{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_49145/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_49145","id":"gutenberg_49145","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49145","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - British","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Church of England. Book of common prayer","Great Britain. Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Rubrics, Orders, and Directions for Regulating the Course and Conduct of Public Worship, &c, According to the Use of the United Church of England and Ireland","Ritualism -- History -- 19th century"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1868 Church Press Company (Limited) edition by David\nPrice, email ccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 REMARKS\n                                 UPON THE\n             FIRST REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON RITUAL,\n                 IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE\n                          BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.\n\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                A Lecture\n          DELIVERED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BRIGHTON BRANCH\n               OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH UNION, NOV. 27, 1867,\n                    (F. BARCHARD, ESQ. IN THE CHAIR,)\n\n                                    BY\n                       THE REV. M. W. MAYOW, M. A.\n\n                 INCUMBENT OF ST. MARY\u2019S, WEST BROMPTON,\n                AND LATE STUDENT OF CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                     CHURCH PRESS COMPANY (LIMITED),\n                   13, BURLEIGH STREET, STRAND, LONDON,\n                AND G. WAKELING, ROYAL LIBRARY, BRIGHTON.\n                                  1868.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nIt is right to state that the Brighton Branch of the English Church Union\nkindly requested leave to publish the following Lecture.  It may be well\nto add that it was likewise delivered at Bradford and Leeds.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\n\n\nREMARKS UPON THE FIRST REPORT OF THE\nROYAL COMMISSION ON RITUAL, ETC.\n\n\nTHE Executive of the Brighton Branch of the English Church Union, through\nyou, sir, their Chairman, have, too rashly, I fear, as well as too\nkindly, supposed that I might have something to say upon the above\nsubject which may repay this assemblage of Churchmen for their trouble in\ncoming here this evening.  It is certainly not for me to say you have\ndeluded them, but rather, without wasting time in apology, to do my best\nto save (if it may be so) your credit and my own; and, what is of more\nconsequence, to throw some light upon the very important matter to which\nmy remarks are to be directed.  At any rate, the great importance of the\nsubject itself and the imminent likelihood of some action being taken to\ndisarrange or subvert the present standing of the Church of England by an\nalteration in her Book of Common Prayer will ensure your deep interest,\nand, I do not doubt, secure me an indulgent hearing; whilst the very\nlarge and influential, and,\u2014I think it will be on all hands allowed,\u2014most\nsuccessful meeting held last week in London, gives an additional reason\nfor strengthening, if it may be so, the action then taken by diffusing as\nwidely as possible information as to the dangers apprehended, and the\nmeans of resistance to be used in order to preserve its integrity.\n\nIt is a trite saying just now that there is a great crisis in Church\naffairs; but I think it must be allowed to be not less true than trite,\neven after making all allowance for the magnitude with which the time\npresent always invests things present.  In secular and material warfare\nit may be that sometimes an underrating difficulties, a blindness to the\nperil, is the very cause and means of safety or success.  But in assaults\nlike the present, where the battle-field is the Law and Order of the\nChurch, where the contest is carried on not with sword or spear, but with\nthe keen weapons of intellectual and moral contention, where very much\nturns and must turn upon the enlistment of public opinion upon this side\nor that; where prejudice, and ridicule, and sneer, and scoff, appealing\nconstantly to the irreverence and perverseness of the evil side of human\nnature, backed up in large measure, as might be expected, by a licentious\nand unbelieving press, adapting itself to a licentious and unbelieving\nage; where these things are the daily engines of assault, there would\nseem to be no safety in shutting our eyes to the danger, merely hoping\nthat all \u201cwill come some strange way right at last.\u201d  Especially when the\nassault is made upon doctrine, either directly or indirectly, (for if it\nbe upon ceremonial representing doctrine it is indirectly upon doctrine\nitself,) when it takes the form of assault upon the integrity of the\nPrayer Book, and the Catholic _status_ of the Church of England in\nconnection with it, we must be wise, and wary, and far-seeing to the\nutmost of our vision, if we would duly organize our defence and fight\n_well_ the battle for God\u2019s Church and Gods Truth.  We must indeed try\nnot to exaggerate anything, but we must also endeavour not to underrate\nany real danger which exists, and especially not suffer our citadel to be\nundermined, whilst we are merely regarding a plausible or fair surface.\n\nThere seems, too, to be a peculiar and apt propriety in this term crisis,\nas applied to the present aspect of Church affairs.  It is not merely\nthat there is a great _danger_, but a danger coming to a head, which, if\nhappily now overcome, will again subside.  Johnson gives as the first\nsense of crisis, \u201cThe point in which the disease kills or changes to the\nbetter;\u201d and, as the second, \u201cThe point of time at which any affair comes\nto the height,\u201d according to the exact use of the word by Dryden:\u2014\n\n    Now is the very _crisis_ of your fate,\n    And all the colour of your life depends\n    On this important Now.\n\nAnd we may well believe that if the present dangers which beset the\nChurch of England be overcome, God may have in store for her a very\nglorious future indeed, even to her being a great instrument in His hand,\nnot merely for the spreading His Kingdom here at home, but also (may He\nin mercy grant it) for the restoration of the Unity of Christendom, and\nthereby for the Evangelization of the world.  As our hopes of this must,\nhowever, depend upon her being able to maintain her Catholicity, so must\nwe watch with the most jealous care, and resist with the firmest\nconstancy all which shall impair, her maintenance of Catholic truth and\nthat position which God of His mercy has hitherto permitted her to hold.\n\nOne great means of her maintaining this position is the maintaining\nuntouched her Book of Common Prayer, and therefore there is and must be\nneed of the most careful watchfulness as to every threatening of assault\nupon it.\n\nNow I affirm without hesitation that the first Report of the Royal\nCommission, appointed, to use its own terms, \u201cto enquire into the\nRubrics, Orders, and Directions for regulating the course and conduct of\npublic worship, &c., &c., according to the use of the United Church of\nEngland and Ireland,\u201d threatens, and even leads, such an assault.  And\nthis gives the connection of the two parts of my subject as announced to\nyou in the title of this Lecture.\n\nAs to this threatening or assault contained in the Report, take a witness\nthe most unexceptionable perhaps of any who may be found anywhere, and\none whose testimony is only the more convincing as to the danger because\nhe himself does not see it at all, so that it is impossible to suppose\nhim to be straining anything to make a case.  Nay, he does not consider\nwhat he himself suggests or advocates as a measure carrying out the\nrecommendations of the Report, or as a means to remedy certain\nembarrassments, to be an alteration in the Prayer Book at all.  In his\nrecent Charge, the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol (himself one of the\nCommissioners), after considering and dismissing as useless or dangerous,\nor otherwise inadmissible, several other plans, recommends this:\u2014\u201cA\nsimple and positive enactment declaring what shall be, and be considered\nto be, the ministerial dress, until further order be taken concerning the\nsame by lawful authority.\u201d  And he adds;\u2014\u201cThis of course must be by\ndirect legislation.  We may shrink from it,\u201d he continues, \u201cbut in my\njudgment it is now inevitable.  The very appointment of the Commission\nseems to involve it, and the general temper of the country will demand\nit.\u201d {6}  If the Bishop\u2019s witness is that the mere appointment of the\nCommission seems to involve a legislative measure touching the Prayer\nBook, how much more does its Report\u2014leading even such a man as the Bishop\non to advocate it\u2014shew that here is _more_ than a threatening of assault\nupon it!\n\nPerhaps we shall have something by and by to add upon the views and\nrecommendations of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol\u2019s Charge.  At\npresent I merely cite this passage as an evidence that the appointment\nand work of the Royal Commission tend directly to an alteration in the\nBook of Common Prayer, because such an enactment as is here contemplated\nwould be, I must venture to affirm, whatever his lordship may suppose, a\nrepeal of the Rubric on Ornaments as it stands, and has stood since the\nlast revision.  To this, however, I shall have occasion to refer again in\nthe sequel.\n\nBut now let us turn for a little while to the Report itself, as issued by\nthe Commissioners on the nineteenth of August, 1867.  After reciting the\nmatters for enquiry contained in their appointment, the Commissioners\nsay:\u2014\u201cWe, your Majesty\u2019s Commissioners, have, in accordance with the\nterms of your Majesty\u2019s Commission, directed our first attention to the\nquestion of the vestments worn by the ministers of the said United Church\nat the time of their ministration, and especially to those the use of\nwhich has been lately introduced into certain churches.\u201d  They\nproceed:\u2014\u201cWe find that whilst these vestments are regarded by some\nwitnesses as symbolical of doctrine, and by others as a distinctive\nvesture whereby they desire to do honour to the Holy Communion as the\nhighest act of Christian worship, they are _by none regarded as\nessential_, _and they give grave offence to many_.\u201d\n\nFrom this premiss they arrive at the following conclusion:\u2014\u201cWe are of\nopinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public Services of the\nUnited Church of England and Ireland _all variations_ in respect of\nvesture from that which has long been the established usage of the said\nUnited Church; and we think that this may be best secured by providing\n_Aggrieved Parishioners_ with an easy and effectual process for complaint\nand redress.\u201d  They then state that they have not yet arrived at a\nconclusion how best effect may be given to this recommendation, but they\nhave (they say {7}) \u201cdeemed it to be their duty in a matter to which\ngreat interest is attached not to delay the communication to her Majesty\nof the results at which they have already arrived.\u201d\n\nNow from this, which is the whole substance of the Report, it is evident\nthat the conclusions of the Commissioners are wholly based upon the\nground that the vestments are \u201cby none regarded as essential,\u201d whilst\n\u201cthey give grave offence to many.\u201d  And of course the stress of the\nargument, such as it is, rests upon their being admitted to be\n_non-essential_; because, if they were _essential_, the consideration of\ntheir giving grave offence to however many would be no reason at all for\nrestraint in the matter.  A thousand things give offence to a world lying\nin wickedness which are only all the more to be proclaimed and declared\non that account.  The \u201coffence of the Cross\u201d has not \u201cceased\u201d now any\nmore than it had in S. Paul\u2019s day.  It is well known and widely spread,\nbut this affords no reason for restraining the preaching of the Cross.\n\nBut it may be said, admitting all this, yet as these vestments are\nconfessed to be _un_essential, the conclusion is very sound that their\nuse should be restrained; and, in fact, a great deal has been made on all\nhands amongst the advocates of restraint of this the solitary argument of\nthe Commissioners.  There is often a sort of triumphant appeal:\u2014\u201cThe\nRitualists themselves admit the vestments to be non-essential.  What can\nbe the hardship or evil of compelling them to give them up?\u201d\n\nLet us examine this view a little more closely, and see whether there be\nnot a lurking fallacy running through the whole argument.