THE BISHOP OF DURHAM'S ECCLESIASTICAL ATTITUDE.
While reading the Bishop's calm discussion of the vexed question of ecclesiastical vestments, it is hard to realise that we are separated by less than two years from the imprisonment of several clergymen of exemplary lives for the offence of wearing certain vestments pronounced illegal by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In brief, Dr; Lightfoot's view of the vestment controversy as follows :—Originally the most distinctively sacredotal of the condemned vestments —the chasuble—was an ordinary out-door apparel, and, there- fore, " could not have any sacredotal or sacrificial bearing." "The learned professions" being " proverbially conservative in matters of dress," the chasuble continued to be the dress of the clergy after it had fallen out of use for the laity. In process of time it ceased to be the ordinary dress of the clergy also, and became their official dress in celebrating the Holy Communion. In itself, however, it had no special significance. It symbolised, as any other vestment would have done equally well, the prevalent doctrine of the Church on the subject of the Eucharist. Those who held a high doctrine naturally regarded the chasuble, with its appur- tenances, as symbolising that doctrine ; but, of course, there was nothing in the vestment itself, apart from its associations, which indicated one doctrine more than another. So that it was quite open to those who opposed high Sacramental doctrines to put their own interpretation on the use of the chasuble. Dr. Lightfoot accordingly regrets " that in recent controversy the opponents, not less than the champions, of vestments, should have insisted on regarding them as party emblems." " In the interests of peace it is well to minimise their significance." " It would be a real gain if we could be led to see that in themselves they are not worth contending for or against." This way of putting the matter is, of course, capable of being pushed to extremes, far beyond Dr.Lightfoot's meaning, and he is, therefore, careful to supply the corrective.
He admits that " from another point of view," the ecclesiasti- cal vestments " have a real significance." " All Church- men regard " the Holy Communion " as the highest office of Christian worship." There can, therefore, be no impropriety " in marking it by a distinctive dress " ; and the upholders of the Purchas and Ridsdale judgments are, of all persons, debarred from urging any such objection, inasmuch as those judgments enjoin in certain cases the use of a distinctive dress for the Holy Communion. Whether that dress be cope or chasuble makes no difference as to the principle.
"But are the vestments lawful, after all I" the Bishop proceeds to ask, without committing himself to an answer one way or the other. It is evident, however, from his treatment of the matter that he does not by any means consider the question finally closed. He sees the insuperable historical difficulties which the recent decisions have to encounter, and recognises that the problem is rather an historical than a legal one. " In this region of history new discoveries may at any moment materially alter the aspect of the question." Most true. We have, on a former occasion, pointed out one such discovery, which was, indeed, before the Court in the Ridsdale case, though the Judges missed its significance from their ignorance of ecclesiastical history. Long after the date at which, according to the Court, the ecclesiastical vestments had become illegal, there is proof of a set of them having been presented by a churchwarden for use in an ordinary parish church. This fact alone is conclusive against the historical accuracy of the Ridsdale judgment. But the evidence was disregarded by the Court, because the legacy included, besides the ecclesiastic vestments, a " devil's coat." In the opinion of the Court that could not possibly have been legal or be intended for use, and a conclusive piece of evidence was accordingly cast aside as irrelevant. The truth, of course, is that the " devil's coat" was intended for the Miracle Plays, which continued in use long after the reign of Elizabeth. Another " new discovery " which is fatal to the recent judgments is the fact, capable of distinct proof, that in the sixteenth century, and probably much later, there was no such distinction between cope and chasuble as the Judicial Com- mittee have endeavoured to establish.
