in the late Essay on “The Law of Ritualism,” by the Bishop of Vermont,
the Presiding Bishop of the United States, from which several extracts
are given in one of the Appendices to the Commissioners’ Report.
Consider the following passage in reference to the unjust impatience of
the day, and the plea for the allowance of fair time to test the merits
of the question. His remarks are directed no doubt in the first instance
to America, but there is nothing to confine the reasoning to America
alone. “Time,” says the Bishop, “and nothing but time, can decide the
question whether an increase of Ritualism is advisable, or whether the
present average of parochial practice is best fitted to carry on the work
of the Church in such a country as ours. I doubt whether any man can
estimate with sufficient accuracy the various elements which belong to
such a subject so as to form anything like a _positive_ opinion. Success
after all must be the ultimate standard. And that can only be determined
_by time_, _after a fair trial_.” {26} The Bishop proceeds to give his
opinion, however, upon the matter, which is well worthy of our
consideration.
“I am willing, however, to state my _impressions_, and the reader may
take them for what they may be worth, according to his own judgment. I
incline, then, to regard it as most _probable_ that this Ritualism will
grow in favour by degrees until it becomes the prevailing system. The
old, the fixed, and the fearful will resist it; but the young, the
ardent, and the impressible will follow it more and more. The spirit of
the age will favour it, because it is an age of excitement and sensation;
the lovers of ‘glory and of beauty’ will favour it, because it appeals
with far more effect to the natural tastes and feelings of humanity; the
rising generation of the clergy will favour it, because it adds so much
to the solemn character of their office, and the interest of their
service in the House of God. And the opposition arising from its
resemblance to Romanism will die away, as men learn to understand that
Popery does not consist in the Ritualism which it pleased the Lord to
order for His own chosen people, but in Papal and priestly despotism, in
false doctrine, in the worship of the Virgin and the Saints, in Purgatory
and Indulgences, in Transubstantiation and pretended miracles, in
persecution and intolerance, and in all the other perilous corruptions
which are in direct conflict with the unerring Word of God. These, and
not matters of mere Ritual, are properly Romanism; and these, and only
these, called for the work of Reformation.” {27a}
I cannot resist the temptation to add a few words more from the Bishop’s
work, so aptly do they meet many of the popular prejudices and fallacies
pervading the unreflecting or intolerant public mind at the present time.
After some excellent remarks upon the symbolism of the ministerial
garments, their adoption under Divine command in the old dispensation,
and their naturally passing from the Jews to “the Gentiles on the
strongest ground of Scriptural consistency,” he adds, “there are many
good and respectable Christians in our day who regard this matter of
distinctive ministerial garments with contempt, and sometimes even with
positive aversion, because they look upon it as one of the corruptions of
Romanism. But the ancient Church of God is not to be regarded with
contempt by any man who professes to believe the Bible. That sacred
institution was Divine, and was given by the Almighty Himself to His own
chosen and peculiar people. None but a fool would say that the Church of
the Jews had any connection with the system of Popery. Nor will any
sensible man pretend that the Reformation of the 16th century was
occasioned by the dress or ecclesiastical order of the Church of Rome;
which are in no respect more splendid or imposing than the usages of the
Oriental Churches.” {27b}
And, further on, after having examined various points of evidence as to
the principles and law of the Church of England in the matter, he adds,
“to my mind, therefore, the legal position of our English brethren in
this matter of Ritualism is justifiable as to its main design, and stands
on a far higher ground of Scripture, law, and reason, than that of their
adversaries. So long as the great doctrines of the Reformation are
faithfully preached by the clergy I can see no danger that a solemn,
rich, and attractive ritual will ever lead any one to Popery. Is it not
more reasonable to believe that the restoration of the old ceremonial
which existed in the second year of Edward VI. would give our Church the
advantage which now forms the most alluring characteristic of Rome? . . .
Has not truth as good a right as falsehood to be adorned with beauty?
