There was almost universal condemnation for the Revd Richard Enraght’s stance against the Public Worship Regulation Act by National and Regional Newspapers. In his Lecture, ‘Catholics in the Church of England’ in Reading on the 19th March 1888, he stated, “When the ancient practices and rites of the Church were first revived in England nearly every newspaper spoke against it ; he believed all ridiculed it, with the exception of the Spectator, the Saturday Review, and the Morning Post”.
At the foot of this page, there is a brief article of support from the Birmingham Daily Post which was Enraght’s local newspaper, when he served as Vicar of Holy Trinity, Bordesley.
*******
 |
| (Illustration from the Birmingham Daily Post 28th November 1880)
Fr Richard
Enraght entering Warwick Prison in chains, handing a bag entitled, "Paraphernalia of Ritualism" to his Curate, the Revd Warwick Elwin (later to become the Vicar of St. Andrew the Apostle, Worthing, Sussex.) (Although not factually correct, the artist has added the names of the Revd T. P. Dale and Revd F. Green above the other cell doors, under the heading of 'Religious Liberty'. Revd Dale was actually sent to Holloway Prison in London and the Revd Green to Lancaster Castle Prison) |
MARTYRS OF THE CHURCH
Newcastle Chronicle 19th February 1881:-
The
imprisonment of the Rev. Pelham Dale and the Rev. Richard Enraght
seems likely to bring the question of the disestablishment of the
Church within what Mr. Gladstone would call “the range of practical
politics.”
It is not necessary to have much sympathy with these recalcitrant clergymen in order to share with their friends the views they are beginning to entertain. Indeed, people who hold as a fundamental principle that the Church should be severed from the State arrive at that conviction by a very different route from the one by which the Ritualists are travelling. Inability to teach doctrines and adopt practices akin to those of the Roman Catholic Church within the edifices of the Establishment is the one reason which induces the Ritualist party to favour the severance ; but Radical politicians are not influenced by any practical grievance they have now to suffer from the State Church system. It is not a policy, but a principle, that governs their action in the matter.
Holding the doctrine that religion is a concern of the individual, and not of the nation at large, they have always contended that the State exceeds its functions when it undertakes to teach or regulate the faith of the people. But while they remain steadfast to this great principle, and endeavoured to promote it by every means at their command, they nevertheless welcome the assistance of any class or any party that seeks the same end, whatever the reasons or the motives for seeking it. It is no doubt not a very agreeable spectacle that men should be cast into prison for teaching what they believe to be the truth.
The confinement of Mr. Dale and Mr. Enraght is therefore, regarded by itself, to be greatly regretted. But we must not forget that these “ martyrs of the Church”— for so they esteem themselves — have got into their present position, not for disobeying the injunctions of an Act of Parliament, but for refusing to recognise the authority of a court of law. The offence they have committed is, in fact, the offence of contempt. Mr. Dale's proceedings, in particular, as described by Lord Penzance, are such as only a silly and childish fanatic could have adopted. He was first declared guilty by the Court of Arches of habitually adopting illegal practices in the conduct of divine service ; then he was judicially admonished to refrain from such practices; afterwards, having disregarded the monition of the court, he was suspended for a certain period from the discharge of his clerical duties. Monition, inhibition, and suspension, however, had no effect in restraining the reverend offender from persisting in the practices for which he had been
condemned.
Throughout the legal proceedings connected with the case, Mr. Dale
appeared neither personally nor by counsel.
Moreover,
according to Lord Penzance, he “endeavoured in every possible way
to avoid being served with any of the notices, or other he connected
with the proceedings.” ‘Having refused,” said his lordship, “
to take out of the postman's hand a registered letter containing one
of the most important of these papers, he has had the courage to
write and complain that he never received it !
As a climax to
this line of conduct, he has afforded the not very dignified
spectacle of a gentleman and a clergyman of the Church of England
running down a narrow flight of stairs the basement of his house as
soon as he caught sight of the officer of the court with a paper in
his hand.”
Conduct
of this kind whoever may resort to it, can only be characterised as
alike puerile and pitiable.
That a clergyman, who claims to be a guide to eternal welfare, should play a trick of which a pettifogging lawyer would almost be ashamed, is paltry and lamentable beyond measure. It is nearly twelve months since Mr. Dale performed the feats which Lord Penzance described. Since the reverend gentleman treated the court with discourtesy and contempt, it became a question whether the law should be enforced or the offender should be allowed to profit by his own offence. Lord Penzance came to the conclusion that the contumacy was of such a character that it was his imperative duty to signify to her Majesty in Chancery under the statute of 53 George III., chap. 127, that he had been guilty of contempt of court.
As this statute provides that an offender shall be imprisoned till he submits himself to the judgement of the authorities of the law, Lord Penzance committed Mr. Dale to the prison at Holloway. “If,” said his lordship, in giving judgement in the case, “appeal is made to the law, it is not only within the province, but it is plain duty, of this court to see that the law is upheld, and, when called upon in a proper case, to enforce its own decree.” “The respondent,” he added, “can at once regain his liberty by announcing that he is ready to render obedience to the court’s decrees. His imprisonment is of his own seeking, and his release will be within his own reach.”
His lordship made a still more definite statement when the case of Mr. Enraght came before him. “Mr. Enraght,” he said, “ has been proved to have habitually conducted the services of his church in a manner at variance with the rubrics of the Prayer Book in no less than fifteen different particulars. A clergyman, like all others of her Majesty’s subjects, is free to practice what form of worship he pleases ; but as long as he retains a place in his ministry of the Established Church he is bound to conform to its laws and ordinances. He can regain his liberty when he is prepared to assure the court that he will obey the order of suspension, and he can be restored to his ministrations when he consents to conduct the services of his church according to law.”
