An Archiepiscopal ' Yes-No '

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIV, Issue 21, 24 May 1906, Page 1

An Archiepiscopal ' Yes-No '

Some six or seven weeks ago Anglican circles in Melbourne were aroused to a pifJh of intense excitement by a violent controversy regarding alleged 'ritualistic ' practices adopted by the vicar of St. Peter's Churclh, Eastern Hill. The papers were inundated with correspondence, in which representatives of all the Protestant churches took a hand, and the progress of the controversy was deemed of such general interest ami importance as to form the subject matter of cables throughout the world. "Eventually the anti-ritualist section presented a memorial to the Most Rev. Dr. Clarke, Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, praying for an authontatne decision on the points in dispute, and after due deliberation the Archbishop has at length published a delnerance which, as a ' Yes-No ' achievement, is sufficient to make G. 11. Reid himself turn green with envy. The first question raised by the memorialists related to ihc use of incense, and after piously requesting the clergy to discontinue its use on the ground that it ' is not at present enjoined by the law of the Church of England ' the Archbishop gives this sapient ' decision ' : 'If used at all, it must be used (in George Herbert's language) ' to sweeten 'the church, and must be outside worship altogether." ' What precise meaning is to be attached to the words 4 to sweeten the church ' is not very clear, but apparently the Archbishop gives the Catholic-minded parishioners ot St. Peter's libeity to use as mucili incense as they please provided they only use it as a disinfectant ! On the question of the use of vestments other than the usual surplice, hood, and scarf, the Archbishop said the answer depended altogether upon what had been taken over by the Church of Victoria, and so made binding upon itself. The whole question of the legal nexus between the Church of England in Australia and at Home was referred at a late session oE the General Synod to the Piimate, the Metropolitans of Victoria and Queensland, and the Bishop of Perth. ' We— have,' he continued, ' arranged with the Primate to lay the subject before the Archbishop of Canterbury during his present visit to England, and as a member of that Committee I have addressed a lettefi Id the .Archbishop of Canterbury." The Archbishop has no mind of his own, and apparently 'not the faintest notion of the mind of his

church on the point, but he ' has addressed a letter to the Archbiishop of Canterbury ' and in such an (awkward j/rcdicament what more could reasonably be asked of him. It was really a brilliant idea, and one can imagine the Archbisliop when he finished the letter remarking with great fenor— as MicaWber used to remark -when he paid a debt by giving his 1.0.U.— ' Thank God, that's settled."

The next question was with regard to the use of ceremonies and liturgical forms not included in the Book of Common Prayer, and on this the Archbishop came out quite strong: ' The use of ceremonies,' he said, 'if contrary to the order and spirit of the Book of Common Prayer, is, of course, forbidden." Unfortunately he omitted — no doubt from a praiseworthy desire not to hurt anybody's feelings — to say whether the particular ceremonies complained of vere or were not contrary to the order and spirit of the Book of Common Prayer, so that the memorialists are left in precisely the same advanced stage of wisdom as before. Finally, objection had been taken to the introduction of pictures into the churches, and the Archbishop makes the following pious platitudes do duty for his ' decision ' on the point : ' We have left behind the days when anything was thought good enough for the House of God, and wa. have now to erect it \vilh all tho beauty that architecture can devise, and to beautify it with painted windows and a costly organ, as well as rich artistic furniture. The subject of introducing a picture must be decided with reference to both its art and what represents." Newman long ago pointed it out as one of the minor marks of the true Church that she should be at home with her message and should be able to lay down precisely the limits of faith and practice for her children. Contrast the definite clear-cut utterance of a Catho<lic Bishop or Archbishop in a similar case, with the empty commonplace and pointless platitudes, the mistiness and vagueness, the ' hedging ' and wobbling of this Anglican delncvance. The whole thing reminds us of nothing so much as of Josh Billings' famous answer to a correspondent who had sent him a puzzling query. The humorist replied : ' " Gertrude "— Yure inquiry stumps me the darndest. The more i think on it, the more i kant tell. A/, near az i can rwkolek now, i think i don't kno. Much mite be ced both ways, and neether wa le rite. Upon the whole i rather reckon i wud, or i wuddent, jist as i thought best, or otherwise.'

The last sentence contains within the compass of a couple of lines the whole sum and substance of Archbishop Clarke's ' decision.'