\n\nIn the first place, more than one of the witnesses has repudiated the\nadmission of the non-essentiality of these things; and even granting that\nthe term may have been used, it is a further question in what application\nor connection.  Essential is a relative term, depending as to its sense\non the context in which it occurs, or the subject matter upon which it\nbears.  It needs, therefore, in each case to be asked, Essential to what?\nTo the _being_ or to the _well-being_?  There is here a great and\nimportant difference.  It is quite true that no one maintains that the\nvestments are essential to the office of the priesthood, or to the\nvalidity of any priestly act.  But they may be essential to the giving\ndue expression to the act; and to give this due expression may be\nessential to the salvation of many.  Or yet further, the _thing itself_\nmay be unessential as to the validity of acts done, and yet the _liberty_\nto use it may be of essential importance\u2014aye, even though it may give\ngrave offence to some, perhaps to many.\n\nAn illustration may possibly help us to estimate the true value of the\nCommissioners\u2019 argument, or, as I should rather say, their sophism.  And\nit seems very important to shew that it is a sophism, because the\nparagraph in question in their Report is the one thing reiterated over\nand over again by the advocates of legislation or repression.  It is the\nstock argument, the only argument on which the demand for change is\nbased; and it is often urged as if it were irresistible, and there were\nno reply to it.  Let us, then, examine it, and try to see its true force.\n\nNow there is, as it seems to me, a very apt illustration of its fallacy\nin a matter of ceremonial treated of in the 30th Canon, and a matter,\ntoo, be it observed, where the ceremonial referred to, and defended, was\ncertainly not an essential of Christianity, and as certainly, at the\ntime, gave grave offence to many.\n\nThe 30th Canon, by far the longest and most elaborate of the Canons of\n1603, treats of \u201cthe lawful use of the Cross in Baptism.\u201d  The grave\noffence taken at this usage is declared in the very first words of the\nCanon\u2014\u201cWe are sorry that his Majesty\u2019s most princely care and pains taken\nin the Conference at Hampton Court, amongst many other points touching\nthis one of the Cross in Baptism, hath taken no better effect with many,\nbut that the use of it in Baptism is so gravely stuck at and impugned.\u201d\nAnd then the Canon, instead of upon this account recommending that the\nuse be restrained, or that persons aggrieved (\u201cAggrieved Parishioners\u201d)\nshould have provided for them \u201can easy and effectual process for\ncomplaint and redress\u201d instead of this, the Canon goes on to give various\ngodly reasons why the usage should be retained, even though it gave this\ngrave offence\u2014aye, and though the cause of the offence was its being\nsupposed to have a savour of Rome, and though it was a matter in itself\nindifferent.  Without reciting the whole Canon we may remark that the\nreasons stated are exactly such as, _mutatis mutandis_, might be applied\nto the very ceremonial brought under censure by the Commissioners; such\nas, that whilst some derided it, others valued it and were edified by it;\nthat it brought into sight and kept in men\u2019s minds certain great truths\nof the Gospel; that it had the weight and authority of wide-spread and\nCatholic use; that not all which was of Roman belief or practice was to\nbe condemned, &c., &c.  So the Canon says \u201cit is to be observed that\nalthough the Jews and Ethnics derided both the Apostles and the rest of\nthe Christians for preaching and believing in Him Who was crucified upon\nthe Cross; yet all, both Apostles and Christians, were so far from being\ndiscouraged from their profession by the ignominy of the Cross, as they\nrather rejoiced and triumphed in it.\u201d  Again, that \u201cthe honour and\ndignity of the name of the Cross begat a reverend estimation even in the\nApostles\u2019 times (for aught that is known to the contrary) of the sign of\nthe Cross, which the Christians shortly after used in all their actions.\u201d\nAnd although the Synod goes on to \u201cconfess that in process of time the\nsign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome,\u201d yet it\naffirms in the plainest and most unhesitating manner the great principle,\nthat \u201cthe abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use of it;\u201d and\nadds, even further, \u201cNay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of\nEngland to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain,\nGermany, or any such like Churches, in all things which they held and\npractised, that, as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it\ndoth with reverence retain those ceremonies which doth (do) neither\nendamage the Church of God nor offend the minds of sober men; and only\ndeparted from them in those particular points, wherein they were fallen\nboth from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical\nChurches which were their first founders; in which respect, amongst some\nother very ancient ceremonies, the sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been\nretained in this Church.\u201d  Now, all this seems to me not irrelevant to\nmany other ceremonies besides the sign of the Cross, and indeed to have a\nvery close bearing upon the principles on which a high Ritual may be\ndefended.  But this is not all.  We come next to a point especially and\npeculiarly to our purpose, for the Canon, going on to say that the sign\nof the Cross is retained \u201cwith such sufficient cautions and exceptions\nagainst . . . superstition and error as in the like cases are either fit\nor convenient,\u201d proceeds to instance some of these cautions and guards;\nand the very first in the list is this, that the ceremony in question is\nunessential.  The \u201cvestments are by none regarded as essential,\u201d and\ntherefore abolish them, says the Report.  The sign of the Cross is\nunessential, and therefore retain it, says the Canon.\n\nMark this a little more fully, for what can be more aptly illustrative of\nthe Commissioners\u2019 argument?  The Canon does not merely confess and\nadmit, but claims has an advantage and reason for the retention of the\nusage, that it is not in any way essential to the Sacrament of Baptism.\nSo it says, \u201cFirst, the Church of England, since the abolishing of\nPapery, hath ever held and taught, and so doth hold and teach still, that\nthe sign of the Cross used in Baptism is no part of the substance of that\nSacrament: for when the Minister, dipping the infant in water, or laying\nwater upon the face of it, (as the manner also is,) hath pronounced these\nwords, _I baptize thee in the Name of the Father_, _and of the Son_, _and\nof the Holy Ghost_, the infant is fully and perfectly baptized.  So as\nthe sign of the Cross, being afterwards used, doth neither add any thing\nto the virtue and perfection of Baptism, nor being omitted, doth detract\nany thing from the effect and substance thereof.\u201d  Nor is this all.\nAnother paragraph follows, insisting upon the same thing with a second\nreason, shewing forth still the value of the ceremony, though\nunessential.  \u201cSecondly, it is apparent in the Communion Book, that the\ninfant baptized is, by virtue of Baptism, before it is signed with the\nsign of the Cross, &c., received into the congregation of Christ\u2019s flock,\nas a perfect member thereof, and not by any power ascribed unto the power\nof the Cross.  So that, for the very remembrance of the Cross, which is\nvery precious unto all them who rightly believe in Jesus Christ, and in\nthe other respects mentioned, the Church of England hath retained still\nthe sign of it in Baptism; following therein the primitive and\nApostolical Churches, and accounting it a lawful outward ceremony and\nhonourable badge, whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Service of Him\nthat died upon the Cross, as by the words used in the Book of Common\nPrayer it may appear.\u201d  This very confession, then, of its being, first,\nno essential part of the Sacrament; nor, secondly, essential to any one\u2019s\nbeing received as a perfect member of Christ\u2019s flock;\u2014is a safeguard and\nsecurity, it is argued, against any error or superstitious veneration of\nthe sign of the Cross, and so it ought, for its other values to be\nretained.  How near is this to what the Commissioners, upon the evidence\nbefore them, might justly have said in relation to the vestments; where\nin the indifferency of the ceremonial in question they can only find an\nargument for restraint or abolition.  Surely they might not have been far\nwrong, on the ground both of reason and Scriptural authority, had they,\nafter the pattern of the Canon, asserted the vesture in question to be \u201ca\nlawful outward ceremony and honourable badge, whereby\u201d more honour is\nintended and done \u201cunto the Service of Him,\u201d and the blessed Sacrament of\n_His_ Body and Blood, \u201cthat died upon the Cross.\u201d\n\nBut the Canon has yet another argument bearing upon the duty of using\n(not abolishing) things indifferent (nonessentials in other words) when\nordered by the law of the Church.  \u201cLastly,\u201d it says, \u201cthe use of the\nsign of the Cross in Baptism being thus purged from all Popish\nsuperstition and error, and reduced in the Church of England to the\nprimary institution of it, upon those true rules of doctrine concerning\nthings indifferent, which are consonant to the Word of God and the\njudgment of all the ancient Fathers, we hold it the part of every private\nman and other reverently to retain the true use of it prescribed by\npublic authority: considering that things indifferent do in some sort\nalter their natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a\nlawful magistrate; and may not be omitted at every man\u2019s pleasure\ncontrary to the law when they be commanded, nor used, when they are\nprohibited.\u201d  Is there nothing here to justify such as simply obey the\nauthority of the Rubric?\n\nThere is a passage in the answers of the Bishops to the Nonconformist\ndivines at the Savoy Conference, which aptly illustrates this statement\nof the Canon, and is of the more moment because it shews that the mind of\nthose who managed that controversy in 1661 was entirely in harmony with\nthat of the framers of the Canons in 1603; and as the Savoy Conference\nwas the immediate precursor of the Convocation of the next year, which in\nsubstance ratified and adopted its recommendations in the last revision\nof our Prayer Book, those Episcopalian divines may well be taken as the\nexponents of the mind of the very Convocation which passed the Rubric\nupon ornaments.\n\nWe find the following among their replies to the objections of the\nNonconformists in relation to things indifferent in themselves.  \u201cWhereas\nthe Nonconformists plead that they cannot obey the commands of the Church\nfor fear of violating the precept which forbids adding to the Word of God\n(Deut. xii. 32): We answer, those Ministers do not well consider that it\nis no addition to the Word of God to command things for order and decency\nprovided they are enjoined only as regulations of human authority.  And\nsupposing some persons continue perplexed and under scruples, the Church\nmay, notwithstanding, without sin, insist upon compliance with decent\nceremonies; and all this without being guilty of offending our weak\nbrethren, for here the offence is _taken_, not _given_.  It is the\nprejudice and mistake of the scrupulous person that disturbs himself.\u201d  A\nsomewhat more exact discrimination as to causes of offence than the\nCommissioners seem to have \u201cdreamed of in their philosophy!\u201d  But the\nBishops of 1661 continue, \u201cNeither will the case of St. Paul not eating\nflesh if it offended his weak brother give any support to the objection.\nFor here, it must be observed, the Apostle speaks of things not commanded\nby God, or His Church, of matters which had nothing of decency or\nsignificancy for religious purposes, and therefore in a case thus\nunconnected with Divine worship St. Paul was willing to resign his\nliberty rather than offend his brother.\u201d  Surely a remark not without a\nvery close significance in defence of those who are unwilling to forego\nwhat they deem so important to the due celebration of Divine Service,\neven though some are offended at it.  \u201cBut if any man should venture to\nbreak a just law or custom of the Church, the Apostle marks him for a\ncontentious person (1 Cor. xi. 16).\u201d  Has this no bearing upon objectors\nnow?  And the Bishops continue, \u201cThat these ceremonies have occasioned\nmany divisions, as it is pretended, is no more their fault than the\nmisunderstandings between the nearest relations, accidentally consequent\nupon the preaching of the Gospel (Luke xii.) can be fairly charged upon\nthe Christian religion.