The following pamphlet was written by Fr Enraght while incarcerated in Warwick Prison in December 1880.
Fr Enraght has also included the Bishop of Worchester's 'First Direction' of 1878 in this pamphlet:-
 |
| MY ORDINATION OATHS 1880 |
PREFACE.
Whatever
line the Bishop may have taken regarding my prosecution, I am
anxiously desirous, as in duty bound, not to bring forward his name
in the matter, unless under absolute necessity.
But as numerous members of the Puritan party - which term, historically explained, means a Nonconforming party within the Church - are repeatedly casting in my teeth - " Why does he not keep his oaths?" I feel that it is due to my honour, and that of other clergy similarly circumstanced, to publish the following correspondence.
The question I have just quoted is one which any ignorant and thoughtless person can easily ask. It is one which I think no well-educated and thoughtful, not to say charitable person, would lightly ask. But to any not well acquainted with the question, yet anxious to further examine it, and at least accord to us that fair play commonly said to be so dear to Englishmen, but hitherto denied to the so called " Ritualists," I commend the answer which I have now published.
I have
hitherto refrained from publishing it solely for the Bishop's sake.
*******
FIRST DIRECTION
HARTLEBURY, KIDDERMINSTER,
June 14th, 1878.
MY
DEAR MR ENRAGHT,
After full consideration of the matters which were the subject of our lengthened discussion on Wednesday last, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that it is my - duty to send you the following Direction :-
I wish to preface it by reminding you that every person ordained a Deacon is required previously to his Ordination to answer the question, "Will you humbly obey your
Ordinary and other chief Ministers of the Church, and them
to whom
the charge and government over you is committed, following with a
glad mind and will their Godly admonitions."
The
answer to be given is, "I will endeavour myself, the Lord being
my helper."
Similarly,
in the form and manner of ordering Priests, every candidate is
required to answer the question, "Will you humbly obey your
Ordinary and other chief Ministers, unto whom is committed the charge
and government over you, following with a glad mind and will their
Godly admonitions and submitting yourself to their Godly
judgments;" and the answer is to be given in the following
words : "I will so do, the Lord being my helper."
Moreover,
before each Ordination, as well as before every license or
institution, the person to be ordained, or licensed, -or instituted,
is required to declare that he assents to the Book of Common Prayer,
and that in Public Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments he
will use the form in the said book prescribed, and none other·,
except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority.
Moreover, also, upon every license or institution, giving power to officiate, the candidate is required to make oath and swear that he will pay true and canonical obedience to the Bishop of his Diocese in all things lawful and honest.
Now I have satisfied myself by long continued, careful, diligent inquiry, that certain ceremonial observances,
VIZ,:-
1 - Placing lighted candles upon the Communion Table, or on a ledge immediately over the same, during the celebration of the Holy Communion, when such lighted candles are not wanted for the purpose of giving light;
2 - Wearing in the Communion Service the vestments known as a Chasuble and an Alb;
3 - Mixing water, with the wine before consecration
4 - Making the sign of the cross in the air towards the congregation in Communion Service;
are contrary to the law and custom of the Church of England; either being not prescribed, and such as ought not to be introduced without the sanction of authority; or having once been in use in our Church and been deliberately laid aside.
As it has
been represented to me by one of the Churchwardens of your parish,
among other things relating to the conduct of Divine Worship, that
you are in the habit of using the ceremonies which I have described,
I think myself obliged to call upon you, in consideration of the
declarations and oaths which you have made and taken, and direct that
you abstain from the use of such ceremonies, in future.
I
am aware that in the conduct of Divine Service in the Church of Holy
Trinity you have followed substantially the customs which you found
in use at the time of your admission to the benefice; but it must not
be left out of consideration that the customs were not for the part
adopted at no distant date, and when there was much uncertainty about
the law of the Church regarding them.
I have reason to
think, also from representations which have been made to me, that a
large number of members of the Congregation who habitually attend the
Church do not regard with dissatisfaction your mode of conducting of
the services, and would be content with continuance of them as they
have been hitherto conducted; but I think it is plain that, as, on
the one hand, the laity of a parish have a right to require that the
services in their Parish Church should be conducted strictly
according to law, so on the other hand they ought not to be allowed,
in any particular instance, to encourage the Clergy in the use of
ceremonies which the general law of the Church forbids.
In
giving the above Direction, I cannot help expressing my regret, if it
should cause pain to you, who are accustomed to the use of the
ceremonies in question, and to some members of your congregation, who
have been led to attach to them significance and value far beyond
what they really deserve ; but I am satisfied that to all who are in
authority, and to all who are under authority, whether in Church or
State, the principle of obedience to constituted law and order is of
paramount importance.
Yours very faithfully,
H.
WORCESTER.
(I respectfully acknowledged the receipt of this
"Direction"- R.W.E.)
*******
HARTLEBURY,
KIDDERMINSTER,
July 4th1878
DEAR
MR. ENRAGHT,
I have not hitherto sent any reply to Mr. Perkins,
the Churchwarden, other than a short note to inform him that I would
communicate with you respecting the Memorial which he sent mo. He has
now written me a Ietter, received yesterday, asking for information
as to what is being done in regard to the Memorial. It is necessary
that I should send him some reply ; but before writing to him I wish
to learn whether you have finally determined upon the course to be
taken by you with regard to the four points of ceremonial observance,
which I described to you in my letter of June 14. ,
The further and full consideration, which I have not ceased to give to the subject, has satisfied me that, unless you are prepared to give up those four points of ritual (under protest, if you please) I shall not be able to protect you from any prosecution that may be commenced against you.