And is it to be questioned that religion should favourably affect the
senses, in order that it may better reach the soul?” {28a}
3. But, to return more directly to Bishop Ellicott; I must enter my
protest against, and state my most absolute disbelief in, the correctness
of his opinion as to the last danger indicated in the passage last quoted
from his Charge, as to what would be the conduct of the ritualistic
clergy under a legal settlement of points in dispute. {28b} It may be,
indeed, that if judgment should go in favour of the Ritualists their
opponents would be stirred up to any conceivable pitch of madness; but I
must wholly disclaim all belief that the great mass of those who have
adopted a high ritual would do other than accept the decision of the law
courts, if duly arrived at. Even with our present most unsatisfactory
Court of Final Appeal, I should expect this, though it might be under
protest; but I do not believe they would refuse to submit to the
decision, I mean as to ceremonial, or persist in usages declared to be
not warranted by the present law of the Church. It would, of course, be
another thing if any attempt were made to tie up their hands, or shut
their mouth, as to doctrine; but in regard merely to ceremonial I do not
believe they would justify the Bishop’s confident prediction, “force
unwilling men to put the law in action against them, accept the issue,
and leave the communion of the Reformed Church.” I do not believe this
for a moment as the effect of a legal decision, duly given, or as duly as
it can be at present, as to what the law really is; dealing only, I say,
in its terms, with ceremonial, even though we should all perceive, it may
be, that it had a connection with doctrine. Still this would not be the
making a new doctrine, but only declaring that the law of ceremonies was
less favourable to the expression by symbolism or otherwise of certain
doctrines than it had been supposed to be. This, I think, they would
endure. What might be their conduct, if you alter the law on purpose to
catch them when they were not offenders under it; if you _change_ the
Book of Common Prayer in an uncatholic direction, in a matter touching
doctrine; if you do this for a party purpose, and to uncatholicize the
Church of England, I do not pretend to say. I will venture no prophecy
as to what some might be led to do under such an aggravated condition of
injustice. I do not myself say, I do not myself think, that they ought,
even then, to “accept the issue, and leave the communion of the Reformed
Church.” But it needs no ghost to tell us that such action taken on the
uncatholic side would be a step towards making catholic-minded men
_despair_ of the Church of England; and if England’s Convocations and
Legislature should do this, you may well judge, my friends, if they will
not have gone near with many to sever the last strand of the rope which
held them to her. No man, I will venture to say, leaves her till he
despairs of her; and to alter the Prayer Book in a Puritan direction, and
for a Puritan purpose, directly at the bidding and for the interest of
Puritan innovators, is unquestionably the way to make men despair of her.
And awful, indeed, must be the responsibility of any one who has any hand
or takes any part in so doing!
But Bishop Ellicott comes next to the scheme of which he himself
approves, not indeed as free from all difficulty, but as the best mode
which he can think of to relieve the “Aggrieved Parishioner;” and as one
which he imagines to be free from the imputation of repealing any part of
the Prayer Book. We must give the proposal in his own words. Having, as
we have seen, rejected all the former plans mentioned, he says:—“We are
thus flung back on the difficult question: Is there any other course or
measure that may still be suggested, and that can with any degree of hope
be followed, in the present emergency? In attempting to answer the
serious question, we must obviously base our answer on the sober and
considerate Report of the Royal Commission, and test it by its degree of
accordance with the two clearly defined principles of that Report. The
two principles are—_First_, that it is expedient to _restrain_ all
variations in respect of vesture from what has _long_ been the
established usage, on account of the grave offence so given to many;
_Secondly_, that aggrieved _parishioners_ ought to be provided with an
easy and effectual process of complaint and redress.” Then noticing that
the Report makes “an inferential but important recognition of the fact
that the innovators are of two classes—the one regarding the vestments as
symbolical of _doctrine_, the other as furthering a desire to do _honour_
to the highest act of Christian worship” (which after all seems to be a
false division, for those who desire to do this honour to the highest act
of Christian worship consider it, I apprehend, to be the highest act of
Christian worship, and are anxious to pay it this honour _on account_ of
the doctrine), the Bishop proceeds,—“The two parties do not agree in the
view they take of the meaning and design of Eucharistic vestments, but
they do agree in the admission that they are not essential to the
Sacrament. As, then, that which is admitted to be not essential is
certainly an innovation on prevailing custom, and being so certainly does
give grave offence, it surely must be pronounced right, fair, and
reasonable, calmly and considerately, but still firmly, to restrain the
innovation, at any rate until further order be taken by authority, even
though the innovation may be able to plead to the letter of a law long
ago left in abeyance, and practically abrogated by custom.”
It is not unworthy here of remark how we have again cropping-up the old
story of the vestments being “not essential to the Sacrament,” and
“giving grave offence;” the fallacy and one-sidedness of which one
argument of the Commissioners, I trust, I have already shewn in both its
parts. After some words further on the doctrine symbolized, on the
conduct of the clergy who use the vestments, and on the not unnatural
“fears in some minds that the settlement of the English Church of two
hundred years ago is about to be changed” (and truly here he has “harped
our fear aright”), he goes on to express his desire for an effectual
restraint. “But we must not less recognize the plain fact that there is
a sad and pressing necessity now laid upon us by prevailing licence,
anarchy, and I fear disloyalty, to restrain; and that now restraint
_must_ be applied. We must, then, solemnly ask those true hearts who may
deprecate, not for themselves, but for what they may deem the interests
of the Church, any authoritative application of restraint, to suspend for
a time even their own innocent longings and predilections, to acknowledge
with us the overwhelming nature of the necessity, and to join cordially
and hopefully, not the side of recklessness, scornfulness, and self-will,
but the side of recognition of rightful authority, moderation, and
order.”
