There is a passage much to the same purport which will well repay perusal 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?