Yours faithfully,
H. WORCESTER..
*******
HOLY TRINITY VICARAGE,
BORDESLEY,
July 6th, 1878.
MY LORD,
The
letter I have this morning received from your Lordship requires from
me a formal answer to your "Direction," bearing date June
14th, 1878.
Your
Lordship does not profess to proceed upon the ground of the Ritual
Judgments of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council.
Nevertheless I cannot but think such decisions, in part at least,
underlie your "Direction."
But the "Direction " itself takes me on my Ordination and other oaths, and on that ground alone I found the following reply.
Two
thoughts at once suggest themselves on reading the " Direction."
I-That
obedience to the "godly" and "lawful and honest"
and "canonical" "admonitions" and "
judgments" of one's Diocesan is the bounden duty of a Christian
priest; to neglect which is to endanger his salvation in an imminent
degree. And, moreover, that a dutiful priest is always anxious, so
far as he conscientiously can, to comply with all expressed wishes of
his Bishop.
But-
II.-That it
is possible for one's Diocesan to put forth unlawful and uncanonical
"admonitions" and" judgments," which, for bis
priests to obey, would be to disobey a higher authority, the Rules
and Orders, Constitutions, and Directions of the Church.
Your
Lordship writes in the present " Direction "-
" I have satisfied myself by long-continued, careful, diligent enquiry, that certain ceremonial observances, viz.:-
" 1 -- Placing lighted candles upon the Communion Table, or on a ledge immediately over the same, during the celebration of the Holy Communion, when such lighted candles are not wanted for the purpose of giving light:
" 2.-Wearing in the Communion Service the vestments known as a Chasuble and an Alb :
"3.-Mixing water with the wine before consecration in the Holy Communion :
" 4.-Making the sign of the Cross in the air towards the congregation in the Communion Service :
" Are contrary to the law and custom of the Church of England."
As regards, then-
A. - "The 'Custom' of the Church of England" -
If the term be legally interpreted, a "custom " to be valid in law, must be long anterior to the Reformation era. “Custom," in this sense, is confessedly in favour of the retention of these four points.
But if your
Lordship means by "custom" that customary Puritan
Disobedience and "anomia," which has for many years been
practically dominant in the Church of England, I protest against
being bound by it; and hold that if it is not a good custom, it ought
to be no longer maintained Malus usus est obolendus is an
established maxim.
B.-As regards "the law of the Church of England."
Your Lordship has in the " Direction " stated your private judgment and individual opinion regarding it.
Then your Lordship assumes that, by their Ordination and other promises, the Clergy are bound to obey the dicta of the private judgment and individual opinion of their Diocesans.
Consequently you call upon me, because of such my Ordination and other promises, to receive and act upon, as in duty bound, such " Direction" proceeding from your private judgment, as being to me "the law of the Church of England."
My Lord,
you have thus assumed ground which I cannot for a moment admit. The
Episcopal Government we have sworn to obey is not ultramontanism pure
and simple, not a government by each individual Bishop's private
opinion or caprice; but a government by law-the law of "this
Church and Realm."
I
respectfully maintain-
1.-That
your Lordship, by your Ordination and other vows is bound to
conform to the law of the Church as much as any priest under your
jurisdiction;
2.-That our Ordination promises and other subscriptions bound us on oath, amongst other points,
(1) - To "follow with a glad mind and will" the "godly admonitions" and "submit ourselves to the godly judgments" of " Ordinaries and other chief ministers," and to "pay true and canonical obedience to the Bishop of the Diocese in all things lawful and honest."
I observe that yom Lordship has underlined certain terms which occur in the ordination oaths and the subscriptions which at various times we have made, viz., "godly admonitions" and "godly judgments."
But somehow you have omitted to underline other terms, viz., "lawful and honest" and 'canonical." Are these latter terms, my Lord, unimportant? Or are they not rather the very terms intended, by their technical exactness, to explain, qualify, and give precision to the less definite terms upon which you have laid emphasis?
Do not the oaths, &c., explain one another ? For what are "godly admonitions" and "judgments"? Those, I presume, which are "lawful," and therefore "honest." And what are lawful and honest ? Those, I presume, which are "canonical" - that is, clearly in accordance with the Canon Law, the Rubrics, Constitutions, Orders, and other lawful Directions of the English Church.
Were the former the only terms used in the oaths and subscriptions, it might doubtless have been open toa Diocesan to insist that all his " admonitions " and "judgements" were "godly," and should be submitted to by his Clergy. The use of the latter terms confine such"godly admonitions" and "godly judgments" to those which are "honest," "canonical," and so "lawful."
Can your
Lordship point me to even one Anglican authority which contravenes
this interpretation of these oaths, and supports the ultramontane
theory apparently taken by your Lordship?
I know of none, save some which have lately arisen, to prop up the present startling and intolerable novelties in Church legislation, judicature, and government.
