THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11200, 21 October 1899, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE CRISIS IN THE CHURCH.

THE DECISION ON INCENSE AND LIGHTS. [from OUR own CORRESPONDENT.] London, September 8. The sequel of the Archbishop's decision as to the legality of ceremonial incense and processional lights does not do much to enhance our character for consistency. The extreme Ritualistic section virtually said, or at least gav» it to be understood, that while they could not accept the judgment or dictation of a secular court, they would abide by that of a duly-qualified ecclesiastical tribunal. So the Archbishops constituted a tribunal of their own, which was practically accepted by the High Church party, although the Low Church section challenged its legality in toto. The plain fact is that the former believed there was reason to expect a favourable decision from the Archbishops, and the latter regarded them as hostile. Whereas now, behold a complete and utter bouleversement I The Archbishops decided against the legality of ceremonial incense and processional lights, and so now the Low Churcn party is in ecstasies of delight and admiration, and greets the decision with implicit acceptance, while the extreme High Church side, surprised and disconcerted, either refuses to abide by the unexpectedly adverse judgment, or else submits under protest or devises ingenious modes of evasion. It is a comic and yet deplorable situation I I fear the case is another of those in which the value of a decision is impaired or destroyed by the reasons given for arriving at j it. " Never give your reasons," said the 1 wise old judge to his junior. "Your de- i cision may be right; your reasons are cer- j tain to be wrong I" And yet I hardly see, how the Archbishops could have omitted to state the grounds on which they decided i against ceremonies so dear to a large number [ of Church people. Had they simply pro- 1 nounced these unlawful, they would at once j have been challenged to say why. Even | Archbishop Temple, who is a strong man j strong to the point of rnggedness— [ hardly have responded: ' Sic volo; sic 1 jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas And had lie done so assuredly " ructions" would have followed. But it happened most unluckily for " the peace of the Church"—to secure which all tho most cantankerous men 011 both sides as- j sert is their sole —that the reasons given i by those two Archbishops were precisely j such as took out of their decision all its value from the ecclesiastical viewpoint. x They did not decide on the basis of the Church's usage or sanction or tradition, but j based their judgment 011 a confessedly time- t serving and popularity-hunting edict of j Elizabeth. Thus those who protested : against the domination of secular tribunals ; in ecclesiastical matters found themselves - called on to obey a judgment admittedly i and professedlv delivered in obedience to a ! decision of such a tribunal. Not unnatur-, ally did the victims loudly grumble end ask: What was the good of the so-called ecclesiastical tribunal if it was going merely to register and enforce the decrees of the secular courts? Consequently in many instances the Archbishops' decision will be either ignored or' disobeyed. In most cases the clergy are waiting for their Bishops to move first, , and this the Bishops have just begun to do. 1 Some of the prominent High Church clergy have already declared their intention to obey under protest, Others have vowed de-: fiance at all costs. Most unfortunately, it i seems to me, Lord Halifax, the Head of ; the English Church Union, has resumed his ; role of the firebrand, and has issued a lamentably flamboyant" and "fouddoyant" manifesto to the lay members of the Union "to stand by their priests" in disobedience as well as in obedience, But the first out-1 come can hardly be an agreeable one for the extremists and irreconciliables. j For Dean Hole, of Rochester, one of the ! ablest and most respected of the Church's living dignitaries, has withdrawn from the Union on the express ground that he can no longer give the sanction of his name to such conduct as is implied, if not explicitly 1 enjoined, by Lord Halifax. The president of, the English Church Union, he considers, has I " lost a great opportunity- for the promotion of order and peace." The advice to support " those priests who may feel that they : must resist the officers of the Church" is, as the Dean understands it, subversive of Church discipline. It means that " the laity must obey, but that the clergy may disobey, those who are set over them in the Lord; that the soldiers must follow the captains, but that the captains may follow their own imaginations." It virtually lays down that, if the incumbent of a parish— perhaps a young man under thirty, neither j well-read nor of commanding abilities— j " feels that lie must disobey the orders of his i Bishop, the laity of his parish or congreg?- j tion nave no choice but to support him." ; "' Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is ' not to make reply.'" As the Times nuts it, in commenting upon I the matter: "They must follow like a flock i of sheep, though there may be men among . them of more cultivated intellect and riper experience, and more fit to judge even i spiritual matters, than the priest who leads j them at his own sweet will. It will say i much for the discipline of the English Church Union if its president can enforce this astounding direction. To accept it would imply that the laity refuse to trust the Bishops, and prefer to be guided in matters of Church observance by the irresponsible fancies of the clergy, inspired and guided by the authority, not of the Church acting through her appointed officers, but of a partisan organisation within tho Church." It may be remembered that a strong appeal was made more than once in the course of the " crisis" last year, to those moderate ; High Churchmen who are fairly represented , by the Dean of Rochester, that they should i repudiate the excesses and the lawlessness of modern ritualism. That appeal was not responded to, partly from unwillingness to appear in any way disloyal to genuine High Church principles, partly from a fear of seeming to be influenced or intimidated by the then recent action of the person whom Lord Halifax unceremoniously describes as "a profane and blasphemous agitator," viz., the vulgar and blatent self-advertiser, Kensit. A further appeal is now made to those moderate men to give no longer the taoit 1 sanction of their name to what has now become a policy of overt and unqualified disobedience to the law and to the highest authorities of the Church. More than once it has been pointed out that the admission of laymen to at due share in Church government as is done in New Zealand, would be tho surest remedy for the present stress. The kind of men who would be the greatest strength to the Church will not take part in its affairs while they are liable to be dominated by any puling simpleton or mindless and emptypafe boy who may happen to be the clergyman in charge. And so the benefit of their 1 wisdom and moderation is los'fc Failing ; some adequate measure of reform, I fear | that bad times are in store for the historic ' old Church. Even disestablishment would , not settle matters, as some fondb- imagine, • because all the irritating points would still I have to be fought out and under infinitely I less restraining influence than at present. | Mutual forbearance—" give and take all round"— the only remedy, and that hardly anybody appears willing to adopt.