THE PROTEST AGAINST THE LINCOLN JUDGMENT. T HE clerical declaration on
the Lincoln judgment, which appeared this week in the Times, shows to advantage by the side of some of the hasty utterances which the decision of the Privy Council at first called forth. To three of the four reasons given for signing it no exception can be taken, and the remaining reason is a perfectly sound one provided that the facts are what the signatories suppose. Whether they are so, however, we have some doubt. There may be a large number of lay- men "who view the recent judgment with distress ; " but if so, we can only say we have not met with them. That there are many laymen who view the recent judgment with dislike is probable enough, since that is another way of saying that there are many laymen who dislike High Church ways, and, would rather that the occasion for the judgment had never arisen. But " distress " seems to imply a dislike that causes suffering to the person who feels it, and we are disposed to think that the growth of religious in- difference among the laity has prevented this variety of dislike from being at all widely entertained. A very curious correspondence, that went on some time since in the Record, throws some light upon this part of the question. A well- known London clergyman wrote to ask what had become of the evangelical laity, and the answer given by many different correspondents was that they had for the most part thrown themselves into " unsectarian" work. " Un- sectarian " has of late become the accepted designation of a religion which may, perhaps, be best described as Orthodox Dissent, with a good deal of the orthodoxy left out • and it has the advantage of attracting to itself some much smarter people than are ordinarily to be found in dissenting chapels. If this is the ark in which the evan- gelical laity have found refuge, it is easy to understand why they have taken the Lincoln Judgment so calmly. What goes on in the parish church at 11 a.m. is a matter of comparative unimportance to an evangelical layman by the side of the fact that he—he himself—is advertised to preach at a "Gospel Mission" in the Town Hall at 3.15 p.m. When we come to the substance of the Declaration, we are interested by the simplicity with which the clergy who sign it define their terms. They disclaim any desire to "narrow the boundaries of the Church of England," or to exclude "any of the historic schools of thought which have always existed withih her pale," Considering that the object of the Church Association was to narrow the boundaries of the Church of England by excluding the Bishop of Lincoln, this disclaimer, if it stood alone, might seem hardly consistent with a Declaration regretting the judgment which retained him, But it does not stand alone. It is immediately followed by a proviso which removes all difficulty. It is the "historic schools of thought" of which the signatories would "deplore the exclusion," and among these they cannot " include the party of modern growth, whose avowed purpose is to undo the work of the Reformation." Into the accuracy of this description of the Bishop of Lincoln and his friends, we shall not enter. All that concerns us is to note how easy it is to be comprehensive of schools of thought" which are no longer living. Do you—we may imagine the ques- tion put to authors of the Declaration—wish to exclude High Churchmen from the Church of England ? Certainly not, they reply in horror ; they are an historic school of thought. Then why, the inquirer goes on, do you wish to exclude the Bishop of Lincoln ? Because, they answer, he belongs to a modern party, to which our statement about not excluding historic schools does not apply. It is so easy to tolerate High Churchmen as they were before 1833, if you may be as severe as you like on the Tractarians who have arisen since that date. By-and-by--perhaps the process is already in operation—the Tractarians will be- come an historic school, and the Ritualists will be the party of modern growth. The equivalents of these terms were no doubt much in favour with the Jews who built the sepulchres of the prophets and condemned John the Baptist.
The same simplicity is visible in the next paragraph of the Declaration. "We do not," it says, "contend for the doctrines of a party, but for principles which are enshrined in the formularies of the Church of England, as they are in the teaching of the Apostolic age." But, unfortu- nately for this innocent petitio principii, it describes with equal accuracy the contention of the very party of modern growth against which the declaration is directed. They, too, maintain that they are contending, "not for the doctrines of a party, but for principles which are enshrined in the formularies of the Church of England as they are in the teaching of the Apostolic age." What is in dispute between Sacerdotalists and Evangelicals is not whether men shall listen to the formularies of the Church of Eng- land and the teaching of the Apostolic age, but what is to be gathered from the formularies of the Church of England and the teaching of the Apostolic age. Each side Claims them for themselves ; each side denies that they belong to the other. The authors of the Declaration say that their concern is that these principles "shall not be obscured by inconsistent ceremonial practices," and here, it may be thought, we have found a matter on which to join issue. Nothing of the kind. The opponents take up a precisely similar attitude. Their concern is that these principles shall not suffer from the absence of those ceremonial prac- tices in which they were embodied for so many centuries. All this reasoning only conceals the essential fact that High Churchmen and Low Churchmen take different views of the teaching alike of the Prayer-Book and of the Apostolic age, and that each think their reading the true one.
This unwillingness to admit what we should have thought was indisputable, is equally characteristic of another paragraph in the Declaration. "We believe," it says, "that the legalised toleration of a variety of ritual will prove a serious evil." The particular reason assigned in support of this position, is certainly not strong enough for the work it has to do. The Declaration attributes to the Reformers a deep conviction of the evils which had arisen from a diversity of " use " in the practice of the Church. Possibly, the signatories are not well acquainted with these "uses." If they were, they would know that between the use of Sarum and the use of York, there was far less difference than there is between "Hymns Ancient and Modern" and the "Hymnal Companion." The doctrine of the two uses was identical, which is more than can always be said of the two hymn-books. As to the merits, or demerits, of a variety of ritual, we have nothing to say. Most people will agree that needless differences in re igious worship are inconvenient, and that in propor- tion as they symbolise real differences of doctrine, they become more inconvenient. But when this has been granted, what comes of it ? Once more the other side is prepared to say exactly the same thing. Every one would like, if he could get it, to have every Church in England and Wales managed in the way he likes best. But how do the authors of the Declaration propose to arrive at this desirable state of things We presume by getting rid of Ritualism. No doubt, if the law were authoritatively explained to mean this, or, if need be, altered so as to make it mean this ; and if the administration of the law were kept fully abreast of its provisions, the end the Declaration has in view would be fully attained. But what would become of the Church of England in the pro- cess P It might be a much better Church than the one we have now, but it would not be the same Church. Getting rid of Ritualism means getting rid of Ritualists, and getting rid of Ritualists means- getting rid of the most active element in the High-Church party. Is this what the authors of the Declaration really wish ? We do not believe that it is. We do not believe that when it came to the point, Canon Bernard or Mr. Moule or Mr. Webb Peploe would be anxious or even willing to close Ritualist churches and expel the Ritualist clergy. But if they are not prepared to go these lengths, they cannot help tolerating a variety of ritual. There is no room for half-measures. Either the Church of England must be left wide enough to in- clude more rituals than one, or it must be made narrow enough to keep out all rituals but one. We do not say which is the best way out of the present controversies ; all we care to insist on is that there is no third course left.
Previous page
