were _unessential_, yet the _liberty_ to deal with them was _essential_,
(and in their mind essential on the side of repression,) and that thus
their recommendation to restrain ceremonial is brought within the terms
of their Commission; it must again be asked, why did they not award the
same latitude of construction to the witnesses upon whose evidence they
ground their sole recommendation; when it would be seen immediately that
their inference and conclusion are wholly illogical and absurd. For
their reasoning fully stated would then run thus:—“We find the vestments
are by none regarded as essential to the _Being_, though we are aware
that by many they are considered essential to the _well-being_ of the
Church; and _therefore_ we come to the opinion that all variations in
respect of vesture be restrained and abolished.” Or, (on the other
view,) “We find the vestments are by none regarded as in themselves
essential, though by many the liberty to use them is regarded as
essential, and _therefore_ we recommend that they be repressed and
disallowed.” What must be said of a Report the compilers of which can
only present even the semblance of avoiding direct collision with the
terms of their appointment by such treatment of the word _essential_; who
claim this latitude of interpretation on their own side, whilst they
wholly overlook or deny the same to the witnesses whose evidence they
desire to make responsible for their illogical conclusion? Truly if the
Commissioners have taken such interpretations for themselves, and in the
same breath deny them to the witnesses whom they quote, what words can be
too strong to describe their blindness if they did not see this
incongruity, or their unfairness if they did; whilst, if to escape such a
dilemma, they repudiate both the above pleas, what defence can they make
against the just rebuke of the trenchant Archdeacon of Taunton, when he
said at Wolverhampton that “they had been appointed to report only upon
things _essential_, and had reported only upon things _non-essential_”?
{19} For this and the following quotations see _Charge of Bp. of
Gloucester and Bristol_, p. 57; also pp. 66–77.
{26} _Report_, p. 131.
{27a} Opinions will no doubt be different as to the accuracy of this
account of what is Romanism. The passage is not cited to bind anyone’s
judgment in this respect, but rather for its negative weighty shewing at
least what in the judgment of such a man (one as it is evident with _no_
bearings which _anyone_ can call Popish) is _not_ Romanism.
{27b} Appendix to Report on Ritual, pp. 130–131.
{28a} Appendix, p. 130.
{28b} See p. 24.
{36} _Times_, Nov. 26, 1867.
{41} Speech of Hon. C. L. Wood, _English Church Union Circular_, July,
1867, p. 241.
{43a} Letter on “Ritual,” by Rev. John Keble, 1865.
{43b} The following, very recently published by the Dean of Norwich, is
worthy of insertion as a note to Mr. Keble’s remarks:—“From the
alteration of the Lectionary to that of the rubrics there is but one
step; and from an alteration of the rubrics we shall pass by an easy
transition to the rearrangement of prayers—the cancelling (or bracketing)
of some and the insertion of others. Questions of this kind being once
opened, the Prayer Book would become an arena of fierce and furious
controversy, and the reconstruction of it in what would be called an
improved form would be the dismemberment of the Church of
England”—Preface to Two Sermons: A Word for the Old Lectionary. By E. M.
Goulburn, D.D., Dean of Norwich. 1867.
{45} Bramhall’s Works, p. 141.