\u201d {13}  Have our present Commissioners duly\nregarded all this in their hasty conclusion?\n\nTo sum up:\u2014these arguments, if not pressed to the full as to sin or fault\nin those who may not use or carry out a prescribed ceremonial in all\ncircumstances, such as, for instance, long desuetude, may, at the very\nleast, one would think, be of sufficient weight defensively for such as\nhave merely obeyed the Law to prevent hard words being used either by\nRoyal Commissioners, or any others in high places, towards those, I say,\nwhose offence is merely that they have thus obeyed it.  And the fact of a\nceremony, significant, though giving offence, being thus prescribed by\nthe Canon, and others of like kind, contended for by the Savoy\nEpiscopalian Divines, though confessed to be _things indifferent_, gives\na special application of the whole to the one argument of the\nCommissioners concerning the vestments being \u201cregarded by none as\nessential.\u201d  For let it be well observed that the argument of the Canon\nis; This ceremony, the sign of the Cross, though derided by Ethnics and\nJews, is rejoiced in by the Apostles; it begets a reverend estimation in\nregard to a Sacrament: even the abuse of a thing doth not take away the\nlawful use (no, not when the abuse has been by Rome).  The usage is\nindifferent, non-essential, in itself, and the conclusion is, it is all\nthe more to be retained.  Moreover, being ordered by lawful authority, it\nought not to be made light of, or objected to.  In which principles the\ndivines of the Savoy Conference and the last revisers of our Prayer Book\nagree.  Surely, then, these authorities in all this are as widely\ndivergent from the views and reasoning of the Royal Commissioners as east\nis from west, or black from white.  And the whole comparison teaches us\nmuch as to the value of their one argument, which I have ventured to call\na sophism, as to the vestments being \u201cby none regarded as essential.\u201d\nMoreover, if Bishop Sanderson\u2019s remark is sound, that \u201cto take away the\nindifferency of things indifferent is superstition,\u201d it will not be hard\nto decide between those who reverently use, and those who bitterly\ndenounce, the vestments, which are the _superstitious_ persons in the\npresent controversy.\n\nBut let us proceed to another point.  I said, that even when a thing or\nusage may be in itself not essential, yet the liberty to use it may be\nhighly essential, and this, in spite of its giving grave offence to many.\nTake a brief illustration of this.  We all know there was a time when the\nmarriage of the clergy gave grave offence to many.  Suppose at such\nperiod a Royal Commission had been appointed to inquire into the\nimportance of the celibacy of the clergy.  Say the Commissioners had\nreported, \u201cWe have examined many witnesses, married and unmarried.  We\nfind considerable difference of opinion.  But we find that by none, even\namong the married clergy, is the marriage of priests regarded as\nessential to any priestly act, whilst their marriage gives grave offence\nto many.  We are therefore of opinion that it is expedient to enforce a\ngreater uniformity of practice by restraining the marriage of priests,\nand admitting no deviation from what has been a long-established usage in\nthe Church, &c. &c.\u201d  Now no one among us will deny the fact of marriage\nbeing unessential to the functions of the priesthood, and yet the liberty\nto marry may be very essential indeed to the welfare of the Church.  This\nliberty, for \u201cBishops, Priests, and Deacons, as for all other Christian\nmen, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to\nserve better to godliness,\u201d was at any rate thought essential enough to\nbe made the subject of one of our Articles.  And surely this may shew\nsomething as to the weight to be attached to the one argument of the\nCommissioners, for the \u201copinion\u201d which they put out, and the conclusion\nat which, on this sole basis, they arrive.\n\nThere is one point, further, which I should like briefly to touch upon\nbefore leaving this matter of essential or non-essential, for it shews\nhow very carelessly or unscrupulously the Commissioners have done their\nwork, and made their Report.  The citation, which in its commencement\nthey give from the Commission appointing them, contains these words: that\n\u201cit is expedient that a full and impartial enquiry should be made into\nthe matters aforesaid,\u201d viz. ornaments, vestments, and such like, \u201cwith\nthe view of explaining or amending the said rubrics, orders, and\ndirections, so as to secure general uniformity of practice _in such\nmatters as are essential_.\u201d {15}  Now, observe, by their own shewing, by\nthe evidence they adduce, by the one argument they advance, they\nrecommend changes to secure a greater uniformity in things which are _not\nessential_!  Their own very statement about these things, their sole\nground on which they form their opinion and base their recommendation,\nis, that in regard to those witnesses whom they have examined, they (the\nornaments or vestments) are by none _regarded as essential_.  They accept\nand endorse this; and then, in spite of the terms of their commission to\nenquire how to secure a general uniformity of practice in _such __things\nas are essential_, the only recommendation which they make is upon that\nwhich they proclaim to be _unessential_, and what is more, upon the very\nground of its being _unessential_! {16}\n\nBut now, having considered the Commissioners\u2019 one reason, and their\n\u201copinion,\u201d and their consequent recommendation, we must come a little\nmore particularly to examine their proposed mode of operation.  It is\ntrue they here become vague and uncertain.  They think \u201cit is expedient\nto restrain in the public services of the Church all variations in\nrespect of vesture from that which has long been the established usage,\n&c.\u201d and, \u201cthat this may be best secured by providing aggrieved\nparishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and\nredress.\u201d\u2014(Report, p. vii.)  But as to the details of this provision, as\nto \u201cthe best _mode_ of giving effect to these conclusions,\u201d they are not\nyet prepared with their scheme.\n\nPerhaps this is all very natural, and it may be very fortunate.  We may\nbe thankful that we have not a scheme devised, to carry out their\nproposal, as crude as the proposal and the Report itself.  But though\nthese details are not before us, and we have a little respite before they\ncome, we are not without some indication as to what they are likely to\nbe; and we shall do well to use the time we have before they actually\ntake definite shape, in providing as far as possible to thwart any\npernicious principles which may be embodied in them.\n\nNow I affirm, and I think I shall be able to shew, that the remedy to be\nprovided for the \u201caggrieved parishioner,\u201d by which he is to be enabled by\nlaw to make complaint of, and obtain redress as to variations in respect\nof vesture, (where being legal they yet displease him,) can _only_ be by\nan alteration in the Book of Common Prayer.  I am not saying, remember,\nthat a due and a great regard is not to be had for the feelings, and even\nthe prejudices, of our people; though it can hardly be denied that it is\nvery desirable these prejudices should be met, and these feelings\ndirected by careful enlightenment, into a more reverent estimation of\nholy things, than prevailed some years since.  If the _usage_ of Church\nritual which reigned, say, thirty, or forty, or fifty years ago, had been\nstereotyped at any time as that which should be established for ever in\nour Church, we should certainly have had a state of things perpetuated\nwhich most of us would now regard as an immense spiritual misfortune, and\nat which we should be wholly ashamed and grieved.  But what we have to\nconsider in relation to this Report is not at all this regard, on the\npart of the clergy, for the feelings of their people, but the putting\ninto their hands a positive and express legal process of remedy and\nrestraint, where any change from long-established custom, however\naccordant with the law, is proposed to be adopted.  And I say\nunhesitatingly, that such redress, redress of such a nature, for the\nso-called \u201caggrieved parishioner,\u201d can only be by a repeal of the Rubric.\nThis surely is plain on the very face of the matter.  For the Prayer Book\ngives the law (Church Law and State Law in one) as to what vesture or\nornament shall be used; and what power on earth can give the aggrieved\nparishioner a right or power to interfere with this law, as much statute\nlaw as any other thing in the statute book, but the repeal of the law?\nThere is no other conceivable mode.  What can restrain a priest from\ncomplying with the law of his Church and the law of the land? what can\nmake it penal to obey it, but the repeal of the said law?  This may be\ndone directly or indirectly.  It may be done explicitly or implicitly;\nbut done it must be if any one or any number of aggrieved parishioners\nare to be empowered to restrain their parish priest from, not, observe,\nthe mere impulse of his own fancy, but from an obedience to that which is\nthe law of his Church, and the statute law of the land, as laid down in\nthe Prayer Book.\n\nThis seems evident enough in the very nature of things.  And therefore if\nwe value the Prayer Book as it is, and the _status_ of the Church of\nEngland as in such large measure depending upon it, we have every right,\nand more than the right, the duty, to be up and stirring to defend it,\nunder the assault upon its integrity which this, the present Report,\nthreatens.  Indeed, under such intimations as we have, where \u201ccoming\nevents cast their shadows before,\u201d it seems to me that it would be\nabsolute infatuation to wait until the attack is more matured, and the\ndanger nearer, before organizing every mode and means of defence and\nresistance to that which is already so obviously impending.\n\nBut we are not even left to our own mere reasoning, or natural\nanticipations, to guide us to the mode in which the Commissioners must be\nprepared to carry out their opinion and recommendation.  We have a light\nthrown upon this, in a lucid commentary upon the bare Report, furnished\nus by one of the Commissioners.  I have already alluded to it.  The\nrecent Charge of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol not only deals with\nthe question of Ritual itself, but specifically, in relation to it, with\nthe modes in which the recommendation of the Report may be carried out;\nand I will venture to affirm, even in the face of his Lordship\u2019s\ndisclaimer as to the mode which he himself advocates being an alteration\nin the Prayer Book, that there is not one of the courses suggested\n(except the course of leaving the matter to the decision of the Courts,\nwhich he at once rejects,) that does not involve a repeal, direct or\nindirect, of the rubric upon ornaments.  It will not be alien from, but\nindeed very much to, our purpose to take his statements in some detail,\nand see what they indicate as to the likely progress of the\nCommissioners\u2019 work.  Bishop Ellicott\u2019s Charge in this relation is very\nimportant, for it cannot but give us the key to what he at least will\npress upon his brother Commissioners when again they meet, and perhaps is\nnow pressing upon them.\n\nLet us turn to the Charge, and mark both its general tone and specific\nrecommendations as to high Ritual.  Having adverted to the \u201cdeteriorating\ndevelopement of the Ritual movement,\u201d he says: {19}\u2014\u201cReluctant as I am to\nenter upon a subject of such difficulty and controversy, yet I feel it my\nclear duty to place succinctly before you the present state of the\nquestion, to endeavour dispassionately to estimate the real amount and\nextent of the _evil_\u201d (Bishop Ellicott has no doubts as to this term);\n\u201cand, lastly, to consider the remedies that have been proposed, and the\ngeneral counsel that may seem at this serious crisis most calculated to\nbring back peace to our now disquieted Church.\u201d  Then, after an\nhistorical sketch, with remarks, shewing his lordship\u2019s feelings upon the\nsubject, and a brief\u2014almost, as it seems to me, a needless\u2014apology for\nthe bishops for not having put down with a quick and strong hand certain\npresumably _legal_ ornaments or usages, he proceeds to consider what may\nbe done in the way of remedy for the _evil_, as he deems it, of Ritual\nrepresenting doctrine, in the following terms:\u2014\n\n\u201cLet us now,\u201d he says, \u201cleave the past, and with the past all antagonisms\nand recriminations, and rather as calm, earnest, and loyal sons of the\nReformed Church of England, confer together as to what now remains to be\ndone.  Let us soberly and dispassionately consider what measures seem\nwisest, what remedies most hopeful, at the present momentous crisis.  