As Archdeacon Sharpe, after enumerating the same Ordination oaths and other subscriptions to which your Lordship refers me, says-
" How frivolous is it for any of us to say that the connivance or the presumed consent of our Ordinary …..will dissolve this, our obligation to conformity. Why, surely we must know that these and the like allegations are quite out of the case."
And again-
" In points that are clearly expressed, the Ordinary is as much prohibited from making innovations as the meanest parochial minister among us."
Our Ordination promises, &c., bound us, as your Lord ship well reminds me-
(2) To " assent to the Book of Common Prayer," and " in Public Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments," to " use the form in the said Book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority."
And also to ''give (our) faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and Realm hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that (we) may teach the people committed of (our) cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same."
This latter oath, bearing so intimately upon the question at issue, your Lordship has strangely omitted from your enumeration. I would respectfully ask- Why?
It seem to me to cover the whole ground, and to be the most important oath a clergyman has to take.
In it we solemnly vow to perform all our ministrations, not according to the private judgment and individual opinion oven of our diocesan, but “as this Church and Realm hath received the same.”
If a clergyman faithfully observes this oath, he cannot intentionally violate the Canons of the Church, or the Rules and orders of the Prayer Book.
And-·
He must "pay" all "godly" and "lawful and honest" and "canonical obedience to the Bishop of his Diocese" "and other chief ministers."
But at the same time, by this oath, inter alia, he pledges himself to the Church to follow the lead of no one, not even his Diocesan in breaking the law.
Moreover, let me remind your Lordship that in the Prayer Rook Preface,"concerning the Service of the Church," when "parties that doubt or diversely take anything" "resort to" "the Bishop of the Diocese,” for the quieting and appeasing of the same" - he is forbidden to "take order" "contrary to anything contained in this Book" of Common Prayer.
Now,
my Lord, pardon me if I say that--
3.-The law
upon the Ornaments of the Church and the Ministers thereof is
perfectly clear, and can not be" diversely taken" by any
unprejudiced person.
Your
Lordship's private judgment and opinion upon this point expressed in
your "Direction" is directly at variance with
(1) the plain wording of the Ornaments Rubric, and
(2) with the acknowledged authorities on the question, including the utterances of Convocation in the present day, which, in dealing with this matter, has not condescended even to discuss the legality of the Vestments, but takes it for granted.
The very text-books we were required to study for our Divinity Schools, and for Holy Orders, taught us the generally received interpretation of that Rubric, an interpre tation formerly admitted by the Puritan party itself, and frequently brought forward by it as an objection against the Prayer Book.
As Archdeacon Sharpe well points out, all that was done as to Vestments by the "Advertisements" put forth in the reign of Elizabeth, was to "allow" the surplice at the Communion, and to "secure" the Puritans from penalties if they conformed so far as to wear it. This is a very different thing from supposing that the " Advertisements" could have been intended to abrogate the plain terms of the Ornaments Rubric, or prevent dutiful priests conforming to its strict letter. '
I quite agree with your Lordship that
"It is plain that the laity of a parish have a right to require that the Services in their Parish Church should be conducted strictly according to law," and that "to all who are in authority, and to all who are under authority, whether in Church or State, the principle of obedience to constituted law and order is of paramount importance."
Quite similarly spoke the Bishops to the Puritan party in 1662.
In my
humble judgment, it would be much better for the Church, if in every
parish in your Lordship's diocese the plain law was in all
respects observed as "strictly" as it is in this
parish; and if screwing up to the exact law of the Church on all
points is to be the order of the day, I have nothing to fear.
Still on
such matters of conscience, it would grieve me much, should the
Authorities in Church and State ever again come to deal hardly with
the Puritan party. We had much better avail ourselves of the
dispensing power of the Church, as was done in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth.
But as things now are, the disobedient are caressed. The obedient are harassed, condemned, fined, and imprisoned.
I can only say, formerly these things used not so to be, save in the memorable days of Cromwell and the Commonwealth; a repetition of which, on a smaller scale, we are now having.
What is the remedy? Obviously to permit (strange expression) all who will to "strictly obey" the law; and let the rest, as now, take advantage of the Dispensation given in the "Advertisements," and in the Canons of 1603-4. Otherwise, in the matter of religious toleration we are " advancing backwards," and, moreover, firing upon our most loyal troops.
III.-To apply the foregoing to the four points, to which your Lordship's" Direction" particularly refers.
1.-Bishop Cosin, the chief reviser of the Prayer Book, at the last revision in 1662, who ought, therefore, to know what the Ornaments Rubric was intended to mean, says-
" Among other 'Ornaments of the Church' also then 'in use' 'in the second year of Edward Vl.,' there were two lights appointed by his Injunctions (which the Parliament had authorised him to make), to be set upon the High Altar, as a significant ceremony of the light which Christ's Gospel brought into the world, and this at the same time when all other lights and tapers superstitiously set before images were, by the same Injunctions, …………....taken away. These lights were (by virtue of this present Rubric) [referring to what was in use in the second year of Edward VI.] afterwards continued ……….. to this day."
Nothing can set aside this testimony.
In forbidding these legal "Ornaments of the Church, "I humbly submit your Lordship has exceeded your lawful jurisdiction.
I cannot violate my Ordination and other oaths by extinguishing the two lights.