Our present concern, however, is not so much with the legality or illegality of the forbidden vestments as with the Bishop of Durham's attitude towards the question. He thinks, indeed, that " meanwhile "—that is, as we understand him, till the recent judgments have been got rid of by further evidence, or in some other way—the clergy might yield obedience to them, even while thinking them erroneous, or denying the validity of the existing tribunals. But this he evidently regards as a "counsel of perfection" which he has no intention to enforce on those who are unable to bear it. When such a Bishop as Dr. Lightfoot takes up this attitude towards the Ritualists, it is plain that the Church Association may at once wind up its business and close its offices. "No more prosecutions, I trust," says the Bishop of Durham. " The English Church is weary of them ; the English people have
had enough of them." The Bishops " will be the least desirous of all men to promote legal proceedings. Not a few cases have been stopped hitherto by the veto which they possess ; and doubtless this power will be exercised more and more in the same direction if the occasion should arise." This emphatic testimony from such an authority to the value of the Episcopal veto ought surely to outweigh the merely theoretical objections to it by Lord Coleridge and others. It is exactly ten years ago since Lord Beaconsfield carried the Public Worship Regulation Act to "put down Ritualism ;" and here is the judgment passed upon that Act by the most eminent scholar, and one of the most judicial minds, on the Episcopal Bench :—
" The Public Worship Regulation Act makes the prosecution for ecclesiastical offences easy. But the facilities thus afforded were dangerous, unless some power of regulating matters relating to public worship was created at the same time Many accompani- ments of divine worship are not defined by rubric; some of them lie beyond the possibility of definition. The principle laid down [in the Parches judgment], that what is not enjoined is forbidden, cannot be strictly carried out. It would paralyse public worship. We all in- fringe this principle at some point ; we cannot help infringing it. It would not be desirable at any time that absolutely rigid lines should be laid down. But such inflexibility is especially inopportune in an age when the development of spiritual life in the Church seeks new outlets in devotional worship. The Public Worship Regulation Act tends to promote rigidity."
In plain language, the Public Worship Regulation Act is unworkable in any equitable sense, and is so mischievous in the degree in which it is set in motion, that it must hence- forth be regarded as a dead-letter. It is a great satisfaction to us to find the Bishop of Durham giving the weight of his great authority to the line which the Spectator has all along pursued on this subject, in opposition, we are sorry to say, to a considerable section of the Broad-Church party, who appear to have forgotten an important part of the teaching and example of Mr. Maurice. If the Bishop of Manchester had had the wisdom, as he had the opportunity, to anticipate the statesmanlike policy of the Bishop of Durham, we should have been spared the scandal of Mr. Green's imprisonment. Yet, discreditable as that imprisonment was to all who had a hand in it, it has been overruled for good. It opened the eyes of the public, as nothing else could have done, to the folly of the policy which passed the Public Worship Regulation Act, and to the mischievous bigotry of those who put it in force. If the Bishops generally will only follow the wise counsels and example of the Bishop of Durham, the clergy need not greatly trouble themselves about a new Court of Appeal. A judicious and reasonable toleration will render recourse to the law un- necessary ; and so long as the jurisdiction of the Courts remains inactive, Churchmen will not care to scrutinise its character. Both the Final Court of Appeal and the Court presided over by Lord Penzance have been thoroughly dis- credited by the investigations and Report of the Ecclesiastical Court Commission ; and it may be better policy to let them continue in their state of suspended animation thin to at- tempt to supersede them by tribunals, the very existence of which, from the fact of their being theoretically more satisfac- tory, might possibly tend to promote fresh prosecutions. We agree, with the Bishop of Durham in thinking that " never since the earliest days of Christianity has any Church ex- hibited greater signs of active, healthy, vigorous life than the Church of England does at this moment." "Her mission is unique ; her capabilities and opportunities are magnificent." So long as she remains true to her mission, and avails herself faithfully of her opportunities, she has nothing to fear from external attacks. Even in respect to her temporal privileges she has nothing to fear so long as peace reigns within her own borders. And peace will assuredly be maintained if her rulers will only co-operate with the Bishop of Durlam in the policy of conciliation which he has proclaimed in his Primary Charge.
Previous page