Let\nus clear the ground by considering briefly some courses and remedies that\nhave already been proposed, and that probably will be reiterated with\npertinacity.  One proposed remedy is, the simple omission of the\nOrnaments\u2019 Rubric as in the Irish Book of Common Prayer; or its definite\nand express repeal by some legislative measure.  This is a prompt remedy,\nbut a dangerous one\u2014dangerous in part from reasons already adduced, in\npart from the deep and rankling bitterness arising from the thus greatly\nincreased conviction that the law is really in favour of the use of\nvestments, and being so is to be overridden by an unjust Act of\nParliament.  Two courses are always dangerous in this country; one is to\nleave in the hearts of any party an enduring sense of injustice, a ready\npolitical illustration of which is perhaps at once rising in the thoughts\nof many of us; the other is, to come in direct conflict with that\nconstitutional principle which is embodied in the familiar and\ntraditional \u2018_Nolumus leges Angli\u00e6 mutari_.\u2019  We cannot, then, I think,\nwisely adopt the remedy just mentioned.\u201d\n\nI imagine few of us will be disposed to question the justice of these\nremarks, or to quarrel with the dismissal of this first proposed mode of\nremedy.  But next he mentions another course, in these terms:\u2014\u201cStill less\nwise should we be to adopt another but very dissimilar remedy that has\nbeen pressed upon us, and will probably be pressed upon us with continued\nearnestness.  This remedy may be considered as summed up in the following\nformula:\u2014\u2018Arm your bishops with more power, and then leave it to their\nFatherly wisdom to allow or disallow these innovations according to the\npeculiarities of the case.\u2019  In plainer words, let the bishop become,\ninstead of the administrator of the law, the manipulator of the law; and\nlet a want of reasonable uniformity, now dangerously great, be multiplied\ntenfold.\u201d\n\nObserve here, before we proceed further, that this power of manipulation,\nover and above being open to the objection which the Bishop notices of\nmultiplying diversities of practice, is in fact nothing else than setting\nthe bishop above the law as it exists, and is, therefore, as we said all\nthese remedies would be found to be, a repeal of the rubric which is the\npresent law.  But at any rate, here again, the Bishop rejects the\nproposed mode of action, though, he says, we should \u201cpause\u201d upon it.\n\n\u201cOn this remedy it is necessary to pause.  Every clear-headed man among\nus must see, in the first place, that it is giving to bishops a power\nwhich they have never even attempted to exercise, except in the unsettled\ntimes which immediately followed the Reformation; secondly, that our\ndioceses would exhibit varieties of usage dependent on the general views\nand convictions of the bishop for the time being, and liable to be\naltered when a successor came into his place; thirdly, that men of\nadvanced opinions would make every effort to get into the diocese of that\nbishop who might be supposed, rightly or wrongly, most to favour\nthem\u2014and, when there, would exercise a combined pressure which would be\nvery difficult to resist; fourthly, and lastly, that, after all, this is\nbut an ingenious expedient to postpone that settlement of the question\nwhich common sense and common foresight now perceive to be inevitable.\u201d\n\nWithout endorsing the concluding remark of the Bishop\u2019s comment, we may\nsay that with great justice he condemns the remedy, though not expressly\nupon the ground which I have mentioned as the strongest\u2014viz., its setting\nthe bishop above the law, and so altering the Prayer Book.  He adds,\nhowever, something more as to a modification of the plan of giving more\npower to the bishops.\n\n\u201cWe may, then, I think, fairly dismiss this proposed remedy as even less\nhopeful than the first.  But there is a sort of phase and form of it, a\nkind of intermediate course, which deserves more consideration.  The\nproposed measure would be of this kind\u2014to give the bishop not only power\nto restrain, but to require him to stop, all Ritualistic innovations,\nmore especially in regard of vestments, whenever he might be appealed to\nby a certain number of trustworthy parishioners.  The effect of this, of\ncourse, would be to leave things alone where no complaint was preferred,\nthe justifying grounds being the uncertainty of the law on the one side,\nand the deliberate preference shown by the parishioners for the mode of\nconducting public worship then prevailing.  No doubt this, in some\ndegree, helps us over the plain difficulty we must expect to meet with in\nthose cases where Ritualistic practices have prevailed for some time\nunopposed.  We must not disguise from ourselves that it will be extremely\ndifficult to bring back to simpler forms of worship a minister and a\ncongregation that have not only been accustomed to, but deliberately\nprefer, much more ornate forms; the putting off of these vestments will,\nin some cases, involve much more difficulty and trouble than their\noriginal introduction.  It is human nature to cling tenaciously to what\nis distinctive, and this deposition of the distinctive will be\ncomplicated by the assumed close connection between the vestment and the\ndoctrine.  All these great and real difficulties we have before us, and\nwe may feel at first inclined to favour that which seems to reduce their\ndimensions, but I do venture to think here again that the dangers likely\nto arise from thus practically leaving the matter unsettled, and still\nmore from the local discords that would be sure to arise during the\nconstant attempts that would be made to bring the prohibitory bishop in\nsome way or other on the scene, and the sad divisions that would follow\nif the attempt succeeded\u2014all these things, I fear, must lead us to decide\nagainst a remedy, which, while saving us from some immediate\ndifficulties, would bequeath to us and to our children a heritage of\nfuture difficulties and dangers far exceeding both in number and degree\nthe difficulties and dangers of the present.\u201d\n\nThere is much truth in these objections, but the most potent objection of\nall is, that here, again, as in all other modes proposed by way of\nremedy, there is the real and tangible repeal of the Rubric; so an\nalteration of the Prayer Book, and a manifest change in the _status_ of\nthe Church and of Churchmen.\n\nThe Bishop next touches upon another plan, which indeed is not a mode of\nremedy (in the sense of making a change to meet the difficulty) at all,\nwhich therefore does not lie open to the same objection.  The Bishop,\nindeed, dismisses it at once as hopeless and useless, though it remains\nto be seen whether it really be so.  I mean the due interpretation of the\nlaw by the courts of law; which being done, to let the law alone, and the\nPrayer Book alone, and the Church alone.  However he continues;\u2014\u201cBut,\nlastly, it may be said, is all hope entirely past of finally settling the\nquestion by an appeal to the law courts, and thence to that highest\ntribunal that has already had the impleaded rubric before it, though\nunder a somewhat different point of view?  Yes, I fear we must now say\nthat all hope is finally past.  The knot cannot now be laboriously\nuntied; it must be removed by gentle drawing out on either side, or\u2014it\nmust be cut.  In the first place, the country at large would not now be\ncontent to wait for what experience has shewn might be a long-delayed\nissue.  It would be urged that such delay would only aid the progress of\ninnovation, and that now when a Commission has been appointed and has not\nrecommended a reference to law courts, it would be a practical retracing\nof steps that would seriously add to our present disquietude.  To which\nwe may subjoin this comment\u2014that even if a speedy reference to the\nultimate tribunal (by some thought possible) could be secured, the\ndecision now, after the startling evidence given before the Commission,\nwould not, it is to be feared, whichever way it might be, bring to us all\nthe blessing of peace and settlement.  If it were _for_ the Ritualists, a\nprompt effort would be made to set aside the rubric by legislation; and\nthen bitterness, struggle, and all the evils above alluded to, in\nconnection with a sense of injustice, would at once be in malignant\nworking among us.  If it were _against_ the Ritualists, I now sadly fear,\nafter the painful language publicly used by many of them against those in\nauthority, and the disregard of the Convocation Resolutions of last year,\nthat they would decline to submit to the decision, force unwilling men to\nput the law in action against them, accept the issue, and leave the\ncommunion of the Reformed Church.\u201d\n\nThere is much here from which I cannot do other than express most\nstrongly my dissent; for\u2014\n\n1.  Why should the rabid violence of all that is uncatholic and\nunbelieving in the country be taken to be the voice of the country to\nwhich heed is to be given?  The Canon before quoted, when it speaks of\noffending the minds of men, is careful to say \u201cthe minds of sober men;\u201d\nbut here it seems that all which is most violent, unreasoning, and\nintemperate, is to be accepted as the mind of the country from which\nthere is no appeal.  Nay, more, as is evident, this temper is hounded on\nto be even more violent and rabid, by such unseemly deference to its\nclamour, and by the pusillanimous assertion that law and order must be\noverridden because the impatience of such minds will not be content even\nto wait till the law courts have spoken.\n\n2.  Why should we not wait, if it be needful to wait, in order to\ndetermine with all due care and deliberation what the law is upon the\nmain points brought into controversy\u2014what it allows and what it\ndisallows?  This tremendous impatience, this overwhelming desire for\nexterminating obnoxious Ritual and Ritualists, this awe-struck terror\nthat if these men, and their practices, and their teaching be only given\nfair play, their opponents of the uncatholic school will be defeated, and\nbe found to have clamoured for illegal restraints\u2014all this is surely the\nmost wonderful admission against themselves and their cause, which men\neven pretending to seek truth and right could possibly make, and one\nleast likely to commend their cause and mode of action to any just and\nhonest mind.  Hear a few words upon this head from a venerable Archdeacon\n(_venerabilis_ not merely by station and age, but by learning and\nChristian wisdom also), one of whom England may well be proud.  In the\n_Guardian_ of November 6 you will find a letter from Archdeacon Churton,\nenforcing with very great weight Gamaliel\u2019s advice, \u201cLet these men\nalone,\u201d at the present momentous crisis.  Allow me to read a few lines\nfrom it.  He says:\u2014\u201cThe advice which alone can save the Church from a new\nschism is plainly Gamaliel\u2019s advice.  I am very sorry that so many of our\npresent bishops, younger men than myself, are averse from it, or uttering\nuncertain sounds which I could never adopt without suspecting my own\nmagnanimity.  It is to be regretted that they do not rather seek to guide\na movement which has in it too many elements of good to be rudely\ncondemned; and that they do not speak first of vindicating the law before\nthey alter it.  On the contrary, however, they seem to contemplate a new\nstatute to establish, as if of perpetual obligation, certain vestments\ninvented by clerical tailors of the last century, at which S. Ambrose\nwould have stood aghast. . . .  One of our sacred legislators has\ndeclared himself above all things anxious not to allow the Ritualists\ntime to plead their cause with the public.  It was the praise of Bishop\nHenry Spencer in King Richard\u2019s time, according to Walsingham, that he\ngave the Lollards the shortest possible shrift-time for coming to their\nsenses.\u201d\n\nThere is a passage much to the same purport which will well repay perusal\nin the late Essay on \u201cThe Law of Ritualism,\u201d by the Bishop of Vermont,\nthe Presiding Bishop of the United States, from which several extracts\nare given in one of the Appendices to the Commissioners\u2019 Report.\nConsider the following passage in reference to the unjust impatience of\nthe day, and the plea for the allowance of fair time to test the merits\nof the question.  His remarks are directed no doubt in the first instance\nto America, but there is nothing to confine the reasoning to America\nalone.  \u201cTime,\u201d says the Bishop, \u201cand nothing but time, can decide the\nquestion whether an increase of Ritualism is advisable, or whether the\npresent average of parochial practice is best fitted to carry on the work\nof the Church in such a country as ours.  I doubt whether any man can\nestimate with sufficient accuracy the various elements which belong to\nsuch a subject so as to form anything like a _positive_ opinion.  Success\nafter all must be the ultimate standard.  