And that, especially as Bishop Cosin says, in the same
passage, that-
"Both Bishops, Priests, and Deacons that knowingly and wilfully break this order [the Ornaments Rubric] are as hardly censured in the Preface to this Book [The Prayer Book] concerning ceremonies as ever Calvin or Bucer censured the ceremonies themselves."
2.-The Chasuble and Alb are without doubt commanded by the Ornaments Rubric. To this also Bishop Cosin gives testimony in several passages.
In forbidding these legal " Ornaments of the Ministers," I respectfully submit your Lordship has exceeded your lawful jurisdiction.
I cannot violate my Ordination and other oaths, .and bring myself under the censure of the Church, by disusing them. 15
" For the" original "disuse of these Ornaments" Bishop Cosin says- •
"
We may thank them that came from Geneva, and in the beginning of
Queen Elizabeth's reign, being set in places of government
(i.e. sundry Puritan-minded Bishops) suffered every negligent priest
to do what him listed, so he would but profess a difference
and opposition in all things (though never so lawful
otherwise) against the Church of Rome, and the ceremonies therein
used."
The
history of that period tells us that these disloyal officers of the
Church at first encouraged the Puritans in their opposition to the
Ornaments ; and then. when Arch bishop Parker put forth the
"Advertisements," to enforce the surplice, &c.;
illegally interpreted them to mean that the Chasuble, Cope, &e.,
were to be destroyed.
I cannot give countenance to such a precedent.
Therefore, should anyone ask me why I cannot now (under protest) fall back upon the minimum, required by the" Advertisements," and the Canons of 1603-4; I make that answer, and say that I cannot imitate the Puritan party.
Were I so to do, I should (1) to use Bishop Cosin's words, be " knowingly and wilfully breaking " the Ornaments Rubric; and (2) in any case to do so now would be to seek personal immunity from attack by (so far as in me lies) surrendering to the enemy the Catholic heritage of the Church.
3.- The mixed Chalice was undoubtedly part of the original institution, has been the invariable custom of the Church of Christ everywhere save in the Church of Armenia, was used by our best and holiest and most learned Divines - Bishop Andrews, Bishop Cosin, Bishop Wilson, and others.
Bishop Cosin says of it-
" Our Church forbids it not, for aught I know, and they that think fit may use it, as some most eminent among us do at this day."
I therefore very earnestly appeal to your Lordship not to forbid our present use of it.
But it is not ordered in the Prayer Book in express terms. Therefore, if your Lordship requires me, respect- fully recognising your jurisdiction, I will cease mixing water with the wine before consecration in the Holy Communion.
4.-The 30th Canon of 1603-4 says of the Sign of the Cross -
" First it is to be observed, that although the Jews and Gentiles derided both the Apostles and the rest of the Christians for preaching and believing in Him who was crucified upon the cross; yet all, both Apostles and Christians, were so far from being discouraged from their profession by the ignominy of the Cross, as they rather rejoiced and triumphed in it. Yea, the Holy Ghost, by the mouths of the Apostles, did honour the name of the Cross (being hateful among the Jews) so far, that under it be comprehended, not only Christ crucified, but the force, effects, and merits of His Death and Passion, with all the comforts, fruits, and promises, which we receive or expect thereby.
" Secondly, the honour and dignity of the name of the Cross begat a reverend estimation, even in the Apostles times (for aught that is known to the contrary), of the sign of the Cross, which the Christians shortly after used in all their actions ; thereby making an outward show and profession, even to the astonishment of the Jews, that they were not ashamed to acknowledge Him for their Lord and Saviour, who died for them upon the Cross.
And this sign they did not only use themselves with a kind of glory when they met with any Jews, but signed therewith their children when they were Christened, to dedicate them by that badge to His service, whose benefits bestowed upon them in Baptism, the name of the Cross did represent.
" At what time, if any had opposed themselves against it, they would certainly have been censured as enemies of the name of the Cross, and consequently of Christ's merits, the Sign whereof they could no better endure.
"This continued and general use of the Sign of the Cross is evident by many testimonies of the antient Fathers."
Stronger testimony to the Apostolical character of this most sacred Sign- "the Sign of the Son of Man " (Matt. Xxiv. 30) - it would not be easy to conceive. It is still the universal custom of Christians to "use" it " in all their actions." It seems an odd way of honouring Christ crucified, and a strange mode of exemplifying our identity with the antient and the present Church of Christ, to order it to be discontinued in blessing the congregation in the Communion Service.
Why should this Apostolical, primitive, and sacredly touching custom be forbidden, at the desire of persons whose habit is to object to, and oppose, everything in doctrine, ceremonial, and practice, which distinguishes the Church from surrounding sects ?
I can understand Satan's terror of this all-powerful Sign-the sign to him of doom.
I can understand his hatred of it, and the terror and hatred of his angels.
But how are we to account for the ever-manifested hatred of the world, and of too many baptized Christians ?
Is it accounted for in the words of our Lord - " Then shall appear the Sign of the Son of Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn"?
It is a question worthy of consideration.
I most solemnly appeal to your; Lordship not to require me to seem to put dishonour upon this most sacred sign by discontinuing to use it in blessing the people in the Communion Service.
But it is not ordered by the English Prayer Book in express terms in that Service.
Therefore, if your Lordship requires me, submitting myself to your judgment, I will discontinue to make the Sign of the Cross towards the congregation in the Communion Service.
