DR. PUSEY AND MR. DATE T HE difference of temper between
Dr. Pusey's letter and the letter of " A Diocesan Chancellor " will blind a good many people to the fact that, though the one writes like a Christian and the other like a bruiser, the Christian is in the wrong, and the bruiser substantially in the right. The defenders of Mr. Dale seem to have got their notions of law from the times of the Stuarts. When Parliaments seldom sat, it may have been true that " the only way of testing a Judge-made law is to disobey it." But the way to test a Judge-made law now-a-days is to move the Legislature to alter it. If the interpretation put upon the Ornaments Rubric by the Judicial Committee appears to any of the Clergy to be a wrong inter- pretation, they ought to get Convocation so to alter the word- ing of the rubric as to make it plain that it allows the use of vestments, and then to ask Parliament to consent to that alteration. It will, perhaps, be objected, that to do this would be to admit the right of the State to legislate in spiritual matters. But on any theory the State must have a co-ordinate voice in making changes in the Prayer-book of the Established Church, and a modifica- cation of the Ornaments Rubric designed to override the interpretation of the existing rubric by the Court of Final Appeal would be to all intents and purposes a new rubric. If Parliament refused to pass the Rubric proposed by Convo- cation, it would then be for the Clergy to consider whether they thought the matter grave enough to justify them in putting an end to their present relations with the State. There is, we admit, a difficulty about the adoption of this plan. It is this,—that there is not the remotest chance of getting Convocation to propose an Ornaments Rubric which shall make it clear beyond dispute that vestments are legal. Mr. Portal, in a letter we print to-day, virtually concedes this. He is gallantly endeavouring to answer our inquiry, " Where is the vote of Convocation pronouncing the Ritualist interpre- tation of the Ornaments Rubric to be the true interpretation V" and he does so by referring us to a resolution of the Lower House of the Southern Province, passed on July 3rd, 1879, which says that "he that ministereth in the Holy Communion may use, with the surplice and stole, the other vestures specified in the First Prayer-book of King Edward VI." It may be observed, in passing, that even if this had been a resolution of both Convocations, it would have been a perfectly barren one, unless some steps had been taken to get it adopted by Parliament. The Book of Common Prayer has the force of statute law, and cannot be legally altered, except by the process by which other statute laws are altered. But .the resolution quoted by Mr. Portal is not a resolution even of one Convocation. It is simply an expression of opinion on the part of the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury. "The southern Bishops, no doubt," says Mr. Portal, with a calmness which almost forces us to believe that, by some change unnoticed by us, the Church of England has become Presbyterian, " did not agree to the resolution which I have quoted." Ap- parently, upon Mr. Portal's theory of episcopal govern- ment, it is a matter of perfect indifference whether the Bishops agree to a resolution of their clergy or not. Their only title to consideration depends on their re- presenting the clergy,—at least, Mr. Portal seems to consider their claims to a voice upon the ritual of the Church disposed of by the statement that they " represent no one but them- selves." We will not presume to set our opinion against Mr. Portal's on a question of theology, though we are certainly under the impression that the prevailing opinion over Catholic Europe for many centuries has been that episcopacy is of divine institution. But however unimportant the Bishops may be from the point of view of the theologian, we submit that they have considerable importance in England from the point of view of the ecclesiastical lawyer. It may be quite wrong that their consent should be necessary to make a resolution of the clergy a vote of Convocation, but as the law stands it un- doubtedly is necessary. Mr. Portal is precisely in the position in which an Irish tenant would be who should claim compensation for eviction for non-payment of rent, and give as his reason the fact that the Disturbance Bill had been passed by the House of Commons. The Lords, no doubt,' he might say, ' did not agree to the Bill I have quoted. But the Lords represent no one but themselves.' Mr. Portal is probably quite ready to acknowledge that the consent of both Houses is essential to the making of an Act of Parliament. It is not easy to see how he arrives at the notion that the consent of both Houses is immaterial to the making of an Act of Convocation.
We confess, however, that a good deal of indignation against the Bishops is excusable, when they show so entire an inability to take in the gravity of the situation as has this week been displayed by the Bishop of London. He has not time, it seems, to write about Mr. Dale's imprisonment. The whole relations of the Church with the State are being strained as they have not been strained since the Reformation. One of his own clergy is actually lying in prison rather than, as he thinks, disobey his conscience, with, so far as now appears, no prospect of being released for three years to come, and then only after having been deprived of his benefice. Other clergy are preparing to follow him to gaol, and it is expected that next Sunday the law will be dis- obeyed by a large number of clergymen who have hitherto obeyed it. Yet all the Bishop of London has to say about these matters is that he has really no time to write about them ! There have been many Gallios in lawn-sleeves before Dr. Jackson, but never one who has proclaimed his indiffer- ence so openly. What makes it even more wonderful is that the Bishop evidently does not know that ho is a Gallio. The common routine work of his diocese seems to him of in- finitely more importance than an event which may possi- bly be looked back to as the last stage in the history of the Established Church of England. We do not wonder that Mr. Portal says that it is the conduct of the Bishops that "is bringing about a catastrophe." Dr. Pusey did not know of this latest and most won- derful example of episcopal inability to discern the signs of the times, when he wrote that " no Bishops, however selected, could condemn the Clergy for obeying a rubric of the Prayer-book which they themselves put into their hands." We suspect that the Anglican Episcopate, as a body, would be capable of making concessions to public opinion by the side of which the alleged " policy " of the Judicial Com- mittee would be a very venial offence. But the remarkable thing is that Dr. Pusey should ignore what we imagined to be an unchallenged principle of Canon law—that the jurisdic- tion of a Court depends on the character of the person from whom the authority is derived, not on that of the persons by whom the delegated authority is exercised. If a lay Judge appoints a bishop as his deputy, the decisions of the bishop are the decisions of a lay Court. If a spiritual Judge appoints a lay- man as his deputy, the decisions of the layman are the deci- cisions of a spiritual Court. The old Court of Arches was a spiritual Court, though the Judges were always laymen, because those Judges were appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The old Court of Delegates was a Lay Court, even though, as Dr. Pusey says, the delegates, until the time of James L, were bishops, not laymen, because those bishops were appointed by the Crown. Before the Ritualists can make out their plea that the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is in any vital sense a new jurisdiction, they must prove that the Court of Delegates was a spiritual Court. If it was not, if, canonically, it had precisely the same claims to the obedience of the Clergy—neither more nor fewer—that the Judicial Committee has, they will find it hard to explain why it is incumbent upon them to resist the present tribunal, while it was not incumbent on their predecessors to resist former tribunals. Although, however, the position of the Ritualists seems to us absolutely untenable in law, we heartily agree with Mr. Portal in his closing remarks :—" If disestablishment and disruption come, it will be entirely owing to want of statesmanship—i.e., large- hearted tolerance — on the part of our de facto rulers." Whetlfer Parliament wishes to have an Established Church in which Ritualism is tolerated, we shall not pretend to say ; but we are sure that an attempt to maintain an Established Church in which Ritualism is not tolerated will be exceed- ingly likely to bring the whole edifice about our ears. Perhaps, in the course of a few months or so, when he has broken the neck of his more pressing business, the Bishop of London may find time to give a few minutes' thought to this aspect of Mr. Dale's case. It is one that is not without its importance, if only from the point of view of vested interests.
Previous page
