New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-08

able so long as II was limited TO Churchmen
can be nothing but a monstrous anachronism.
II.
THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY.
Sir William had bundered into raising the u-
innate question Of questions. which had hitherto
been allowed to slumber. He clamored for the
Bishops to assert the law. But what law? And
through what courts? There was no law that
they could venture to assert without provoking
a rupture in the Church There were no courts
before which they could drag recalctrant
priests And why no law and no courts? Be
cause Parliament had. by earlier interferences
of its own in Church matters got both law and
| jurisdiction into hopeless tangle. 1t had given
the Church final court Of appeal which it had
| never formally accepted. and which it's priests
| had repudiated. II had, In the panic Of 1879
| given provincial court. before which priests
refused TO plead. In this Reputation, in this
! fusal, those priests supported by the whole
weight Of the traditional Tractarian party and
| they were justified in this by the report OF
Royal Commission, which had allowed the in
adequate authority Of the courts. Crown and
country would not allow priests to be imprisoned
| for conscience sake.
Therefore il that for nearly twenty years
| the Bishops had dropped by common consent
! any appeal to the existing Jurisdiction, and had
J worked along by force Of personal authority
| and by a general assent to the Archbishop's
judgment as given in the famous Lincoln case
! This was the one hope Of peace and II had been
| wonderfully justified. 1t is an extraordinary
evidence Of the harmonious union in genuine
work which is practicable in this Church Of
ours, to outward eyes looking so distracted
that rulers should have been able to carry
| II along all these years without any coercive
power that they could set in motion.
BLOW AT PEACE.
J But it was this peace which Sir William would
| shatter at a blow. by pressing the Bishops TO
! use the law. There law for them or US
! But that Is chaos cried the world Yes, But II is
| the State which is responsible for the chaos
and. most of ALL Sir William Harcourt himself
| who the champion twenty-five years ago
Of the Public Worship legislative act. which
| brought about the legal deadlock. Sir williams
intervention. then. had raised the ghost Every
movement in the House Of Commons which re-
suited from his bringing Parliament into the
arena but intensified the disaster.
For when once Parliamentary action had been
| invoked il became perfectly clear that some re-
| adjustment Of the relation between Church and
| State had become a sine qua The facts
which once had made Parliament a possible
| agent had long ceased TO exist. To touch the
machinery to bring it Gathering 70 the
ground II you want law in the Church, or
decisions on vital matters Of worship doctrine
IL is not the House of Commons that is going
| to attempt IL. When Mr.. Samuel Smith, fortified
by Sir Williams appeals tries his hand at
inducing the House TO reduce the Anglican
| nr1ests to conformity with what a Congrega-
1 arcfAa thn -f,f,Cly
70 mean his earnest excellence only made the
situation more hopelessly grotesque. What had
he 70 do with determining what complicated
historical rubrics might mean? Complete
ugtous tolerance had undermined his moral
o,otr, N regulate other peoples religious az
fairs He had separated himself freely and
wholly from the Church of England: he
.o+ou, IGNORANT Of its mind, and out Of all con-
sact with it's liturgy
The Younger Radicals whose heads were out
Of the theological bush. saw clearly enough the
issue OF all this. They were not there to discuss
Anglican rubrics any more than 70 decide
whether Mr. Smith sub-lapsarian or not
So said Mr. Wallace, amid cheers OF relief from
a House that saw its way clearing The Church
had not become sacerdotal now Tor the hrst
time said MI Barrtck 1t had always been
sacerdotal. Or else. why were all Mr. Smths
ancestors Noncomforrnists? 1t can't have been
FOR the fun OF the thing. This was an ancient
quarrel that had divided England for centuries.
and the House Of Commons was not the Mt place
10 decide IT, II had only one possible course
omen TO Il. and that was 10 keep clear OF all
such theological disturbances by disestablishing
the Church.
DIsEsTABIIsHMENT THE CONCLUSION.
Disestablishment That was the only con-
ceivable conclusion 20 which Parliamentary In
reference could lead. Certainly, the LiperaI
party. and the Liberal press, bad no other al
tentative But disestablishment was the exact
antithesis of the Erastanism which had started
the ecclesiastical campaign. Sir William had
suggested drastic action by the Stste-not the
withdrawal Of the State from any claim 10 act
at all.
Yet the further things went the nearer Dis
establishment came in sight The entire mass
OF Nonconformsts, who cheered Sir William 10
the echo meant nothing else but this They
could mean nothing else. And the vast Albert
Hall meeting made this almost ludicrously clear.
II heiplessly failed to represent Church unity