The Press. FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1906. THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12532, 29 June 1906, Page 6

The Press. FRIDAY, JUNE 29, 1906. THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

The report cf tho Royal Commifsion on ecclesiastical matters, a cabled summary of which appeared yesterday, appears to indicate that tho Commiesioners have spared no pains to investigate thoroughly tho present condition cf discipline in the Church of England, and the requirement of that Church. As was pointed out in yesterday's issue, the present Ornaments Rubric - does leave loopholes for these who aro desirous of taking advantage of them. Tlie Commission has, therefore, actsd wisely, as it seems to us, in recommending that tho two Houses of Convocation, sitting together, shall prepare a new and explicit rubric which .shall be free from the objections surrounding the present one. If tho old rubric, which is quite clearly a compromise, probably intended to give tho fullest liberty to both sections in the Church, is incapable of clear interpretation, it may be woll for tho Crown, having taken the voice of tho Church in Convocation, fo sanction such alteration, and such alteration only, as shall make tho meaning clear. The recommendations that other rubrics be revised, that services fjbe made shorter and more elastic, and that the question of the Athanasian Creed bo considered, j

dimply amount to a general recommeadation that Convocation should have and exercise ita ancient power of modifying tlie services and officer, cf tlie Church in accordance with modern needs. Unquestionably the most important part of the report is that dealing with the Ecclesiastical Courts. Tho objection to the episcopal veto, tho abolition of which is recommended, rests on the ground that it enables the Bishop, en his own sole authority, to h?.r tho two of tho courts. If tlio proposed new Court of Appeal is to be a secular Court it will scarcely meet the views of tho Church. Tho Anglican doctrine of royal supremacy is not derived from the doctrines of Era_t«s; tho Church has definitely condemned Eraßtianism, and wi3l not tolerato the jurisdiction of a secular court in quest ions of doctrine. Whatever right tho Privy Council may claim to interpret Church law,' it docs not, and never did, possess tho right to create it. This, however, is what it has constantly done in giving decisions in regard to alleged irregularities, and the Church haa naturally not felt disposed to admit the legality of such decisions. It is t rue that the Commission recommends that the proposed new Court of Appeal should accept as final tho decision of tho Episcopal Bench on matters of doctrine, but if this final Court of Appeal fs to be secular, as tho cable message seems to indicate and has tho sole right of inflicting pains and penalties, dt might conceivably override tho authority of the Episcopal Bench. The Commission seems to have aimed at a compromise whereby "tho "authority cf tho State over the Church "would be maintained." It has sought to avoid tho creation of a sort of "droit ndministratif" within tho Church, independent of tho secular courts. In so doing it has no doubt considered the position of tho laity who might not, perhaps, bo always ready to accept the decisions of a bench of Bishops not subject to review by a secular court. Tho position is unquestionably a difficult one. and it would not be safe to assort tliat a satisfactory solution lias been suggested by th© Commission.