It seems
necessary to add some further considerations
(1) - As to
the importance of the point now attacked, (2) - As to myself, and
(3) - As to the persons who are attempting to disturb our worship.
I-As to the importance of the points now attacked. Your Lordship writes that we-
" Have been led to attach to the use of the ceremonies in question significance and value far beyond what they really deserve."
Respectfully I urge the contrary, for the following among many other reasons.
(1) Because they witness to the continuity of the present Reformed Church with the ante-Papal and ante Reformation Church of England:
(2) Because they add to the dignity of God's worship:
(3) Because experience proves that if dignity and solemnity in Worship be abandoned, the substance of the Worship soon suffers. There may be shell without kernel, but the kernel cannot long be preserved ·without the equally appointed shell. " Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." (Ex. iii., 5; Acts vii., 33.)
As Bishop Cosin remarks-
" That which is to be said for these Vestures [the Chasuble, Alb, &c.J and Ornaments, in solemnising the service of God, is, that they were appointed for inward reverence to that work which they make outwardly solemn. All the actions of esteem in the world are so set forth, and the world has had trial enough, that those who have made it a part of their religion to fasten scorn upon such circumstances, have made no less to deface and disgrace the sub stance of God's public Service." (As in the days of Cromwell and the Commonwealth.)
Words as true now as they were then.
The love of reverence and solemnity in Worship grows in the faithful worshipper. The more reverent-minded people attend-and so come to understand-our Worship, the more deeply they come to value it. But we can always recognise adversaries of our Worship - or those unhappily under the influence of their antipathies-when they come to our Churches, by the carelessness, or absolute irreverence of their demeanour and attitudes during Divine Service. Such persons seem commonly to think it the sign of inward spirituality and reverence to exhibit in Church carelessness or irreverence of outward manner. There are exceptions. But this is the rule.
We hold these ceremonies important -
(4) Because we know well that our Doctrines and Faith are the matters really struck at through them.
Let our adversaries deny this if they can. If these matters are so trivial, why in reason not let us have them in peace ? We know there is no difference IN PRINCIPLE between a piece of white linen and a piece of white or black· silk, but we at least think these ceremonies and ornaments important. And this professes to be a land of religious liberality and freedom.
Is it not a remarkable fact that the persons that formerly struck at our Doctrines, are the same who are now striking at our Ritual? It is precisely those against whom in the past we have had to defend the Athanasian Creed, the Doctrines of Apostolical Succession, Holy Baptism, the Inspiration of Holy Scripture (upheld, I am thankful to remember, by Convocation against the Judgment of the Judicial Committee), the Real Presence, &c., that are now striving to put clown the Ritual and Discipline which uphold before men the Majesty of Christ.
The same Judicial Committee which in the case of Jenkins v. Cook: decreed that an unbeliever in a large part of Holy Scripture shall have, by State authority, the Holy Communion as rightfully as any orthodox Christian, decreed against the Catholic Ritual of that Ordinance, in Martin v. Mackonochie, Hibbert v. Purchas, and the Ridsdale Judgment.
A word is enough for the wise. It is necessary to add -
(5) That any rnatte1', important or unimportant, as men may think, may be chosen as the battle ground for an important principle ; and that the principle for which we arc now contending far outweighs in importance any question of ceremonial observances.
The whole question of the constitutional rights and liberties of the English Church is involved in the present struggle.
All English Churchmen admit that the Crown "hath the chief government of all estates in this realm, whether ecclesiastical or civil," and the prerogative of coercive "jurisdiction," i.e., to "restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoers" "in all causes.",v.
What we affirm is, that by the Reformation settlement, the Crown is bound, and has promised to let " Convocation" deliberate of and do all such things as concern the settled continuance of the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England,'' " and that if any difference arise about the external policy, concerning the Injunctions, Canons, and other Constitutions whatsoever of the Church of England, the Clergy, in their Convocation, is to order and settle them."
It is here the coercive jurisdiction of the Crown comes in. "From which," adds the Crown, "we (by our courts) will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree." "We will see there shall be due execution" (by our " civil sword.") (Unless, I presume, parties be dispensed in certain matters, as they were by "the Advertisements" of Archbishop Parker, and the Canons of 1603-4.)
However the Crown does this, clearly it is to be done in harmony with the Convocation, and as supporting its spiritual decrees.
It is hardly in accordance with the Royal promise to have taken all spiritual power out of the hands of Convocation, in matters of Church legislation, judicature, and discipline; and transferred it to Parliament and the Judicial Committee of her Majesty's Privy Council.
So that what we are contending for now is - whether the Reformation Settlement is to be observed or not: whether the Constitutional rights of the Church, repeatedly guaranteed at the Reformation, are to be trampled upon, and the Church sink into a mere department of the civil power; or whether the Church, recognising the Crown as "civil" "ruler" of " all estates and degrees " (possessing coercive "jurisdiction") and subservient to the Crown in all necessary matters, is nevertheless, in her own spiritual province, to continue a living portion of the spiritual body of Christ, with the inherent right, as of old, to make her own spiritual laws, regulate her own observances, and· exercise the Keys of Discipline her Master has entrusted to her to use.