The attempt of the imprisoned clergyman to obtain release by appealing to another court failed, but notice having been given of appeal to a third court, it was intimated to them that they were at liberty to go at large, on certain conditions, pending the settlement of the question whether Lord Penzance had or had not the power to remit them to custody for contempt of the Court of Arches. Mr. Enraght, however, has declared that he will not accept his release on the terms laid down, so that he still remains a prisoner in Warwick Jail.
Both
the prosecutions and the results they have entailed have been
denounced by the sympathisers with Mr. Dale and Mr. Enraght in the
most unmeasured terms. The question at issue, however, is not to be
solved by strong language, but rather by the consideration whether
clergymen, because they are clergymen, ought to be exempt from the
operations of an Act of Parliament and permitted to
disobey the
decrees of a court of law.
When we read of the pretensions of the Ritualists, we seem to be a long way from the time when the Church taught the people the duty of passive obedience. That, at any rate, is not a duty which the Church is now disposed to practice itself. The particular section of the Establishment which Mr. Dale and Mr. Enraght represent — an active and influential section too—is in open rebellion against the State.
Bitter complaints appear in the press about the lawlessness of the Irish people. Has it ever occurred to the gentlemen who make them that there is even more lawlessness in the English Church? The Ritualists not only set the law at defiance, but refuse to recognise that it has, or ought to have, any control over them. It is not, they contend, the law of England, but what they call the “law of Christ,” that they are required to obey,
"The real question,” says the Hon. Charles Wood, the chairman of the English Church Union, “the real question at issue is, whether the Church should submit in spiritual matters tribunals which have, and can have, no claim to in Christ's name — which have only Parliamentary authority, and cannot exercise any other authority than what Parliament has to give”
Strange as it may seem, the clergymen who prefer to as martyrs rather than accept the ruling of the State tribunals have each subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, one of which declare that to the Queen's Majesty “the chief government of all estates of the realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all cause, doth appertain.” Most people might hare thought that these gentlemen, if they could not conscientiously yield obedience to the legal authorities, would have consulted their own dignity and asserted their own freedom by withdrawing from a position in which they are subjected to the “tyranny of the State.” As Mr. Justice Manisty told them the other day, it was their duty to resign their benefices and become Nonconformists, rather than the law of the land at defiance.
The fact is, however, to use Mr. Bright’s expression, they wish to remain inside the Establishment, and yet obtain all the advantages of Independence that are enjoyed by those who are outside. But this wish of theirs cannot be gratified. Only one of two courses is open to them, they must either resign the emoluments they derive and the consideration they acquire from connection with the State, or else be content to rank with the Dissenters of the kingdom.
“The Law is the King’s king.” And at obedience to the law, as Mr. Justice Manisty remarked, is “the solid foundation upon which all rights, from those of the Crown to those the meanest subject, rest.” Of course there are times and occasions when disobedience is the only mode of procuring a change in the law.
But the clergy, in this instance, have themselves in this position, that they cannot get rid of the authority of the law without getting rid of the authority of Parliament itself ; for the Church Times has lately remarked that the Church cannot submit to “Courts and Legislatures which only by a fortunate accident are not composed entirely of Bradlaughs.” (reference to Charles Bradlaugh, Liberal M.P., staunch Republican, atheism activist and founder of the National Secular Society)
It is no doubt absurdly anomalous that a Parliament largely composed of Dissenters, Jews and Atheists should have the power to regulate the rites and doctrines of the Church – to say what the clergy shall teach and how they shall teach it. But this anomaly is inseparable from the relations which subsist between the Church and the State. As long as the present arrangement continues, the one organisation must be subordinate to the other.
The only way out of the difficulty is that which the Nonconformist bodies have consistently and religiously advocated – the liberation of Religion from State control. It looks as if the events now transpiring within the Establishment itself were going to accelerate the solution which all friends of religion equality desire.
The sentiment expressed in the opening sentence of this letter, the sentiment of the Church Union. “We have no wish,” says the chairman of that body, “even under present circumstances, to play into the hands of the Liberation Society ; but it does not require much political foresight to perceive that a change in the relations of Church and State is steadily – some may even think rapidly – coming within the range of practical politics.”
Although there is no large amount of public sympathy with the “martyrs of the Church,” public gratitude will not be wanting if the action of Mr. Dale and Mr. Enraght should bring about, immediately or remotely, the last great ecclesiastical reform in England – the abolition of the Episcopal Establishment.
*******
Birmingham
Daily Post 28th
November 1880 -
What
is the Use ?
The prosecutions must prove futile, because the doctrines aimed at, may be legally taught by ministers of the Church of England. It has been decided that baptismal regeneration may be lawfully taught; it has also been decided that a real presence in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper may also be lawfully taught. As to the assertion of a priesthood, the Prayer Book is full of it; and the Low Churchmen are conscious of the difficulty of explaining it away. If then, the doctrine remain and must remain --- for no one seriously propose to expunge it by legal process --- of what use is it to go on prosecuting and imprisoning clergymen who insist upon the use of symbols as a means of enforcing a doctrine which they may preach without legal hindrance, from one end of the year to the other
*******
Transcription on the Newcastle Chronicle 19th February 1881 by D. Sharp