And that can only be determined\n_by time_, _after a fair trial_.\u201d {26}  The Bishop proceeds to give his\nopinion, however, upon the matter, which is well worthy of our\nconsideration.\n\n\u201cI am willing, however, to state my _impressions_, and the reader may\ntake them for what they may be worth, according to his own judgment.  I\nincline, then, to regard it as most _probable_ that this Ritualism will\ngrow in favour by degrees until it becomes the prevailing system.  The\nold, the fixed, and the fearful will resist it; but the young, the\nardent, and the impressible will follow it more and more.  The spirit of\nthe age will favour it, because it is an age of excitement and sensation;\nthe lovers of \u2018glory and of beauty\u2019 will favour it, because it appeals\nwith far more effect to the natural tastes and feelings of humanity; the\nrising generation of the clergy will favour it, because it adds so much\nto the solemn character of their office, and the interest of their\nservice in the House of God.  And the opposition arising from its\nresemblance to Romanism will die away, as men learn to understand that\nPopery does not consist in the Ritualism which it pleased the Lord to\norder for His own chosen people, but in Papal and priestly despotism, in\nfalse doctrine, in the worship of the Virgin and the Saints, in Purgatory\nand Indulgences, in Transubstantiation and pretended miracles, in\npersecution and intolerance, and in all the other perilous corruptions\nwhich are in direct conflict with the unerring Word of God.  These, and\nnot matters of mere Ritual, are properly Romanism; and these, and only\nthese, called for the work of Reformation.\u201d {27a}\n\nI cannot resist the temptation to add a few words more from the Bishop\u2019s\nwork, so aptly do they meet many of the popular prejudices and fallacies\npervading the unreflecting or intolerant public mind at the present time.\nAfter some excellent remarks upon the symbolism of the ministerial\ngarments, their adoption under Divine command in the old dispensation,\nand their naturally passing from the Jews to \u201cthe Gentiles on the\nstrongest ground of Scriptural consistency,\u201d he adds, \u201cthere are many\ngood and respectable Christians in our day who regard this matter of\ndistinctive ministerial garments with contempt, and sometimes even with\npositive aversion, because they look upon it as one of the corruptions of\nRomanism.  But the ancient Church of God is not to be regarded with\ncontempt by any man who professes to believe the Bible.  That sacred\ninstitution was Divine, and was given by the Almighty Himself to His own\nchosen and peculiar people.  None but a fool would say that the Church of\nthe Jews had any connection with the system of Popery.  Nor will any\nsensible man pretend that the Reformation of the 16th century was\noccasioned by the dress or ecclesiastical order of the Church of Rome;\nwhich are in no respect more splendid or imposing than the usages of the\nOriental Churches.\u201d {27b}\n\nAnd, further on, after having examined various points of evidence as to\nthe principles and law of the Church of England in the matter, he adds,\n\u201cto my mind, therefore, the legal position of our English brethren in\nthis matter of Ritualism is justifiable as to its main design, and stands\non a far higher ground of Scripture, law, and reason, than that of their\nadversaries.  So long as the great doctrines of the Reformation are\nfaithfully preached by the clergy I can see no danger that a solemn,\nrich, and attractive ritual will ever lead any one to Popery.  Is it not\nmore reasonable to believe that the restoration of the old ceremonial\nwhich existed in the second year of Edward VI. would give our Church the\nadvantage which now forms the most alluring characteristic of Rome? . . .\nHas not truth as good a right as falsehood to be adorned with beauty?\nAnd is it to be questioned that religion should favourably affect the\nsenses, in order that it may better reach the soul?\u201d {28a}\n\n3.  But, to return more directly to Bishop Ellicott; I must enter my\nprotest against, and state my most absolute disbelief in, the correctness\nof his opinion as to the last danger indicated in the passage last quoted\nfrom his Charge, as to what would be the conduct of the ritualistic\nclergy under a legal settlement of points in dispute. {28b}  It may be,\nindeed, that if judgment should go in favour of the Ritualists their\nopponents would be stirred up to any conceivable pitch of madness; but I\nmust wholly disclaim all belief that the great mass of those who have\nadopted a high ritual would do other than accept the decision of the law\ncourts, if duly arrived at.  Even with our present most unsatisfactory\nCourt of Final Appeal, I should expect this, though it might be under\nprotest; but I do not believe they would refuse to submit to the\ndecision, I mean as to ceremonial, or persist in usages declared to be\nnot warranted by the present law of the Church.  It would, of course, be\nanother thing if any attempt were made to tie up their hands, or shut\ntheir mouth, as to doctrine; but in regard merely to ceremonial I do not\nbelieve they would justify the Bishop\u2019s confident prediction, \u201cforce\nunwilling men to put the law in action against them, accept the issue,\nand leave the communion of the Reformed Church.\u201d  I do not believe this\nfor a moment as the effect of a legal decision, duly given, or as duly as\nit can be at present, as to what the law really is; dealing only, I say,\nin its terms, with ceremonial, even though we should all perceive, it may\nbe, that it had a connection with doctrine.  Still this would not be the\nmaking a new doctrine, but only declaring that the law of ceremonies was\nless favourable to the expression by symbolism or otherwise of certain\ndoctrines than it had been supposed to be.  This, I think, they would\nendure.  What might be their conduct, if you alter the law on purpose to\ncatch them when they were not offenders under it; if you _change_ the\nBook of Common Prayer in an uncatholic direction, in a matter touching\ndoctrine; if you do this for a party purpose, and to uncatholicize the\nChurch of England, I do not pretend to say.  I will venture no prophecy\nas to what some might be led to do under such an aggravated condition of\ninjustice.  I do not myself say, I do not myself think, that they ought,\neven then, to \u201caccept the issue, and leave the communion of the Reformed\nChurch.\u201d  But it needs no ghost to tell us that such action taken on the\nuncatholic side would be a step towards making catholic-minded men\n_despair_ of the Church of England; and if England\u2019s Convocations and\nLegislature should do this, you may well judge, my friends, if they will\nnot have gone near with many to sever the last strand of the rope which\nheld them to her.  No man, I will venture to say, leaves her till he\ndespairs of her; and to alter the Prayer Book in a Puritan direction, and\nfor a Puritan purpose, directly at the bidding and for the interest of\nPuritan innovators, is unquestionably the way to make men despair of her.\nAnd awful, indeed, must be the responsibility of any one who has any hand\nor takes any part in so doing!\n\nBut Bishop Ellicott comes next to the scheme of which he himself\napproves, not indeed as free from all difficulty, but as the best mode\nwhich he can think of to relieve the \u201cAggrieved Parishioner;\u201d and as one\nwhich he imagines to be free from the imputation of repealing any part of\nthe Prayer Book.  We must give the proposal in his own words.  Having, as\nwe have seen, rejected all the former plans mentioned, he says:\u2014\u201cWe are\nthus flung back on the difficult question: Is there any other course or\nmeasure that may still be suggested, and that can with any degree of hope\nbe followed, in the present emergency?  In attempting to answer the\nserious question, we must obviously base our answer on the sober and\nconsiderate Report of the Royal Commission, and test it by its degree of\naccordance with the two clearly defined principles of that Report.  The\ntwo principles are\u2014_First_, that it is expedient to _restrain_ all\nvariations in respect of vesture from what has _long_ been the\nestablished usage, on account of the grave offence so given to many;\n_Secondly_, that aggrieved _parishioners_ ought to be provided with an\neasy and effectual process of complaint and redress.\u201d  Then noticing that\nthe Report makes \u201can inferential but important recognition of the fact\nthat the innovators are of two classes\u2014the one regarding the vestments as\nsymbolical of _doctrine_, the other as furthering a desire to do _honour_\nto the highest act of Christian worship\u201d (which after all seems to be a\nfalse division, for those who desire to do this honour to the highest act\nof Christian worship consider it, I apprehend, to be the highest act of\nChristian worship, and are anxious to pay it this honour _on account_ of\nthe doctrine), the Bishop proceeds,\u2014\u201cThe two parties do not agree in the\nview they take of the meaning and design of Eucharistic vestments, but\nthey do agree in the admission that they are not essential to the\nSacrament.  As, then, that which is admitted to be not essential is\ncertainly an innovation on prevailing custom, and being so certainly does\ngive grave offence, it surely must be pronounced right, fair, and\nreasonable, calmly and considerately, but still firmly, to restrain the\ninnovation, at any rate until further order be taken by authority, even\nthough the innovation may be able to plead to the letter of a law long\nago left in abeyance, and practically abrogated by custom.\u201d\n\nIt is not unworthy here of remark how we have again cropping-up the old\nstory of the vestments being \u201cnot essential to the Sacrament,\u201d and\n\u201cgiving grave offence;\u201d the fallacy and one-sidedness of which one\nargument of the Commissioners, I trust, I have already shewn in both its\nparts.  After some words further on the doctrine symbolized, on the\nconduct of the clergy who use the vestments, and on the not unnatural\n\u201cfears in some minds that the settlement of the English Church of two\nhundred years ago is about to be changed\u201d (and truly here he has \u201charped\nour fear aright\u201d), he goes on to express his desire for an effectual\nrestraint.  \u201cBut we must not less recognize the plain fact that there is\na sad and pressing necessity now laid upon us by prevailing licence,\nanarchy, and I fear disloyalty, to restrain; and that now restraint\n_must_ be applied.  We must, then, solemnly ask those true hearts who may\ndeprecate, not for themselves, but for what they may deem the interests\nof the Church, any authoritative application of restraint, to suspend for\na time even their own innocent longings and predilections, to acknowledge\nwith us the overwhelming nature of the necessity, and to join cordially\nand hopefully, not the side of recklessness, scornfulness, and self-will,\nbut the side of recognition of rightful authority, moderation, and\norder.\u201d\n\n\u201cBrave words, indeed, as you shall see in a summer\u2019s day,\u201d but as it\nseems to me wholly misapplied, when it is remembered that the\n\u201crecklessness, scornfulness, and self-will,\u201d attributed to the\nRitualistic clergy have never, so far as I am aware, or as I think is\nborne out by evidence, gone further than this, that they have temperately\nand respectfully objected to any \u201cmanipulators\u201d being placed above the\nlaw, and asked to be allowed in quiet to obey what they believe the law\nto require; where, too, to speak generally, they have found such\nobedience to the law to be acceptable to the mass of their people, or\neven demanded by them; whilst, upon the other hand, the whole violence of\nopposition and clamour (again to speak generally) has been exhibited by\nthose who have not belonged to the parishes or churches where such\nceremonial has been in use, but who have chosen gratuitously to interfere\nin order to prevent others, with whom really they had nothing at all to\ndo, having such a Ritual, believed to be within the four corners of the\nlaw, as by them was desired, and to them was edifying.\n\nAnd now we come to the proposal itself\u2014this remedy to meet so great an\nevil.  \u201cLastly, then, if there is to be this restraint, what will seem to\nbe the safest and most effectual mode of applying it?  Certainly not, as\nI have already said, by merely arming bishops with a little more power,\nand then leaving the whole question in its present unsettled state to be\nadjusted by individual authority and individual bias; nor yet again, as I\nhave already said, by the omission or authoritative repeal of a rubric\nthat has held its place in our Prayer Book from the date of the last\nsettlement; but _by a simple and positive enactment declaring what shall\nbe_, _and be considered to be_, _the ministerial dress_\u2014until further\norder be taken.  This, of course, must be by direct legislation.  