In a word, the two main questions at issue in the present contest are-the claim of the Church of England to be a spiritual body, practically denied by modern legislation and jurisprudence; and the right of the Crown and State to dictate to the Church, and override her most solemn and
clear decisions and statements, even in matters of doctrine and discipline.
Well has the present Bishop of Winchester said-
" The supremacy of the Crown must not (according to our constitution in Church and State) be considered as an arbitrary and unlimited supremacy. Everything in England is limited by law ; and nothing more than the power of the Sovereign. "In matters of State, the power of the Crown is limited by the two houses of Parliament; in the affairs of the Church it is limited also by the two houses of Convocation. Legally and constitutionally the Sovereign, or the Sovereign's Government, can do nothing concerning the state of the Church, her doctrine and discipline, without first consulting the clergy in Convocation and the laity in Parliament, so that, when we acknowledge the supremacy of the Crown, we do not put our consciences under the arbitrary guidance of the Sovereign or the Ministry, for we know that legally nothing can be imposed upon us but what has received the consent of our clergy and laity, as represented respectively.
"Indeed, of late no small difficulty has arisen.
The supremacy of the Crown is now wielded, not by the Sovereign personally, but by the Minister; that Minister is the choice of the House of Commons……. In short, the supremacy of the Crown has insensibly passed, or at least is rapidly passing, into a virtual supremacy of Parliament…...This difficulty existed not at the period of the Reformation, but is steadily increasing on us at present. " It is utterly vain to speculate on the future. We cannot question that the relation between Church and State is now widely different from that which once existed, and that it is fraught with new dangers."
Weighty words for our Authorities in Church and State. Render not unto Caesar the things which are God's is the plain teaching of our Lord's example and ministry, and was well and faithfully carried into practice by the Apostolic College and the early Christians. "These (in spiritual matters) all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar saying that there is another King, one Jesus." There is a point beyond which it is not safe to force men's consciences, and we maintain that point has been reached.
2.-As to myself.
I believe no Doctrines and advocate no Ritual or practices but such as have had the sanction of the acknowledged lights of our Reformed Church, as Bishops Cosin, Andrews, Wilson, and others.
I most solemnly affirm that, since my Ordination, it has ever been my desire and effort strictly to observe all my pledges to the Church; and I hereby challenge inquiry as to whether, judged by the plain statements, rules, and orders of the English Church, there be a Parish Priest in your Lordship's Diocese, who more strictly and literally conforms to those statements, rules, and orders.
And as to the points at issue - prima facie, it might be expected that those Clergy who notoriously are the strictest observers of the Church's other laws, would be found not in fault in their mode of observing the Ornaments Rubric, and not without grave justification in the use of such Divinely-instituted, Apostolical, and Catholic observances as the Mixed Chalice, and the sign of the Cross in public Absolution and Benediction.
One, might have imagined that the rulers of the Church would have thought it most consonant with their Apostolic and Pastoral office to urge the neglectful among their Clergy to greater efforts, and stricter conformity to the commands
of the Church, rather than to harass and hinder the work of those Clergy who are humbly doing what they can to be faithful and obedient to the vows they have undertaken.
What section is likely to gain by such a spectacle (enacted in the sacred name of spiritual religion), save the ranks of the infidel, the ungodly, and the profane, it would be hard to conjecture.
3. - As to those now striving to disturb our worship.
I solemnly protest against the injustice of countenance being given in any way by the Bishops to the present despicable attack upon me and other Clergy because of our faithfulness to our ordination vows.
I will undertake to prove that the Clergy who are the instigators of the present ferment in the Church hold the same opinions as the Nonconformists of 1662, are aliens from the Church's mind, habitually and widely deny her Doctrines, omit or mutilate her Services, and disobey wholesale her plainest commands.
If it be said that some among us are marked by sympathies with Rome beyond what is permitted by the principles of the Anglican Reformation, the charge has no bearing on the matter in hand, unless it can be brought home to me, which it never can. I challenge the widest inquiry and the utmost scrutiny.
We are attacked-not by persons embued with the spirit and mind of the Church, living exponents of the principles of the Anglican Reformation, men who habitually rejoice to obey, so far as possible, the Church's least commands, the "sober, peaceable, and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England," of whom the Prayer Book "Preface" speaks - but by sundry "men of factious, peevish, and perverse spirits," to whom the same "Preface" alludes; members of that implacable Puritan party meant by the "Preface," who ever since the Reformation have been the relentless foes of true Churchmanship - the ceaseless disturbcrs of our Zion, and who nearly succeeded in overthrowing the Church altogether in the days of Cromwell, in England, even as they had succeeded in doing in Scotland.
My Lord, yon have, in your "Direction," plainly implied that if I do not submit in all points to your decision, I shall be guilty of breach of my Ordination and other oaths, - in other words, of compound perjury. This seemed plain dealing; and it appeared to me to compel me to make as plain and straightforward a defence.
At the same time I trust I have not in anywise been, guilty of disrespect.
I can only express the deep pain I feel that your Lordship should permit men, whom it would be an affectation of charity to credit with any religious motive for their present action, to draw me into a position of apparent conflict with one whom, under God and His Church, it is my first duty – as it is my heartfelt desire-to obey.
I am, my Lord,
Very faithfully yours,
RICHARD W. ENRAGHT..
*******
APPENDIX.
