ANGLICAN CHURCHES. 



13 



spiritual power to curtail the glory and the 

 splendor of the services of God's house on earth 

 by imposing on the Church a narrow and dis- 

 puted interpretation of the rubrics. 



" We no less earnestly entreat the rulers of the 

 state not to incur the risk of certain disaster 

 by encouraging any legislation which should aim 

 at enforcing upon the Church in England the 

 decisions of secular courts in spiritual matters." 



Action of the House of Commons. This 

 manifesto of the Church Union was the subject 

 of debate in the House of Commons, April 11, 

 when Mr. Balfour spoke in condemnation of the 

 position assumed by the ritualists. A resolution 

 was passed by a vote on division of 200 to 14 

 deploring the spirit of lawlessness shown by cer- 

 tain members of the Church of England, and ad- 

 vising that clergymen, before obtaining prefer- 

 ment from the Crown, be required to promise 

 obedience to the bishops and the Prayer Book, 

 and also to "the law as declared by the courts 

 which have jurisdiction in matters ecclesiastical." 



Reply of the Church Association. In a 

 reply to the manifesto of the English Church 

 Union, issued in March, the National Protestant 

 Church Association set forth that the points in 

 dispute were not for the most part matters con- 

 cerning which there had been mere " omission 

 to prescribe," but matters " which were carefully 

 and deliberately rejected, after mature considera- 

 tion, by the Church at the revision of the Prayer 

 Book, and are further condemned in the articles 

 and other formularies." And it concluded : " It 

 is vain to imagine establishment without at the 

 same time being subject to a certain degree of 

 state control. Nor can the state, having con- 

 ceded to the Church very great privileges, on 

 the condition that certain doctrines were to be 

 taught and a particular form of Church govern- 

 ment maintained, permit the clergy to contra- 

 vene those doctrines and repudiate the contract 

 with the state, by which alone they are secured 

 in their offices and emoluments. This is really 

 the question at issue." 



Positions of the Queen and the Prime 

 Minister. A statement was made in the Leeds 

 Mercury in January, in connection with a visit 

 made by the Bishop of Winchester to Sir William 

 Harcourt, that her Majesty was much concerned 

 about the dissensions in the Church, and strongly 

 desired that before any legislation was attempted 

 an understanding should be arrived at between 

 the Government and the bishops, so that such 

 changes as were considered necessary might be 

 carried through with the least possible delay and 

 friction. While she had always taken a deep 

 interest in Church government and discipline, her 

 Majesty was quite unaware until the present 

 agitation of the extent to which the new doc- 

 trines and practices had been introduced into the 

 national Church. She was distressed at the chaos 

 revealed, and was prepared to do all in her power 

 to restore peace to the Establishment. 



While the controversy was at its height, April 

 29, Lord Salisbury wrote, in a letter expressing 

 sympathy with the anxiety expressed by his cor- 

 respondent, that "great dangers and evils are 

 before us unless it shall be found possible to 

 restore the discipline which has been so serious- 

 ly impaired. The archbishops and bishops, with 

 whom in this matter the primary responsibility 

 lies, are doing their utmost to bring the Church 

 back to a sound condition in this respect. Their 

 efforts to effect this object and to restore a re- 

 spect for the laws of the Church, which in some 

 quarters has been forgotten, deserve the hearty 

 support of all Churchmen." 



Hearing before the Archbishops. The arch- 

 bishops announced, Jan. 20, in order, as they 

 declared, to give more confidence to the clergy 

 and laity that their views and opinions would 

 be fully considered; that where doubt existed as 

 to the interpretation of the law of the Church 

 either archbishop would be prepared to hear cases 

 arising within his own province argued by the 

 party interested or by counsel. In order to guard 

 against contradictory decisions in the two prov- 

 inces, neither archbishop would pronounce his 

 decision without consulting the other. 



In accordance with this proposition the Arch- 

 bishop of Canterbury, with the Archbishop of 

 York as adsessor, sat at Lambeth Palace, May 

 8 and the followings days, to hear cases that 

 were submitted to him by the Bishops of Nor- 

 wich and of London. The proceeding was of 

 the nature of an informal reference, having no 

 sanction of law, and it was not expected that 

 the opinions, advice, or command of the primate 

 would have the effect of a judicial decision. It 

 was regarded rather as an informal effort to de- 

 termine questions of ritual and to restrain ir- 

 regularities without resorting to the secular 

 courts, and the result was expected to have great 

 influence as a disciplinary in distinction from a 

 judicial pronouncement, coming from the high- 

 est ecclesiastical authority. Two cases were pre- 

 sented, involving questions of the use of incense 

 and of processional lights. In the one case the 

 Bishop of Norwich had prohibited the Rev. Ed- 

 ward Ram, of St. John's, Timber Hill, Norwich, 

 and in the other the Bishop of London had pro- 

 hibited the Rev. Henry Westall, of St. Cuth- 

 bert's, Philbeach Gardens. A printed brief of 173 

 pages had been prepared, common to the cases 

 of both clergymen, full of historical and anti- 

 quarian matter. The cases were considered from 

 the ecclesiastical point of view. The case of the 

 Rev. Edward Ram was heard first. 



A hearing in the second case, that of the Rev. 

 H. Westall, of St. Cuthbert's, Philbeach Gardens, 

 was held June 7 and the following days. The 

 case involved the question of the legality or 

 illegality of the use of lights not of lighted 

 candles upon the altar, but of lighted candles in 

 candlesticks or of tapers in processions or on 

 the credence table, or elsewhere than on the 

 altar. 



The judgment of the archbishops in both cases 

 was pronounced July 31. It began by setting 

 forth that with reference to the two questions 

 before them the lawfulness of the liturgical use 

 of incense and the lawfulness of carrying lights 

 in procession there was no direction in the 

 Prayer Book either enjoining or authorizing 

 either of these two practices. Nothing, however, 

 could be clearer than the words used in the 

 act of 1559 prohibiting the use of any ceremony 

 not ordered in the Prayer Book. Specifically, as 

 to incense, there was nothing to prevent its use 

 for fumigating or sweetening purposes in the 

 Church. But this had no bearing on the liturgical 

 use. The conclusion on this point was, then, 

 that " the use of incense in the public worship 

 and as a part of worship is not at present en- 

 joined nor permitted by the law of the Church 

 of England, and it is our duty to request the 

 clergy who so use it to discontinue that u^e." 

 As to lights in processions, there was no author- 

 ity for such processions, and they were therefore 

 neither enjoined nor permitted. They might light 

 up a Church to add to its beauty, but the cere- 

 mony of carrying lights about was of a different 

 character. "And in this case, as in that of in- 

 cense, we are obliged to request the clergy to 



