillotson onwards the appointments to the See of Canterbury seem to have been uniformly dictated by the Ministerial desire to see as little as possible of their nominees. Archbishop Tait was the first of a new line, Archbishop Benson was, to say the least, a worthy successor, and we shall be surprised if Lord Salisbury does not do his best to maintain and extend the character which its last two occupants have regained for the See. We have no wish for any formal enlargement of the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. We believe, indeed, that any attempt to bring about such a change would be predestined to failure. But in the hands of a man who combines strength and wisdom, and cherishes the noble ambition of showing the world what an Arch- bishop of Canterbury can do if he is so minded, the authority that already belongs to him will be found amply sufficient for his purpose.
Previous page
