The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol preached a sermon last
Sunday intended to account for the Ritualistic movement fairly, first, and then discourage it. He said it arose from two motives besides the artistic one,---the desire for unity with other (epis- copal) Churches which have a mole splendid ceremonial than -ours,—and the reaction 'against the modern tendency to anti- supernaturalism, against which- the supposed feet of transubstan- tiation is the greatest possible protest. This may be true enottgh, but a movement which thirsts for unity With the showy Churches and not .with the modest ones, -is scarcely on -that account entitled to much religious respect:; and a, movement -which proposes to -counteract anti-supernatural tendeneies not by exhibiting a new miracle, but by asking people to believe in one more -miracle than before, is not on that accountehtitled to Much intelleetualrespect. After the Bishop had "explained ''' the movement, if this 'tau be called an explanation;'he attempted to represi it; but the-tohe'of his language was not tnanly, but rather goody? Why can't the Bishops talkfrankly,instead of putting on a sort of St. Peter-and-- water mannerism, —a' tone of maudlin spiritual talk,--which is about as natural to them as lawn sleeves would have-been to St. Peter? A bishop should feel real affection for his people, but there is no occasion to whine over them. Not even bishops would -do so in talking to a friend, however earnestly, on questions of religious belief.