“Brave words, indeed, as you shall see in a summer’s day,” but as it
seems to me wholly misapplied, when it is remembered that the
“recklessness, scornfulness, and self-will,” attributed to the
Ritualistic clergy have never, so far as I am aware, or as I think is
borne out by evidence, gone further than this, that they have temperately
and respectfully objected to any “manipulators” being placed above the
law, and asked to be allowed in quiet to obey what they believe the law
to require; where, too, to speak generally, they have found such
obedience to the law to be acceptable to the mass of their people, or
even demanded by them; whilst, upon the other hand, the whole violence of
opposition and clamour (again to speak generally) has been exhibited by
those who have not belonged to the parishes or churches where such
ceremonial has been in use, but who have chosen gratuitously to interfere
in order to prevent others, with whom really they had nothing at all to
do, having such a Ritual, believed to be within the four corners of the
law, as by them was desired, and to them was edifying.
And now we come to the proposal itself—this remedy to meet so great an
evil. “Lastly, then, if there is to be this restraint, what will seem to
be the safest and most effectual mode of applying it? Certainly not, as
I have already said, by merely arming bishops with a little more power,
and then leaving the whole question in its present unsettled state to be
adjusted by individual authority and individual bias; nor yet again, as I
have already said, by the omission or authoritative repeal of a rubric
that has held its place in our Prayer Book from the date of the last
settlement; but _by a simple and positive enactment declaring what shall
be_, _and be considered to be_, _the ministerial dress_—until further
order be taken. This, of course, must be by direct legislation. We may
shrink from it, but in my judgment it is now inevitable. The very
appointment of the Commission seems to involve it, and the general temper
of the country will demand it. There are many melancholy signs that we
are fast drifting towards open violations of the public peace, and that
some prompt interposition of law will not only be desirable but
imperative.”
Observe here the course proposed, and the marvellous declaration
concerning it, that it is “not a repeal of the rubric which has held its
place in our Prayer Book from the date of the last settlement.” Yet the
remedy is “a simple and positive enactment (by direct legislation)
declaring what shall be, and shall be considered to be, the ministerial
dress—until further order be taken.” This is the remedy; and after
details as to what it would prohibit, or at least allow to be prohibited
(which would include all now distinctly contended for under the rubric on
ornaments), the Bishop says, “_the rubric would not be repealed_, _but
placed in abeyance_.” This is the special point to which I desire to
draw your attention! Such a plan to be adopted, such restraint to be put
in force and imposed; and the rubric not to be repealed! the Prayer Book
not to be altered! Imagine anyone after this “simple and positive
enactment” acting upon the rubric, using the things “prescribed,” or “in
use by the authority of Parliament in the second year of King Edward
VI.,” and then being proceeded against under the new Act. Would he not
soon learn whether the rubric were not repealed? What will lawyers say?
What does common-sense say on the matter? What would those who believed
the Bishop (ill-starred mortals), that the rubric was not repealed, find
and feel to their cost, when his assurance had led them to believe the
law of the Church remains as it is?
Take a case in illustration. Say you treated thus the Decalogue, or any
part of it. Take the Sixth, Seventh, or Eighth Commandments: suppose you
left them to be printed in the Prayer Book still; but by “a simple and
positive enactment” set men free from obedience to them, or rather
prohibited obedience to them, until further order be taken. Would they
be thus repealed so far as human enactment goes, or would the Prayer Book
still remain unchanged in respect to them? Or, still better, look to the
Fourth Commandment—I say better, because the others are negative, and
this is positive. “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath Day.” Grant
that it were still permitted to be printed in the Prayer Book, and
recited in church; but then that there were “a simple and positive
enactment” restraining men from keeping it holy; prescribing and
requiring a uniformity of work, according to custom widely prevailing,
reminding us that a careful observance of the Lords Day had become
obsolete; that long custom to the contrary had abrogated the usage, and
now it was expedient to restrain it. Would this be no alteration? Would
this be no repeal of the Decalogue, or change in the Prayer Book? Oh!
but the Bishop says the restraint is only “until further order be taken.”