We may\nshrink from it, but in my judgment it is now inevitable.  The very\nappointment of the Commission seems to involve it, and the general temper\nof the country will demand it.  There are many melancholy signs that we\nare fast drifting towards open violations of the public peace, and that\nsome prompt interposition of law will not only be desirable but\nimperative.\u201d\n\nObserve here the course proposed, and the marvellous declaration\nconcerning it, that it is \u201cnot a repeal of the rubric which has held its\nplace in our Prayer Book from the date of the last settlement.\u201d  Yet the\nremedy is \u201ca simple and positive enactment (by direct legislation)\ndeclaring what shall be, and shall be considered to be, the ministerial\ndress\u2014until further order be taken.\u201d  This is the remedy; and after\ndetails as to what it would prohibit, or at least allow to be prohibited\n(which would include all now distinctly contended for under the rubric on\nornaments), the Bishop says, \u201c_the rubric would not be repealed_, _but\nplaced in abeyance_.\u201d  This is the special point to which I desire to\ndraw your attention!  Such a plan to be adopted, such restraint to be put\nin force and imposed; and the rubric not to be repealed! the Prayer Book\nnot to be altered!  Imagine anyone after this \u201csimple and positive\nenactment\u201d acting upon the rubric, using the things \u201cprescribed,\u201d or \u201cin\nuse by the authority of Parliament in the second year of King Edward\nVI.,\u201d and then being proceeded against under the new Act.  Would he not\nsoon learn whether the rubric were not repealed?  What will lawyers say?\nWhat does common-sense say on the matter?  What would those who believed\nthe Bishop (ill-starred mortals), that the rubric was not repealed, find\nand feel to their cost, when his assurance had led them to believe the\nlaw of the Church remains as it is?\n\nTake a case in illustration.  Say you treated thus the Decalogue, or any\npart of it.  Take the Sixth, Seventh, or Eighth Commandments: suppose you\nleft them to be printed in the Prayer Book still; but by \u201ca simple and\npositive enactment\u201d set men free from obedience to them, or rather\nprohibited obedience to them, until further order be taken.  Would they\nbe thus repealed so far as human enactment goes, or would the Prayer Book\nstill remain unchanged in respect to them?  Or, still better, look to the\nFourth Commandment\u2014I say better, because the others are negative, and\nthis is positive.  \u201cRemember that thou keep holy the Sabbath Day.\u201d  Grant\nthat it were still permitted to be printed in the Prayer Book, and\nrecited in church; but then that there were \u201ca simple and positive\nenactment\u201d restraining men from keeping it holy; prescribing and\nrequiring a uniformity of work, according to custom widely prevailing,\nreminding us that a careful observance of the Lords Day had become\nobsolete; that long custom to the contrary had abrogated the usage, and\nnow it was expedient to restrain it.  Would this be no alteration?  Would\nthis be no repeal of the Decalogue, or change in the Prayer Book?  Oh!\nbut the Bishop says the restraint is only \u201cuntil further order be taken.\u201d\nWell, what is the force of this?  Whatever hope it may hold out in the\nfuture, is it any _qualification_ even, for the present?  Surely not.\nWhilst the \u201csimple and positive enactment\u201d lasts, the former law is\nrepealed.  Besides, how much hope does it hold out, even for the future?\nIf the Bishop\u2019s temper and counsel are to prevail, I must affirm _none_.\nFor we have seen that not merely the more violent enemies of Ritual, but\neven the Bishop himself, whom we must assume to represent its more\nmoderate opponents, I say he himself is _not for waiting_ to give those\nwho are certainly more nearly maintaining and obeying the law than those\nwho clamour against them, even the chance of making good their position\nin the eye and mind of England.  He will not do this at present, when\nthere is at least a fair presumption that in the main the law is in their\nfavour, but he will hold them out a dim hope of something turning up\npropitiously for them in the future; when he has thrown all his weight\nand influence into the scale against them, and when, if he can have his\nway, he will pass a \u201csimple and positive enactment\u201d to condemn them, and\nalter adversely their _status_ in the Church!  He will have them put down\nnow with the strong hand, by legislation framed expressly and on purpose\nto catch them for their obedience to the existing law; but they may\nconsole themselves with the thought that \u201call contemplation of a future\nwhen further order might be taken concerning the questions now under\nconsideration would not be authoritatively excluded.\u201d  Well, put the\nconsolation at its best; make what you may of it; avoid, if you can,\nbitterly laughing at such a mockery of hope.  But even then, turn to the\nstate of things if such an enactment take place; \u201ca simple and positive\nenactment,\u201d forbidding such \u201cornaments of the Church and ministers\nthereof\u201d to be used \u201cas were in use by the authority of Parliament in the\nsecond year of King Edward VI.;\u201d and I ask again (for this is our real\nand great question) What would be the condition of the Book of Common\nPrayer?  Would it be what it is now, or would it be changed?  Would the\npresent rule be \u201cin abeyance\u201d\u2014that is, much unused, but still the law\u2014or\nwould it be repealed?  What is the difference between the proposed remedy\nand repeal?  It would be as if you made \u201ca simple and positive enactment\u201d\nthat, \u201cuntil further order,\u201d no man should be arrested for debt; no man\ntaken up for theft or violence; no man prosecuted for treason; no man\nhanged for murder.  You may call this, abeyance of the law in those\ncases, but it is a misuse of the term.  A thing is _in abeyance_ which\nfor any cause happens to be _disused_, not when it is by enactment\n_forbidden to be used_; as a title _is in abeyance_, not when there is no\nheir (in which case it is _extinct_), but when the heir is unknown, or\nthe pretensions of two or more claimants undetermined; when the heir is\nnot _forbidden_, as the heir, to take it if he _be_ the heir, but only\nwhilst there may be doubt whether he be the heir or not.  But here, it is\nassumed by the very act of legislation that something is known to be the\nlaw, so that you despair of getting rid of it but by altering the law;\nand therefore that, though it is known to be the law, and for the very\nreason that it is known to be the law, it is to be prohibited and\nexcluded.  Can any man in his senses be made to believe that this is not\nrepeal?\n\nI think, sir, I need go no further as to proving that all these schemes,\nand this last just as much as the rest (all except the letting the courts\nof law settle what is the law, and then abiding by it), agree fully in\nthis one point that they tamper with and alter our Book of Common Prayer.\n\nAnd all this, over and above the reason and common-sense of the matter,\ntells us what the next Report of the Ritual Commission will be, unless\nthe Commissioners be duly impressed with the danger of the course which\nthey are pursuing, and the enormous responsibility of trying to carry it\nout.\n\nAnd this brings me to a further practical point, which it is very fitting\nthat I should lay before you.  I mean the resistance proposed to all\nalteration in the Prayer Book by means of the public meeting so lately\nheld in London; and the action to be taken in connection with the\nresolutions then passed as to memorializing the Royal Commissioners upon\nthe subject.\n\nThere appears to be a curious piece of evidence that the great meeting in\nSt. James\u2019s Hall has even already not been wholly unproductive of\nresults.  That meeting was held on Tuesday, the 19th of November.  The\n_Times_ was singularly quiescent in relation to it for nearly a week: but\nyesterday, Nov. 26, in an article upon Lord Portman\u2019s questions in the\nHouse of Lords touching the Bishop of Salisbury\u2019s Charge\u2014though not\ndealing directly with the meeting\u2014it yet introduces the following\napposite remarks:\n\n\u201cIt is alike extremely difficult and extremely dangerous to alter our\nexisting formularies, but it would be perfectly possible, and that, as\nthe Bishop of London said, without any very sweeping alterations, to\nsimplify the course of procedure in our Ecclesiastical Courts.  It seems\nto be generally felt that all classes of the clergy should be more\namenable to the public than they have been; and it will certainly be\nbetter, as well as more practicable, to attempt in the first place to\neffect this result, rather by an improvement in the administration of the\nlaw than in the law itself.\u201d {36}  Is it straining matters too much to\nthink that we have in this no mean tribute to the justice of the objects\nand views of the meeting at St. James\u2019s Hall?\n\nAnd here it may not be amiss to say one word upon the principle of a\nMemorial to such a body as the Royal Commission.  I believe there are\nsome who think it improper to memorialize the Commissioners, as if it\nwere like petitioning a judge to convict or acquit a prisoner placed upon\nhis trial before him.  Of course, if the cases were parallel, it would be\nmost improper and indecent.  But a moment\u2019s reflection will shew the\ndifference.  The Commission is not a court of justice at all.  It has no\njudicial functions at all.  There is no more objection to memorializing\nit than there is to petitioning Parliament.  It is a body of men\nappointed to collect evidence, and afterwards to give an opinion as to\nwhat is expedient.  It is then in the very nature of things, of high\nmoment and importance that these Commissioners should know and understand\nwhat large masses of earnest Churchmen are thinking and feeling, whilst\nthey are finding their way to their recommendations.  It is a duty upon\nus to let them know what these feelings are, and what consequences are\nlikely to result to the Church, when we see their tendency, nay, _more\nthan tendency_, to lead an assault upon the Prayer Book.  It is not only\nnot improper, but it is a part of high and holy duty, which we owe to\nourselves, to our Book of Common Prayer, to our faith, to the Church of\nEngland, to Christendom at large\u2014nay, to God, our Maker, Redeemer, and\nSanctifier, to say openly and plainly, solemnly and earnestly, \u201cWe will\nhave no tampering with our faith; we will have no altering our Prayer\nBook; we will have no legislation in this matter of Ritual;\u201d and this all\nthe more; all the more deeply felt, the more strongly urged, _became_ we\nsee that this is a wholly one-sided movement.  We hear of no restraint or\nrestriction, no new Canons or new enactments, when men fall short of the\nrequirements of the Church and the Church\u2019s law; when churches are closed\nfrom Sunday to Sunday; when Christ\u2019s people are starved and stinted of\ntheir spiritual food and sustenance by few and far-distant communions;\nwhen Services and Lessons are altered, and Services garbled and curtailed\nat the will of this or that priest.  Nay, we hear of no \u201csimple and\npositive enactments,\u201d even when men within the Church\u2019s pale deny the\ninspiration of the Holy Scriptures; impute absolute ignorance to Christ\nour Lord, the ever-blessed Son of God; as, that He did not know as much\nabout the authorship of the Pentateuch, or the date of certain of the\nPsalms, or other facts concerning the Holy Scriptures, as modern doctors\ncould tell Him; none, when we hear denied the possibility of miracles;\nnone, when we find explained away and rejected the duration without end\nof Hell; none, when it is maintained that we ought not to pray to the Son\nof God.  I say that upon these subjects we hear of no Royal commissions,\nno Bishop\u2019s charges recommending new enactments; no impending legislation\nto place such teaching under the disability of \u201c_abeyance_\u201d even \u201cuntil\nfurther order be taken;\u201d but here, where the law of the Church as to\nceremonies and vestments (things no doubt important, because no doubt\nrepresenting doctrine and connected with it, but certainly not more\nimportant than those other subjects to which I have alluded), but here,\nwhere these ceremonies and vestments, are the objects of ignorant clamour\nand brutal violence, the Prayer Book is to be altered, and new law is to\nbe made, actually to put a penalty on those who have been guilty only of\nthe crime of obeying it as it is.\n\nAnd here I must say a word as to such alteration of the law, if made,\nbeing what one of the resolutions passed at St. James\u2019s Hall termed it,\n_ex post facto_ legislation.  A good deal has been said upon this topic,\nand we are told that if you call such legislation _ex post facto_, then\nall legislation is such, when it forbids for the future what has been\npermitted in the past; and we are reminded that the true sense of _ex\n__post facto_ legislation is when a penalty is placed, by a new law, upon\nacts done before the law was altered.  