to be, like so many other popular ideas, a fallacy. The Church is comprehensive, but only on the doctrinal side. ‘It is the unity of ceremonial that makes the toleration of diversity of opinion possible. The ceremonial stands before us as the order of the Church. The teaching is, and must be to a very large extent, the voice of the individual. The ceremonial is for all alike.’
Yet, no doubt, the Archbishop himself would allow a certain toleration of disobedience, even in ceremonial; for we live in a time of transition when the rigid use of authority would be disastrous, and even unjust. Those who disobey, for instance, the Ornaments Rubric, or those Canons upon which the Archbishop based his claim for obedience, he would yet, I imagine, allow to continue in their laxity, both for the sake of peace and a true far-reaching justice, and because, when an acknowledged duty has been in abeyance for centuries, the revival of its claim must necessarily be gradual and tender. The obedience, therefore, with which we are concerned at the present time is a voluntary obedience. We are impelled, not by a Star Chamber but by Conscience, to obey. We are put upon our honour to conform to the Prayer Book as completely as we can; and even school-boys know that obedience under these conditions is that which must be most thoroughly, most loyally, and most honourably given.
The Church of England, then, is not that flaccid thing which some seem to suppose. She ‘has a mind of her own; a mind, and therewith a character, a temperament, a complexion; and of this mind the Prayer Book is the main and representative expression.’[1]
How are we to discover that mind, how are we to carry out that unity of ceremonial which stands
- ↑ Bishop of Rochester’s Address to his Diocesan Conference in October 1898.