A further correspondence ensued between the Bishop and myself. Then came my prosecution under the P.W.R.A. From a circumstance explained in my reply to the Bishop's most unexpected second Direction, I submitted myself to His. Lordship's first Direction for sixteen months.
A SECOND DIRECTION AND REPLY.
HARTLEBURY,
KIDDERMINSTER,
November 2, 1880.
MY DEAR MR, ENRAGHT, - I need not assure you that I have no motive but your own good in sending the enclosed letter at the present time.
Yours very faithfully,
H. WORCESTER.
*******
HARTLEBURY, KIDDERMINSTER, Nov. 2, 1880.
MY DEAR MR, ENRAGHT,-You will not have forgotten that on July 11, 1879, you undertook, in compliance with my direction and desire, to desist from certain observances of ritual in the administration of Holy Communion in your church, vir.. :--
From the use of lighted candles upon or near the Communion-table when they arc not wanted fvr the purpose of giving light:
From wearing a chasuble and alb :
From the ceremonial mixing of water with the wine : and From making the sign of the Cross towards the congregation.
There are other matters of ritual which have been determined to be contrary to the law of our Church, but which I have received information that you are in the habit of observing.
I think it necessary, therefore, to order and direct that you shall desist, not only from the above-named observances, but from the following also, VIZ.:-
From using in the administration of Holy Communion wafers not being, and instead of, bread such as is usual to be eaten:
From standing, while saying the prayer of Consecration, at the middle of the west side of the communion-table, with your back to the people, so as to prevent them from seeing you break the bread or take the Cup into your hand:
From not continuing to stand during the whole time of your saying the Prayer of Consecration:
From elevating the cup and paten more than is necessary for compliance with the rubrics :
From causing the hymn, or prayer, commonly known as "Agnus Dei," to be sung immediately after the Prayer of Consecration :
From standing, instead of kneeling, while saying the Confession in the Communion Service:
and From kissing the Prayer Book.
I shall be glad if you will assure me that you will undertake to comply with the directions which I thus feel it to be my duty to place upon you.
Yours very faithfully,
H. WORCESTER.
*******
HOLY TRINITY VICARAGE, BIRMINGHAM,
November 9, 1880.
MY LORD, - On receiving your lordship's second "Direction," dated November 2, 1880, I had not a moment's hesitation as to what my answer should be, but I felt it right not even to seem to answer your communication in haste.
In 1878 a paper containing twelve charges respecting my conduct of divine service was sent to your lordship by certain members of the so-called "Church Association." Your lordship, in consequence, had an interview with me, the result of which was that, under date June 14, 1878, you directed me to desist from four points of Communion Ritual.
Under date June 12, 1878, I had previously written to your lordship, undertaking to give way on two of the four points. I also, in the same letter, offered to your lordship several other concessions, which the promoter of my prosecution professed to desire.
Your lordship subsequently, under date July 10, 1878, wrote to the promoter of my prosecution as follows:·-" I have not neglected the matters concerning the conduct of divine service in the Church of the Holy Trinity, Bordesley, to which you called my attention in the early part of last month.
I have made enquiry from the vicar, and have had much communication with him both orally and by letter. Among the practices which you enumerate as illegalities committed in the course of service, there are some with regard to which the vicar assures me that you and others who have observed him are mistaken as to the facts. There are others, again, which I am not able to declare lo be illegal, or say that in allowing them, the vicar exceeds the limits of the discretion permitted to a minister.
There are, however, some which I am obliged to consider as not permissible by the law of the Church of England. I have directed the vicar to discontinue these practices; but I regret to say that hitherto he has not thought right to submit himself to my directions with regard to all of them.''
The formal " Representation " required by the Public Worship Regulation Act was subsequently sent to your lordship, dated April 10, 1879. On receipt of the " Representation" your lordship wrote to me as follows, under date May 2, 1879:
"I have received from your churchwarden, Mr. Perkins, a 'Representation,' framed under the Public Worship Regulation Act, respecting certain alleged illegal practices in your conduct of Divine service. You will not have forgotten the conversation and correspondence which you and I had upon the subject last year, and as Mr. Perkins's complaints include the points upon which I then thought it my duty to direct you to alter your practice, I cannot protect you against his proceedings.
It is with very great grief that I have stated to the Registrar of the Diocese that proceedings must be taken."
Your lordship in this letter plainly implied that had the four points, in reference to which you ordered me in your first "Direction" been surrendered by me before your receipt of the “Representation,” you would have protected me from further proceedings upon the part of the promoter of my prosecution.
On July 11, 1879, I wrote to your lordship submitting to your direction.
I did this because, in a letter to your lordship, dated July 10, 1878, I had, in reference to the two remaining points, which I had not offered to give up in my letter to your lordship, dated June 12, 1878, undertaken to submit to your lordship, should the Convocation of Canterbury take any action which might satisfy my conscience. This the Convocation appeared to me to have done by a resolution passed on July 4, 1879, and subsequently reported to the Crown. That resolution only referred to the question of the vestments, but in consequence of it I went far beyond my promise, and fully submitted to your lordship's direction.
Your lordship, in consequence, wrote to the promoter of my prosecution under date July 12, 1879, as follows :-" The Vicar of Holy Trinity, Bordesley, has written to tell me that, having regard to recent resolutions adopted by the Convocation of the province of Canterbury, he has determined to comply with the directions which I gave him, in regard to his conduct of divine service, in the month of June, 1878.
