ANGLICAN RITUALISTIC CONTROVERSY. 



17 



law of ritual and in disregarding the inhibi- 

 tions of the courts, by the protests of the 

 friends of the imprisoned clergymen against 

 their imprisonment, by agitations for their re- 

 lease, and by appeals to the public, the bishops, 

 and the civil officers, in ttieir behalf. The 

 Rev. T. P. Dale, of St. Vedast's, London, and 

 the Rev. W. R. Enraght, of Holy Trinity, Bor- 

 desley, had been imprisoned in 1880 for disre- 

 garding monitions which had been served upon 

 them by the Court of Arches, ordering them 

 to relinquish certain practices which had been 

 declared illegal by the Privy Council. They 

 both refused to submit to the decree of the 

 court, declaring that they could not do so 

 without violation of conscience. Mr. Dale 

 took an appeal, and was released pending the 

 hearing of the appeal, promising as a condition 

 of his freedom that he would not conduct ser- 

 vices in his church, nor even attend the church 

 on Sunday. A release was offered to Mr. En- 

 raght on the same conditions, but he refused 

 to accept it, on the ground that to do so would 

 involve his obedience to the inhibition of Lord 

 Penzance, a condition under which he would 

 not rest for a longer or a shorter period, for it 

 was the very ground of the contention. The 

 Bishop of Worcester was requested in January 

 to take some steps to induce Mr. Enraght to 

 amend his conduct or resign his appointment 

 as an alternative to the bishop's taking a de- 

 cided course to uphold the authority of the 

 Ecclesiastical Court. The bishop replied that 

 he could see no reason to hope for such an end 

 to the troubles as his correspondent desired. 

 The vicar had publicly declared his rejection 

 of all direction or control or advice from the 

 bishop, and the latter was not aware of any 

 power vested in a bishop by which he could 

 uphold the authority of the Ecclesiastical Court. 

 Mr. Enraght was released from jail on account 

 of the detection of an error in the manner in 

 which the writ against him had been dealt with 

 in the temporal court. Another order for his 

 imprisonment was subsequently asked for, but 

 he having taken an appeal to the House of 

 Lords, judgment on the application was post- 

 poned. The appeal of Mr. Dale was dismissed ; 

 but that clergyman having accepted an incum- 

 bency outside of London, no further proceed- 

 ings were had against him. 



The case of the Rev. S. F. Green, of Miles 

 Platting, Manchester, attracted more interest 

 than any other, and was the incident to which 

 the agitations of the year most directly related. 

 Ritualistic practices were already observed in 

 his church when he took charge of it, and he 

 introduced others, with the approval of his 

 patron and a majority of the congregation. A 

 prosecution was instituted against him at the 

 instance of the Church Association ; he was 

 tried in the Court of Arches, inhibited, and 

 assessed in costs. He refusing to pay the costs 

 or obey the inhibition, a bailiff was lodged in 

 his house. Afterward, on the 9th of March, a 

 writ de contumace was issued against him, and 

 VOL. xxi. 2 A 



he was imprisoned in Lancaster Castle. Ap- 

 plication for a writ of habeas corpus with a 

 view to his discharge was refused by the Court 

 of Queen's Bench, April 6th. An appeal was 

 taken to the House of Lords and was dismissed, 

 while the judgment of the Court of Arches was 

 sustained. 



Mr. Green's case was taken up by the En- 

 glish Church Union, which represented that the 

 penalties to which he was subjected were in- 

 flicted upon him because he obeyed his con- 

 science. It was said on behalf of the courts 

 and the Church authorities that he could be 

 released at any time upon his simply promising 

 to obey the writ of inhibition and to desist 

 from unlawful practices. The case was brought 

 directly before the Convocation of Canterbury 

 at its session in July, when, an articulus cleri 

 having been adopted by the Lower House, ask- 

 ing the bishops to consider what measures could 

 be taken with propriety to secure the release 

 of Mr. Green, the archbishop said that Mr. 

 Green was in prison for refusing to obey the 

 law, and he did not see how such a case could 

 injure the Church. 



Mr. Green's counsel, Mr. Phillimore, pub- 

 lished a statement in August respecting his 

 client's position, representing that the court for 

 contempt of which he was punished was one 

 that had been set up by Parliament only, with- 

 out the approval of the clergy in convocation, 

 and in the absence of any body through which 

 the laity could make themselves heard a 

 wholly secular, in no way spiritual authority, 

 an authority of a kind which he could not con- 

 scientiously allow to control him in the exer- 

 cise of a purely spiritual function. To com- 

 ply with the terms named as the conditions on 

 which he could be released, would be to give 

 up his office and cease from ministering, at the 

 command of this secular authority a thing 

 he could no more do than the ancient martyrs 

 could abjure their religion to avoid death. 

 The Archbishop of York wrote to Mr. Green 

 in August, suggesting to him as a way in which 

 he might obtain his release and perhaps save 

 future deplorable embarrassment without mak- 

 ing or causing any sacrifice of principles on 

 either side, that he might write to his bishop 

 and express his readiness to abide by his supe- 

 rior's advice in the matters about which the 

 suit had arisen ; adding that 



It might be that the advice given would be such 

 that your undertaking to act upon it would give the 

 court an opportunity 6~f relieving you from your pres- 

 ent position, and that a clergyman could never re- 

 proach himself for havintr done that which his very 

 ordination vows made a duty. 



Mr. Green replied that to act as the arch- 

 bishop suggested would be to adopt precisely 

 the course which he had rejected, he believed 

 on good grounds, two years before, and the 

 reasons now were as ten to one why he should 

 not do so. To surrender in the way his Grace 

 suggested 



Would be simply to surrender the Prayer-Book. 