Now first let me remark that, even\nwithout coming exactly up to the definition, you yet draw very near to\nthe substance of _ex post facto_ legislation if you make a one-sided\nchange to catch only one side or one party whom you make offenders under\nthe new law, and when it is a law framed expressly and on purpose to\ncatch the men on one side and let the others go free.  Whether this be\ntechnically _ex post facto_ or not, it comes exactly to that which, in a\npassage already quoted from the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol\u2019s\nCharge, is described by him as likely to cause \u201crankling bitterness, from\nthe thus greatly increased conviction that the law is really in favour of\nthose to be restrained; and being so, is overridden by an _unjust Act of\nParliament_.\u201d  But, secondly, there is another way in which such an\nenactment would come very near indeed to _ex post facto_ legislation\u2014I\nmean where it disturbs a great settlement of many years\u2019 standing, which\nhas induced men to enter into numerous and weighty engagements, from\nwhich you cannot free them if you would, when you change their _status_\nin relation to their obligations.  To take an illustration.  The country\nhas entered into such a kind of contract with the fundholder.  Millions\nare embarked in the Funds upon the faith of a great settlement the\nprinciples of which shall never be departed from; and to depart from\nwhich would be _ex post facto_ legislation, practically putting a penalty\nupon those who had come under voluntary obligations upon the strength of\nthose principles and that settlement.  But it may be said, nevertheless,\nthe country does sometimes vary the contracts and alter the rate of\ninterest towards its creditors.  Yes! but what would be thought of the\nminister who proposed to do this, without offering, as the alternative,\nto pay the lender off in full; to replace him in the position in which he\nstood originally?  And if, without offering this, he proposed to alter\nhis _status_, who would not feel there was an unjust _ex post facto_\nalteration of the law?  Now, upon such a great, just, and deliberate\nsettlement, have men entered into relations with the established Church\nof this country.  And here the State _cannot_ set them free, or replace\nthem in the position in which they stood before they accepted the cure of\nsouls within her pale.  The Legislature _cannot_ give them the\nalternative offer: and therefore, again, such a change as alters the\nCatholic standing of the Church of England must come very near indeed to\nbeing _ex post facto_ legislation.  But yet further, thirdly, there is\nanother consideration which brings this case exactly within the strictest\ndefinition of _ex post facto_ legislation.  I mean the affixing a penalty\nby new enactment upon acts done before the law was changed.  Observe, all\npenalty is not material; not restricted to fine or suspension.  There is\nthe penalty of stigma and imputed dishonesty, as real and as hard to bear\nin many cases as other punishment.  Now, it needs no great foresight or\nwisdom to perceive that if the law of Ritual shall be altered in the\nsense and mode proposed, this very thing will be used as a stigma and\nbrand of disloyalty to the Church of England against those men who have\nbeen High Ritualists.  It is true it might be, and in my judgment, ought\nto be, read the other way.  It ought to be taken as a proof that the\nexisting law being in their favour, those who could not endure the law\ngot it altered.  But, from the whole tone and temper of the objectors, it\nis clear this would not be their line.  They tell us even now, over and\nover again, with the outstretched throat of clamour, and with the utmost\nviolence of passion, that all such are false to the principles of the\nReformation; are dishonest and disloyal to their Church; are not to be\nendured in a Protestant Establishment.  It is clear, then, that they\nwould proclaim the new legislation to be merely _declaratory of_ the\nexisting law; not admit that it _changed_ it; and so the enactment would\nbe used as a fresh ground of obloquy and reproach against those whom\ntheir opponents could not convict of any crime, but whom they would thus\nbe allowed, nevertheless to condemn.  Such a stigma, such a penalty\nplaced by legislation upon acts done before the change of law, and upon\nthe persons who had done them, would bring such change of law under the\ndefinition, in the strictest sense, of _ex post facto_ legislation.\n\nBut now to return.  Let me explain the position which I am throughout\nmaintaining.  I have not been speaking as the advocate of high Ritual.  I\ndo not understand the aim of the great meeting held last week in St.\nJames\u2019s Hall to be this advocacy; nor do I so understand the Memorial to\nbe laid before the Commissioners.  It is not to defend high Ritual in\nitself, however incidentally Ritual may be affected; but it is to defend\nthe Prayer Book.  It is to preserve our present _status_.  It is to allow\nno door to be shut upon the Catholic side, whilst all are left open on\nthe Latitudinarian.  It is to preserve an outwork which defends\ndoctrine\u2014dearer than life to many among us.  It is to keep all which\nGod\u2019s providence has given us in our Reformation and subsequent\nRevisions.  It is to preserve our character and place in the face of\nChristendom; it is to shew our loving memory and gratitude for all which\nour blessed Lord has done for us, and is still doing at the right hand of\nGod, that we will not consent to have this our heritage mutilated or\ntaken from us.  And surely in this all Churchmen who believe the ancient\nCatholic Faith are interested with us, Ritualist or non-Ritualist.  I am\nnot myself a Ritualist in the sense of using any of the higher forms of\nritual, ceremonial, or vesture.  I believe indeed, and who that believes\nthe doctrine so represented, but _must_ believe, that England would be in\na higher, holier, and happier state, if, not neglecting one other point\nof holiness, humility, repentance, or faith, yet, I say, if all among us\nlonged for and delighted in the higher and fuller expression of the\nfaith.  But I do not think this fuller expression is to be forced on\nthose who are unprepared for it.  I believe in many cases this would\nhinder rather than help the doctrine.  And I have been accustomed to\nconsider that the _abeyance_ of much of the usage (I take the term in its\ntrue sense of a practical discontinuance, not of a legal forbidding,\nwhich is the repeal or extinction of a thing), that such abeyance may\nwell justify us in not harshly shocking prejudices or wounding feelings;\nand, therefore, certainly it is not as a mere movement in support of the\nhigher forms of ritual that I am addressing you:\u2014but I ask this;\u2014What is\nthe object of our opponents?  Assuredly not merely to put down vestments,\nor put out candles, or extinguish incense; but to drive out of the Church\nof England the whole doctrine which those things represent; to expel\nevery one, whether Ritualist or not, who holds and teaches it; to run\nriot in the destruction of every vestige of faith in the Real Presence,\nin the Priesthood, the Altar, and the Sacrifice.  The papers of the\nChurch Association (_passim_), the writings of the whole anti-Ritualistic\nworld, who are also the anti-Sacerdotal party, from the well-known noisy\nand ignorant correspondents of the _Times_ to the miserable man who so\nlately has shocked every feeling of decency in his, at first, most\nimpertinent, and, at last, most blasphemous, correspondence with and\nconcerning the late revered Bishop of Lichfield; all such proclaim this\nas their aim and end, with open mouth and outstretched throat.  If you\nask for an example, take the following brief passage brought before the\nEnglish Church Union at its anniversary meeting in June last, by Mr.\nCharles Wood in his excellent speech on that occasion.  He said\u2014\u201cIn an\narticle that appeared in one of the periodicals, which is most\nconspicuous in its attacks upon Ritual\u2014I mean _Frazer\u2019s Magazine_\u2014I\nfound, in one of its last year\u2019s numbers, this, \u2018There is no use in\ntaking half-measures.  As long as the Ordination Service remains as it\nis, Ritualism will always be cropping up.  The real remedy is to alter a\nsingle rubric.  Forbid the imposition of hands, and then we shall get rid\nof Ritualism once and for all.\u2019\u201d {41}  Surely such language as this, and\nit is the very staple of the fierce opponents of Ritual, should open the\neyes of all Churchmen as to what it is, (that it is really vital\ndoctrine,) for which we have to contend.  I say, then, that the present\ncontest and crisis touches every Churchman, Ritualist or not, who\nbelieves the higher doctrine.  Nay, it touches every one, Ritualist or\nnot, who does not desire to see the comprehensive character of the Church\nof England narrowed, in a party sense, and for a party purpose.  It\ntouches all who agree with what the Dean of Norwich lately said at\nWolverhampton, that it would be an immense and incalculable evil if one\ngreat school of thought in the Church of England were to drive the other\nout of her (though, by the way, I think he did not note what surely in\njustice he should have noted, that it is only on the one side that this\ndesire for expulsion has been expressed).  It touches in short all who\ndesire to let law and reason have fair play against clamour and violence;\nall who will stand _by_ and _for_ the Prayer Book as it is.  Let us all\njoin hand and heart in averting the present danger, and in defending our\nheritage.  Oh! if I may say it, believe me, friends, there has been no\nsuch crisis as now is in our Church, in our day at least.\n\nBear with me a few moments longer whilst I confirm what I have said by a\nbetter warrant than any word of mine.  In the year 1865, he whose name is\nperhaps more revered among us than any name of at least this century\u2014he\nwhose memory is \u201cas galbanum, and onyx, and sweet storax, and as the fume\nof frankincense in the tabernacle,\u201d the \u201csweet singer\u201d of our\nIsrael\u2014wrote and published some thoughts upon Ritual, and the doctrine\nrepresented by it, and the growing opposition to it.  In almost, as it\nseems, a spirit of prophecy, speaking of the very matter now in\nquestion\u2014a proposal for legislation, touching thereby the integrity of\nthe Prayer Book\u2014he said:\u2014\u201cIt professes, indeed, to meddle with one rubric\nonly, but it involves the same prerogative over all, and that which it\nspecifies is one of the most important and comprehensive, bearing\ndirectly on one vital doctrine, and through that, as theologians know,\nupon the whole Creed of the Church.  And what is more, those who promote\nthe movement openly avow that their object is thus comprehensive . . .\nThey frankly own their purpose to be, not simple reformation of that one\nrubric, but the discomfiture at all points of a rival section in the\nChurch.\u201d  He adds:\u2014\u201cIt is well perhaps that they have declared themselves\nso openly.  It may put many on their guard who might otherwise have\nsupported them at least passively, as not liking the special usages\ncomplained of, or as fearful of their being revived where they would\ncause disturbance.  Whoever after this their plain speaking shall join in\ntheir movement must be aware that he is committing himself to a one-sided\npolicy, which ultimately displacing those who are called Tractarians or\nthe like, will quite overthrow the sort of equilibrium which for many\nyears has providentially subsisted among us.\u201d {43a}\n\nSo clearly did John Keble see that the attempt to alter that one rubric\non ornaments was a matter of most vital importance to Sacramental\ndoctrine.  And if he spoke thus when the plan referred to was but in its\ninfancy, and the danger more remote, need anyone be told what he would\nadvise now?  Truly, \u201che being dead yet speaketh.\u201d  Who is there that will\nnot hear? {43b}\n\nHe adds this yet further, well worthy of our most heartfelt\ncontemplation:\u2014\u201cAnd if we look beyond our own country, as surely we are\nbound to do, certain it is that such a decree\u201d (_i.e._, an Act of\nParliament altering the rubric), \u201cnot only submitted to but promoted and\nsolicited by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, would\neffectually quench, for the time at least, all the fond hopes of reunion\namong Christians which just now appear to be dawning on us in various\nquarters.  For, undoubtedly of all doctrines, that of the Eucharistic\nSacrifice is the one on which in the eyes both of East and West our\nCatholicity would appear most questionable.  A _hair\u2019s-breadth_ more of\nwavering on that point would seem to them, I fear, an entire forfeiture\nof our position.