LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 883, 1 August 1910, Page 8

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE USE OF VESTMENTS,

', 'Sir,—ln yours ; bfJuly.;29 appears/the annouhe'emeht' that the! Anglican Archbishop !of Sydney has declared the use .of!vestmeiits illegal;;. Your note on tho above-states':tliat this is 1 of'course only 'the opinion .of; the Archbishop of Sydney; yes, and a great, m'any other, leading'men in'the,Church pi England. No doubt Dr. Wright had also heforo him the .'finding of the Commission on. Ecclesiastical Discipline.■ (1906).. which brought .in a unanimous report. Some, •bishops', sat oft this commission, . aud also'some: of the leading laymen in tbo Church of England. 'J , ho,.commission sat for 'twb years, and' heard,evidenco from-'all parts of England on illegal ■practices that, were followed in the Church of Englaud.. ; It seems Strang" • if/ybur definition-is right,, also. Mr. J). C Eelesl -that those.bishops, on- tho ,'bbmmissibn did not' bring in a minority report,-which' theyjhad aright to.do. In this unanimous report tho commis"sion declared'-the, use'of vestments illegal'; they had' the/list, of illegal practices. . I : know it is; contended that the commission,had-to .look to ! the decisionof the Judicial Committee; though Ldo riot'ebneede that; they bound themselves' by! its; decision, as! thby also' ;declared a'lot-bf. other practices'illegal, as, for 'instance,-; altar': Kghts.O Now,, thoso altii.r,liahts:had:"l-sen.'declared- legal by Archbishop 'BensoU'in the Lincoln judgment,' if standing :bh-.the" holy, tahjo. :Though■ it'c.au' hardly '.be said that tne .whole Church 'spoke":bn" this.-occasion.' ■This judgment has been seized upon by .the\HigE Ohufch': party to reako their introduction legal m- every church. You ■.also'state that this decision of the Privy Council has never'.' been .accepted .by tne High' Church ,'party., . I should liko ;to 'know, 'what!they .would accept, except their own advanced opinions ? You say !they. base theirWnipn's ,o'n!'the'"Oniaiments'Rubric:" .Surely,: it! will be conceded that there-aro taen,'o'f the Evan : ' gelical- party -who. arb-«.uite ..as capable .to • interpret'. the.,' 'Ornaments. Ituhric','. .as. the!-High • Church'!.party!•! ; If it!is plain! from this •' Eubric that: vestments are'legal; that;,would; be an,'end to- the matter,';'butit is. ..bpe'ii -to,.doubt,: therefore,.divisions of opinions.,; ";-Yovi'; also'state'that'the .'Lower .House of'Cmiyocation of 'Cauterbhry also un;aftimpu sly. sanctioned'their '.'optional use. To'go back to the'commission'(l9o6), in its! report it i recommended "letters, of 'business'"'. to! bo;'i'ssu'ed. to ■ Convocation., Convocation-of..Canterbury:appointed a 'committee of.theLowbi 1 House of.Con-; vocation. 'This is the'committee that declared for-their optional mse. -This cbmmitteo .'recommended as 'follows:—. . '.• "Whereas, the Eu'charistib' : 'yes't'ments, commonly:so, called, caiiubt' be rightly ■regarded as:'symbolic! of any ..distinctly Roman:doctrinej.and;wherpas,-the his- . tbrical the rul : ihg iudgments.-;iri:>regard!:to : ,thb! ; vesl> ments' ■appear, to '.be liable to' .reasonable doubt (not as/absolutely, certain as somii ..would;.say),vit' isiexpedieht-.that 'two ;alternativoveßtur'e's' ; for.the-minister .'at 'the time .''of;;celebrating L 'the Holy' Com-! bunion, !viz. : , (1) the"surplice,, with stole' •or scarf,'. and - the' hood. of" his. degree; (2) tho Eucharistic"vestments, coinmonly.so called, lis lawful under proper regulation's;"': '..!,.;!',- -•'; ,-. In! dealing with' tlie'.re'cbmmeridation, "Tho Record" "presumes that the insertion of the; wordi.; 'Roman doctrines' is i'meani to be a clever evasion of the difficulty ..which,-! surrounds the!. symbolic character.of these 'g'srments'/in the English. Church:, but; it,is .too.thin a dis-. guise, and the committee.a!ro still face to'faco with the-fact'that"these vestments are used because ■of their sacrificial,; significance." "The Church Times" asks, Is this the eirenicon which was to unite all sober and peaceable sons of the' Church of England ?, We 'believe it is the identical eirenicon", but it-raises more difficulties tlmn it-settles, and .unless the committee generates'a.drivin"' force it does not': at "present 'possess, their! report will only ..serve, to fill a vacant corner in the shelves of the Convocation. '■;•;.-"".'■ ..:'■'.,'•: . >I think it-will be' seoii, that - if the Archbishop of Sydney has erred at aIJ, ho has; erred in " vcrv'good .' Personally; .1 think if there .were more bishops of Dr. Wright's ; opinion it 'Would bo .better for; the Church to-day. You'also state there are many English diocoses where the bishops decline . to take actions Quito true, but it is hot fair to blame the bishops alwavs. What' of those clergymen who at their ordination pledging themselves-to' abide by' the ; law of the.Church ot England, and ma fen- years' openly flouting the said •authority?. Then the law is very cumas. if "a bishop wishes to proceed against any minister, ho, must take every separate individual case, as a general principlo laid down has no effect.. It is recognised, that there are come extreme clergymen servin? under /the_ present Bishop of London, "and the JJishop,' in giving .evidence before the said commission, said he had given certain, liberties to some of these men, and in nearly every • instance it bad been abused.—l am, etc., "

' 'ITIOS. M. MILLIGAN. Taitville, July 30. 1910 ''.".. ' fin the note to the cablegram referred to by Mr; Milligan we were riot arguing the case for or against vestments. Wo; simply .stated as a matter of fact that the Archbishop of Sydney was not giving a -legal decision when he. de- ' clared that vestments "were. illegal, but merely expressing his own opinion—an opinion, of.course, which is entitled to .great weight..'As regards the rest of the note, wo simply stated briefly.the position taken up by the other side— the High Church party.]!;