The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1897-01-30

brOW0JOnu dS dluoO 0hO
of DR.. Temple as Archbishop oil Can
terbury has given rise to an interest
ing discussion in England. In point
of fact, the clergyman made two pro-
tests during the service, each OF
which was ignored. When the royal
mandate was read declaring the cleo
ton and citing all opposers, ii any,
to appear, Mr.. Brownjohn arose ana
entered his protest on the ground
that DR.. Temple held views "lncom-
patible with fidelity to the teaching
of the Book of Common Prayer.
Failing to be heard OH this point, he
protested again after the Apparltor-
General had made the following pro-
clamation:
Ovezl Oyez! All ye and sundry who
have any objection to the confirmation Oh
the Ri. Rev. Frederick Temple as Arch
bishop of Canterbury, come forward and
We shall be heard.
But he was not recognized this time
either.
Now, it is quite likely that Mr.
Brownjohn could offer no valid rea-
son why DR.. Temple should not be
made Archbishop of Canterbury; but
that is not the question. He was
formally invited to give his reasons,
such as they we're, aud he was assured
that he should be heard, in spite OF
which he was told in effect that he
would not be heard and could not be
heard. In other words, this portion
of the august ceremonial for the IN
duction of Anglican prelates into
their Office is a solemn farce. That
certainly is the view of the case which
most people take, including many
reyerent churchmen. When the
Crown dominates clergyman Tor
see everybody knows that any pro-
test will be ineffective. Yet the Church
goes through the mockery OF asking
directors to come forward and guar
anteeing that they shall be heard,
when it is perfectly we'll known that
they will not be heard. In thus con-
senting to a sacrilegious farce the
Church puts an effective weapon IN
the hands of unbelievers. Messrs.
Browniohn and Greenwood, who
tried to protest against the elevation
of DIR. Temple, and John Kensit, who
tried to prevent the confirmation OF
DR.. Creighton as Bishop of London
ON Friday, may have been ill advised
in their proceeding. But they were
entirely within their rights in asking
to be heard, and the refusal to hear
them put the Church in the position
of taking part in bit OF unmeanlng
mummery.
1t is only fair, however, to say that
another view is taken of the matter.
Bishop Davidson, of Winchester, has
written a letter to the London
Times. saying that the object of the
Apparitor G eneral's proclamation is
to make sure that the person present.
ing himself is the person who was
chosen. But this Interpretation is
not borne out by the words OF the
proclamation, "All ye and sundry
who have any objections" etc. That
language completely covers all kinds
of objections, whatever may have
been the historic origin of the cere-
mony. And unless the Church is
prepared to live up to it, the call Tor
directors should be eliminated from
the service, in the interests OF truth
and reverence. 1t is worth while to
call attention to the incident, because
nearly every Christian denomination
ia in danger of doing the same thing.
Words and phrases and ceremonlals
are retained, out of mistaken feel
ing of re verence, long after they have
been emptied of their original mean
ing through the vicissitudes OF time.
II is this unbelief of belief and irrev-
erence of reverence that is one OF the
most deadly, because most insidious,
foes of true religion Neao York
Tribune.