\u201d  Oh, how noble and catholic an aspiration after a\nreunion with East and West, and how just an appreciation of what would\nvitally affect, adversely, the hope and prospect of it!  How different\nfrom the narrow sectarianism which would boast of our isolation, and,\ncavilling at everything, can see only an overture to Rome in an\n\u201cEirenicon\u201d to Christendom.  O that our Convocations may hear and heed\nsuch warning words, and stand firm, whatever trial comes!  Let me hope,\nlet me pray, that all true Churchmen, Ritualists or not, will here throw\nthemselves into the gap, and raise a bulwark against tampering with our\nPrayer Book.  The outwork may be the rubric on ornaments, but, \u201cas\ntheologians know,\u201d it is the Creed which is really at stake, through an\naltered Book of Common Prayer.  We must defend the outwork to defend the\ncitadel.  We must one and all make our voice heard against change here,\neither directly or indirectly, either explicitly or implicitly, either by\nConvocation or by Parliament, or by both together.  Better our\nConvocations were silenced again for a hundred years, if any minister of\nthe Crown would venture to silence them (which I shall not believe until\nI see it), than that they should lend themselves to alter our Prayer Book\nand impair its catholicity.  But to strengthen the hands of all who have\npower or influence herein, we must be prompt, energetic, valiant, wise.\nBelieve me it is not a question of shapes or colours.  It is not a\nquestion of supporting the Ritualists, though incidentally their position\nmay be supported.  But it is the question of not losing one jot or tittle\nof what God\u2019s providence has given us.  And to preserve what we have is\nessential to our work at home and to our place in Christendom.  We cannot\nafford to give away our birthright.  We cannot afford to be diverted by\nany _bye_ enquiries or cavils.  The real question is the preservation\nintact in its integrity of our Book of Common Prayer, and with it of\nCatholic doctrine and truth among us.\n\nI have used the term\u2014our place in Christendom.  Let me add a word or two\nmore upon this.  English Churchmen, I fear, are too apt to overlook that\nwe are but a small part of the Church Universal, and that our aspirations\nshould ever be that \u201cthe unhappy divisions\u201d which now prevail in it may\nbe healed, and the Church again be _one_ (according to our Blessed Lord\u2019s\nPrayer), that indeed \u201cthe world may believe that God hath sent Him.\u201d\n\nNow, with this feeling and this hope in our hearts, we must never allow\nourselves to forget that there is such a thing as an \u0152cumenical Council\nof Christendom, and whatever the difficulties may be in the way of its\nassembling, I believe to it all true hearts should turn.  Certainly, for\nmyself, I can say that this, as the great remedy for all our troubles and\ndistractions, and \u201cnot for ours only,\u201d but for those of Christendom at\nlarge, has been constantly present to my mind for many years.  That God\nin His mercy, and in His own good time, would grant us a true General\nCouncil to ease and compose our differences, and to restore the unity of\nChristendom,\u2014and, if it come, grant us all the due mind of submission to\nit,\u2014has been for nearly or quite a quarter of a century, a portion of my\ndaily prayer; and I think there is no ground to decry the petition as\neither fanciful or wrong.  At least we have the warrant of some of great\nname among us who have not thought so.  \u201cThat I might live to see the\nreunion of Christendom,\u201d says Archbishop Bramhall, \u201cis a thing for which\nI shall always bow the knees of my heart to the Father of our Lord Jesus\nChrist . . .  Howsoever it be,\u201d he adds, \u201cI submit myself and my poor\nendeavours first to the judgment of the Catholic \u0152cumenical essential\nChurch, which, if some of late days have endeavoured to hiss out of the\nschools, as a fancy, I cannot help it.  From the beginning it was not so.\n. . .  Likewise I submit myself to the representative Church\u2014that is, a\nfree General Council, or so general as can be procured; and until then to\nthe Church of England, wherein I was baptized, or to a National English\nSynod.\u201d {45}\n\nIt may be supposed, indeed, that a general or \u0152cumenical Council is at\npresent hopeless, and therefore that all mention or thought of an appeal\nto it is out of place; but I do not think this, for two reasons\u2014first,\nthat there are certain points of doctrine which have been so definitely\nruled by General Councils and consent of Christendom that we know upon\nthem there could be no diverse judgment; and, secondly, that I see no\ncause to despair of another such Council in God\u2019s good time being called\ntogether.  Even in the meanwhile the thought of, and habitual mental\nreference to, such a Council is neither impertinent nor unpractical; for\nthe remembrance and sense of its authority, and the even mental\nsubmission of the will to its rule, has the strongest tendency to keep a\nman wholly catholic in heart and act.  An English Churchman should _live_\nin the thought and in the hope of the voice of Christendom being again\nuttered with no uncertain sound as to matters of perplexity and doubt.\nEven \u201cthough it tarry, he will wait for it,\u201d and in the meanwhile the\nthought of it will bear its fruit.  Thus, whatever he does, and is\nobliged to do, without the actual presence of such a guide, will be done,\nnot on the mere impulse of his own will, or the bent of his own mind, but\nalways in relation to what Christendom has definitely ruled, and in\nimplicit submission to what she will again say when she may meet once\nmore in a free and General Council.  Anyone so living, trusting,\nbelieving, acting, will never be a schismatic, and cannot be a heretic.\nBut I do believe we shall never, till we get to look out of ourselves to\nChristendom at large; never, till we remember our due place in it; never,\ntill we are ready to accept its decrees (when God sees Christendom fit to\ngive them); never till then, shall we be in that right mind and heart\nwhich is waiting duly for the Bridegroom\u2019s call.\n\nI am quite prepared to have such remarks called visionary and unreal, and\nall dependance upon, nay, all reference to, the Universal Church,\nunpractical and absurd.  But none of these things move me, and I am\n(though, I trust, no fanatic) yet hopeful of the help of God for those\nwho will try to help themselves.  As I have said, I cannot think the\nexpectation of a General Council is chimerical.  I cannot believe, if it\ncome, it will be useless.  We have no right, of course, to expect any\nsupernatural interposition or handwriting visibly on the wall to direct\nus in our difficulties.  But I have faith enough in miracles, if that be\none, to believe that God may grant us the miracle of Christendom again in\nCouncil, and make it the means to heal all our distempers and bind up all\nour wounds.  Of this faith and this hope no man shall deprive me by the\nmere calculations of human policy, or by the perverse promptings of an\nuncatholic despair.  But let us all watch and pray, and work with the\nhelp of God, to preserve our true catholic heritage and place, lest, when\nit meet, it should meet to condemn us.  But this we will never believe\ncan come upon us until we see, which God forbid, our Church faithless to\nGod and to herself in the face of Christendom.\n\nOur immediate work, our present duty, is indeed on a narrower scale and\nin a smaller sphere, yet not without an eye to these further\nconsequences.  It is to maintain our catholic _status_; and in order to\nthis, to make it plain to all, friends and foes alike, that we will stand\nby our Prayer Book, and never consent to alter in an uncatholic direction\none jot or tittle of that which it contains.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                  FINIS.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n    Printed by the Church Press Company, 13, Burleigh-street, Strand.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n{6}  _Charge_, p. 75.\n\n{7}  _Report_, p. vii.\n\n{13}  See _History of Savoy Conference_: Collier, Vol. ii. pp. 876\u2013886.\n\n{15}  _Report_, p. vii.\n\n{16}  If the Commissioners should justify their thus reporting on things\nnot essential, in the face of the very letter of their instructions, by\nsaying that they understand the term essential to be _relative_;\nessential, not necessarily to the _Being_, but to the _well-being_ of the\nChurch, and that the repression of the vestments is, in their mind, thus\nrelatively essential; it occurs immediately to ask, why, if they were\nthus so quickwitted to perceive this sense of relative essentiality on\ntheir own side, were they so obtuse in seeing that the same construction\nshould equally be allowed to the witnesses examined, in their use of the\nword essential on the other side?\n\nOr, further, if they should plead that although the things themselves\nwere _unessential_, yet the _liberty_ to deal with them was _essential_,\n(and in their mind essential on the side of repression,) and that thus\ntheir recommendation to restrain ceremonial is brought within the terms\nof their Commission; it must again be asked, why did they not award the\nsame latitude of construction to the witnesses upon whose evidence they\nground their sole recommendation; when it would be seen immediately that\ntheir inference and conclusion are wholly illogical and absurd.  For\ntheir reasoning fully stated would then run thus:\u2014\u201cWe find the vestments\nare by none regarded as essential to the _Being_, though we are aware\nthat by many they are considered essential to the _well-being_ of the\nChurch; and _therefore_ we come to the opinion that all variations in\nrespect of vesture be restrained and abolished.\u201d  Or, (on the other\nview,) \u201cWe find the vestments are by none regarded as in themselves\nessential, though by many the liberty to use them is regarded as\nessential, and _therefore_ we recommend that they be repressed and\ndisallowed.\u201d  What must be said of a Report the compilers of which can\nonly present even the semblance of avoiding direct collision with the\nterms of their appointment by such treatment of the word _essential_; who\nclaim this latitude of interpretation on their own side, whilst they\nwholly overlook or deny the same to the witnesses whose evidence they\ndesire to make responsible for their illogical conclusion?  Truly if the\nCommissioners have taken such interpretations for themselves, and in the\nsame breath deny them to the witnesses whom they quote, what words can be\ntoo strong to describe their blindness if they did not see this\nincongruity, or their unfairness if they did; whilst, if to escape such a\ndilemma, they repudiate both the above pleas, what defence can they make\nagainst the just rebuke of the trenchant Archdeacon of Taunton, when he\nsaid at Wolverhampton that \u201cthey had been appointed to report only upon\nthings _essential_, and had reported only upon things _non-essential_\u201d?\n\n{19}  For this and the following quotations see _Charge of Bp. of\nGloucester and Bristol_, p. 57; also pp. 66\u201377.\n\n{26}  _Report_, p. 131.\n\n{27a}  Opinions will no doubt be different as to the accuracy of this\naccount of what is Romanism.  The passage is not cited to bind anyone\u2019s\njudgment in this respect, but rather for its negative weighty shewing at\nleast what in the judgment of such a man (one as it is evident with _no_\nbearings which _anyone_ can call Popish) is _not_ Romanism.\n\n{27b}  Appendix to Report on Ritual, pp. 130\u2013131.\n\n{28a}  Appendix, p. 130.\n\n{28b}  See p. 24.\n\n{36}  _Times_, Nov. 26, 1867.\n\n{41}  Speech of Hon. C. L. Wood, _English Church Union Circular_, July,\n1867, p. 241.\n\n{43a}  Letter on \u201cRitual,\u201d by Rev. John Keble, 1865.\n\n{43b}  The following, very recently published by the Dean of Norwich, is\nworthy of insertion as a note to Mr. Keble\u2019s remarks:\u2014\u201cFrom the\nalteration of the Lectionary to that of the rubrics there is but one\nstep; and from an alteration of the rubrics we shall pass by an easy\ntransition to the rearrangement of prayers\u2014the cancelling (or bracketing)\nof some and the insertion of others.  Questions of this kind being once\nopened, the Prayer Book would become an arena of fierce and furious\ncontroversy, and the reconstruction of it in what would be called an\nimproved form would be the dismemberment of the Church of\nEngland\u201d\u2014Preface to Two Sermons: A Word for the Old Lectionary.  By E. M.\nGoulburn, D.D., Dean of Norwich. 1867.\n\n{45}  Bramhall\u2019s Works, p. 141.","title":"Remarks upon the First Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual in connection with the integrity of the Book of Common Prayer: A lecture delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Brighton Branch of the English Church Union, Nov. 27, 1867","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":17535}