The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-05-21
RituaIismINot Yet Puniehable.by Law
in England

RituaIismINot Yet Punishable.by Law
in England.\
notwithstanding the violence OF the
movement against ritualism started IN inc
Church of England, a movement OF which
Sir WILLIAM ViRNoN-HARCtTRr has mace
himself the Parliamentary Champion, IL
was settled last week in ths'House OF Com
mons that, for TIM present at all events
secular courts will not be created TO punish
ritualistio practices. The ''hurch Dlscl-
pline bill was defeated by a vote OF BIO 10
1855: nevertheless, onmotion OF Sir RICHARD
WEBSTER, the Acknowledgement, the House
pledped itself to frame hereafter u iegls-
lation as may be needed to enforce the ex-
isting laws Of tho Church and realm. II the
efforts now making by the Ar~chbishops or
Canterbury and York to sec ure theo obedience
of the clergy are not speedily ehectual.
Had the Church Discipline bill become a
law. It would have created new State COURTS
which would have dealt roughly with large
numbers Of %clcrgymen. 1t has been COM
nut.d that. to put down incen.se alone, 1t
would be requisite to deprive o clergy
~ their benc6ces, and to put down the use
of yestments, no fewer than 1000. AS
euOn q course WOllu ptoNoAO
missing resistance on the part "a many
congregations, many patrons OF nvings ana
even OF many Bishops. the practical out
come would have been the OF
tho Anglican Church. The High ohuroh
section Of that body, which undoubtedly
comprehends millions OF English people,
would, by the force OF controversy, be,
strongly impelled in the direction OF Rome.
The antipathy which would be aroused
among High Churchmen toward those
whom they would regard as prosecutors
might not cause all OF them to submit forth
with to the Pope, but we nay take for
granted that it would materially increase
the number Of conversions to Romanism.r
More and more the impression would gainl
ground that for Englishmen there was mo-
longer a via media. or midway stopping
place. between Rome and Geneva. OBJ
~viously, too, the agitation for disestab-
lishment would acquire additional mo-
mentum, the former Nonconformists being
strengthened by those elected from the
Anglican pale on the score OF ritualistic
offences. Thus. weakened within and as
sailed from without, it 10 improbable that
the remnant OF the Church could long resist
disestablishment and disendowment.
II cannot, OF course, be denied that. as
regards ritualistic practices. the state of
things which now exists in the Church of
England must be described as anarchical.
The two Archbishops are now trying to
render the anarchy tolerable by designat'
ing certain limits within which variations
OF ritualistio practice shall be permissible
Unfortunately, the Archbishops can only
commend those limits by moral suasion
and episcopal influence. The power of en-
forcemcnt Is not in their hands. Coercive
Jurisdiction Is the function Of the State. q
function which, AZ We saw last week, the
State la unwilling to discharge by means o.
secular tribunals. There remains the alter
native OF creating ecclesiastical courts
which, for the definition Of doctrine and the
prescription OF ritlalistic practice, SHOULD
he invested with all the authority OF thu
Church. Lord HUGH CECIL has pointed on
how such courts might DO called into being
Parliament might pass a short act en-
towering Convocation, or tho bi-camera
assembly OF the Anglican Bishops ant
clergy, to reform the ecclesiastical courts
by eanons made in the ordinary way b!
ROYAL Letters OF Business, and with tn,
consent of the crown. The result would b
that the constitution OF the courts woul'
be settled after consultation between tn
Ministry, on the one hand, and, on the other
the Bishops or others representing Ih
majority OF the clerical assembly. Thi
would be a constitutional proceeding, an,
ample security might be given to tho right
Of the State by defcrring the royal assen
to the canons until one or the other hous
OF Parliament should have had time 10 sen
up q hostile address.
It Is urged on behalf OF such eccles
astical courts, as opposed to secular tr
bunals, first, that as regards ritualisti
practices the former would set wide
limits than many Evangellcals woul
like, and, secondly, that wherever thos
limits might be fixed, they would con
mapd the conscientious obedience OF a
the ritualistic clergy. This, at least,
the belief OF those who desire to see disciI
linary powers exercised by the Church i
self rather than by secular courts. 81
WILLIAM HARcoURT, however, and the III
compromising Evangelicals, OF whom he
the chief Parliamentary spokesman, col
tend that. II the ecclesiastical courts err
ated by Convocation were to put a lin
to ritualism which High Churchmen woul
accept, that limit would necessarily
extremely obnoxious to Low ChurchmeI
Tncre are many reasonable Evangelical
nevertheless, who admit that 1t would |
better to administer a definite check to ritz
alistie proceedings, and to have the san
limit fixed throughout England and Vale