Well, what is the force of this? Whatever hope it may hold out in the
future, is it any _qualification_ even, for the present? Surely not.
Whilst the “simple and positive enactment” lasts, the former law is
repealed. Besides, how much hope does it hold out, even for the future?
If the Bishop’s temper and counsel are to prevail, I must affirm _none_.
For we have seen that not merely the more violent enemies of Ritual, but
even the Bishop himself, whom we must assume to represent its more
moderate opponents, I say he himself is _not for waiting_ to give those
who are certainly more nearly maintaining and obeying the law than those
who clamour against them, even the chance of making good their position
in the eye and mind of England. He will not do this at present, when
there is at least a fair presumption that in the main the law is in their
favour, but he will hold them out a dim hope of something turning up
propitiously for them in the future; when he has thrown all his weight
and influence into the scale against them, and when, if he can have his
way, he will pass a “simple and positive enactment” to condemn them, and
alter adversely their _status_ in the Church! He will have them put down
now with the strong hand, by legislation framed expressly and on purpose
to catch them for their obedience to the existing law; but they may
console themselves with the thought that “all contemplation of a future
when further order might be taken concerning the questions now under
consideration would not be authoritatively excluded.” Well, put the
consolation at its best; make what you may of it; avoid, if you can,
bitterly laughing at such a mockery of hope. But even then, turn to the
state of things if such an enactment take place; “a simple and positive
enactment,” forbidding such “ornaments of the Church and ministers
thereof” to be used “as were in use by the authority of Parliament in the
second year of King Edward VI.;” and I ask again (for this is our real
and great question) What would be the condition of the Book of Common
Prayer? Would it be what it is now, or would it be changed? Would the
present rule be “in abeyance”—that is, much unused, but still the law—or
would it be repealed? What is the difference between the proposed remedy
and repeal? It would be as if you made “a simple and positive enactment”
that, “until further order,” no man should be arrested for debt; no man
taken up for theft or violence; no man prosecuted for treason; no man
hanged for murder. You may call this, abeyance of the law in those
cases, but it is a misuse of the term. A thing is _in abeyance_ which
for any cause happens to be _disused_, not when it is by enactment
_forbidden to be used_; as a title _is in abeyance_, not when there is no
heir (in which case it is _extinct_), but when the heir is unknown, or
the pretensions of two or more claimants undetermined; when the heir is
not _forbidden_, as the heir, to take it if he _be_ the heir, but only
whilst there may be doubt whether he be the heir or not. But here, it is
assumed by the very act of legislation that something is known to be the
law, so that you despair of getting rid of it but by altering the law;
and therefore that, though it is known to be the law, and for the very
reason that it is known to be the law, it is to be prohibited and
excluded. Can any man in his senses be made to believe that this is not
repeal?
I think, sir, I need go no further as to proving that all these schemes,
and this last just as much as the rest (all except the letting the courts
of law settle what is the law, and then abiding by it), agree fully in
this one point that they tamper with and alter our Book of Common Prayer.
And all this, over and above the reason and common-sense of the matter,
tells us what the next Report of the Ritual Commission will be, unless
the Commissioners be duly impressed with the danger of the course which
they are pursuing, and the enormous responsibility of trying to carry it
out.
And this brings me to a further practical point, which it is very fitting
that I should lay before you. I mean the resistance proposed to all
alteration in the Prayer Book by means of the public meeting so lately
held in London; and the action to be taken in connection with the
resolutions then passed as to memorializing the Royal Commissioners upon
the subject.
There appears to be a curious piece of evidence that the great meeting in
St. James’s Hall has even already not been wholly unproductive of
results. That meeting was held on Tuesday, the 19th of November. The
_Times_ was singularly quiescent in relation to it for nearly a week: but
yesterday, Nov. 26, in an article upon Lord Portman’s questions in the
House of Lords touching the Bishop of Salisbury’s Charge—though not
dealing directly with the meeting—it yet introduces the following
apposite remarks:
“It is alike extremely difficult and extremely dangerous to alter our
existing formularies, but it would be perfectly possible, and that, as
the Bishop of London said, without any very sweeping alterations, to
simplify the course of procedure in our Ecclesiastical Courts. It seems
to be generally felt that all classes of the clergy should be more
amenable to the public than they have been; and it will certainly be
better, as well as more practicable, to attempt in the first place to
effect this result, rather by an improvement in the administration of the
law than in the law itself.” {36} Is it straining matters too much to
think that we have in this no mean tribute to the justice of the objects
and views of the meeting at St. James’s Hall?