LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE RITUALISTS AND THE DECISION OF THE ARCHBISHOPS.
[To THE. EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
F:111,—In your remarks upon my letter you say that " the preface" to the Prayer-book declares that the Archbishop is in the last resort to decide points of "ceremony." If you look at the preface again you will see that this passage refers to "the service of the Church "—i.e., the service-books—and has no connection with the next heading of " Ceremonies," which, Article XX. says, " the Church bath power to decree," not in- dividual Archbishops or Bishops. Surely it would make confusion worse confounded if two Archbishops and their assessors could alter at their own discretion, and enforce their " opinion " of what the Church hath decreed, upon the clergy, who use these accessories of divine worship which have been held semper, ubique, and ab omnibus. And my point is that if "processional lights," and " incense " can be abolished by two Archbishops without consulting the Church, why should they stop there ? For a Godless and unbelieving age like this there is no reason why the Bible itself should not be " omitted " next, or the Sacraments declared to be no longer necessary. If the clergy are to be bound to the literal obedience of the Prayer-book, why are Archbishops and Bishops allowed to break its letter in all sorts of ways ? No Sir, "the letter " killeth, but the spirit " giveth life." We will be true to "the faith of our fathers" till death, cost what it may. [By the way, I am not a Bishop, but the son of the late Bishop of St. Albans, and the nephew of the late Bishop Piers Claughton, so I speak not without " episcopal" au-
[We regret our slip of memory in thinking Bishop Claugh- ton to be still alive.—En. Spectator.]