This article delves into the historical tendency of some Anglican clergymen to decline titles of dignity bestowed by the State, as exemplified by Rev. Dr Walter Smith’s reported decline of a baronetcy. It traces this practice back to the founders of three peerages – Normanton, Limerick, and O’Neill – all of whom were clergymen. The article explores the reasons behind their reservations, highlighting the complex relationship between religious faith and secular recognition and underscoring their commitment to preserving the sanctity of their religious roles and the separation of church and state.
The recent news surrounding Rev. Dr Walter Smith’s reported decision to decline a baronetcy has brought to light a historical trend among some Anglican clergymen – their reluctance to accept titles of dignity from the State. This article delves into this practice and its historical origins, shedding light on the complex interplay between religious principles and secular honours.
The historical precedent for Anglican clergymen declining State-bestowed titles can be traced back to the founders of three notable peerages: Normanton, Limerick, and O’Neill. Each of these individuals held positions of significant religious authority within the Anglican Church.
The first Earl of Normanton, distinguished as the Archbishop of Dublin, occupied a position of considerable influence and authority within the religious community. Despite his esteemed role, he exhibited reluctance in accepting a title conferred by the State, prompting inquiries into the compatibility of religious responsibilities and secular distinctions.
Likewise, the first Earl of Limerick, who held the esteemed position of Bishop of Killaloe, faced a similar predicament. Despite his elevated status within the ecclesiastical hierarchy, he harboured reservations regarding the acceptance of a governmental title, reflecting concerns regarding the intersection of church and state.
In a parallel vein, the first Lord O’Neill, Rev. Edward Chichester, formerly occupied the humble role of vicar in a Dublin parish. His experience ministering to a modest congregation might have influenced his hesitance in embracing an honour bestowed by the State. This underscores a moral quandary surrounding the reception of secular accolades while upholding religious principles.
These historical examples illustrate the intricate relationship between religious faith and secular recognition. For Anglican clergymen, who held significant roles within the Church, accepting State honours could raise questions about their commitment to their religious duties and the potential compromise of their principles.
By choosing to decline these honours, these clergymen demonstrated their dedication to preserving the sanctity of their religious roles and maintaining the separation between the Church and the State. Their decisions reflect a conscious effort to uphold their religious principles without being unduly influenced or entangled with secular recognition.
The historical practice of some Anglican clergymen declining titles of dignity from the State, as exemplified by Rev. Dr Walter Smith’s reported decision, highlights the intricate interplay between religious faith and secular honours. The founders of peerages like Normanton, Limerick, and O’Neill serve as historical examples of individuals who grappled with this dilemma, choosing to priorities their religious principles and the separation of church and state over secular recognition. This practice underscores the enduring commitment of certain Anglican clergymen to uphold their faith’s sanctity and integrity.
Nottingham Evening Post – Tuesday 13 February 1900