These directions were (the four you have recited above). If the Vicar had notified to me his intention to comply with these directions within the time limited by the Public Worship Regulation Act after my receipt of your representation, I should have felt it to be my duty to state that proceedings ought not to be taken on the Representation, on the ground that his conduct of divine service would be hereafter in all material points in conformity with the law and order of the Church of England. The Representation, however, having now been transmitted to the Archbishop, I have no power to interfere to stop proceedings ; but I think it right to make you acquainted with the present disposition anti intention of the Vicar, that yo11 may have the opportunity, if you are so disposed, to stay the suit in its present early stage. I shall be truly glad if, the main grounds of complaint having been thus removed, the peace of the parish may be protected from litigation."
Notwithstanding this appeal by your lordship, my prosecution proceeded, and my so-called "trial" took place before Lord Penzance on August 9, 1879. As I cannot recognise Lord Penzance or his court, which derives its authority, not from this “Church and Realm,'' but solely from an Act of Parliament, as having any spiritual jurisdiction over me, I was unable conscientiously to defend myself before it. The whole of the charges were in consequence taken as true, and I was condemned in costs.
On October 27th of the same year (1879) I received a letter from your lordship in the following terms :-"Before I sign your application to the Additional Curates' Society, I think it right to ask whether you are conducting your Church services according to the directions which I felt it my duty to issue last year,'' - thereby clearly implying your lordship's continued satisfaction with my services, provided I was still adhering to. your direction, dated June 14, 1878, in reference to four points charged against me, I replied lo your lordship that my services were still in exact compliance with your direction. I may add that they so continue at the present time.
Notwithstanding all the above, I have received a second direction from your lordship, ordering me to desist from seven more points, including the eastward position. I would respectfully make the following remarks in reference to this, your lordship's second direction :-
1.-That these seven points had been " determined to be contrary," not as your lordship says-" to the law of our Church," but to the "law'' of her Majesty's Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, long before your lordship's first direction, given me on June 14, 1878. "Why, therefore, if I was then guilty of these "illegalities,'' did not your lordship include them in your first direction?
2.-That your lordship was satisfied in 1878 that several of these seven further charges brought against me were absolutely untrue; and others of them, had the promoter of my prosecution truly represented them, involved no "illegality," even according to the ruling of he1· Majesty's Judicial Committee, as your lordship informed the promoter of my prosecution in your letter to him dated July 10, 1878, above quoted. Am I now to understand that your lordship has decided to accept the testimony ol my prosecutor, or other parties, rather than mine?
3.-That had you directed me on June 14, 1878, to give up the eastward position, I should not, under any circumstances, have been able to comply with your direction.
4,-That your second direction, therefore, seems to render it impossible for me to satisfy your lordship's requirements, and that our understanding having now been broken by your lordship, if you insist upon compliance with your second direction I cannot but feel myself in conscience free to reconsider my position with reference to your first direction.
5.-That I have received much painful censure at the hands of Churchmen for my conscientious submission to your lordship's previous direction, under the circumstances above recited notwithstanding which I have faithfully adhered to it.
6.-That compliance with your lordship's second direction cannot save me from the consequences of "contempt of court,'' as there are several remaining points with which I am charged not enumerated in it. I cannot, therefore, accept it (as your lordship wishes me in your introductory Jetter) as in any way intended for my relief, except through my submitting to be trampled upon by " the Church Association."
7.-And that for these and other reasons, and especially under the trying circumstances in which I am now placed, I have received with the greatest surprise and pain the intelligence that your lordship has withdrawn from me when threatened with imprisonment - and notwithstanding my having faithfully striven to obey your spiritual authority-even the moral support of your episcopal protection.
I think I am entitled to an explanation from your lordship why you have taken this new course, so apparently destructive of all confidence between us, and that in face of your own repeated assertions of my legality? And why you have chosen ns the time for taking it a few clays before my threatened imprisonment ?
I am, my
Lord, faithfully yours,
RICHARD W. ENRAGHT
*******
HARTLEBURY,
KIDDERMINSTER,
November 11, 1880
MY DEAR MR.
ENRAGHT, - My object in writing to you as I did on the 2nd
inst. Was mainly to get the power of making a representation to the
Court of Arches, which might have the effect, if I could gain a
hearing there, of inducing the Judge to look leniently on the charge
of contempt of court which will probably be brought against you. I
can now only express my deep regret that my effort has been
unavailing.
Yours faithfully,
H. WORCESTER.
*******
HOLY TRINITY VICARAGE, BIRMINGHAM,
November 12, 1880.
My Lord,-Although a paragraph - not upon my information – appeared in the Times of Wednesday last, alluding to my submission, sixteen months ago, to your lordship's first Direction, and stating that you had sent me a further Direction, and giving its import, I none the less regret that, through my mistake, the correspondence has been printed before I received your reply this morning.
Your lordship does not withdraw your second Direction.
I am, my Lord, faithfully yours,
RICHARD
W. ENRAGHT.
*******
Transcribed from the original My Ordination Oaths (1880) pamphlet by David Sharp in 2025.
*******
See the Revd Richard Enraght Biography