THE RIDSDALE JUDGMENT.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—My object in writing to you was not to continue the -controversy about vestments, but to protest against the line -taken by some of your correspondents,—that the opponents of -those vestments have been entirely put out of Court by the recent judgment, and have nothing to say for themselves.
I am not ignorant of the arguments by which Mr. MacColl and -others have persuaded themselves of their legality, and can only say, that having carefully considered them, I still " retain " my opinion that the Ornaments Rubric was intended (Bishop Cosin -notwithstanding) to secure the continued use of the surplice, and to enforce the then generally prevailing disuse of the other vest- ments. For the historical evidence that such was its actual effect after 1662 until recent times I must refer your readers to the -Judgment itself.
Mr. MacColl says that I put a non-natural construction on the phrase " at all times of their ministration." To me it seems that Mr. MacColl's construction is most non-natural ; for if his 'view were right the words would naturally have run thus :— -4Sueh ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof -shall at all times of their ministration be retained and be in use as, &c." a cannot at all admit that if one of the Judges of the Privy Council has publicly expressed an opinion that the Ritualists are " revolutionists," i.e., innovators, it is as heinous an offence as if one of the Judges in " Twycrosa v. Grant" had publicly denounced Baron Grant " as a swindler." So much for Mr. MacColl. My reply to Mr. Harper will be best given by appending the precise language of the Act 1 Eliz. and of the Rubric of 1559, that your readers may compare them with the present rubric. Rubric of 1559 :—" And here is to be noted that the minister at the time of the Communion, and-at all other times of his ministration, shall use such ornaments in the church as were in use by the authority of Parliament, &c., according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this book." Act 1 Eliz. :—" Provided always and be it enacted that such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof shall be retained and be in use as were in this Church of England by authority of Parliament, &c., until other order shall be therein taken, &c." Now I contend that the wording of the present Ornaments Rubric differs much from that of the Rubric of 1559, and agrees verbatim with the portion of the Act italicised above, with the ex- ception of certain words added after " ministers thereof," and the omission of the words " until other order, &c." I contend, further, that the addition of the very important words, " at all times of their ministration," then for the first time inserted after "ministers thereof," rendered it unnecessary to refer to the " other order" which had been taken, especially as there always was a doubt whether the Advertisements had as good" authority " as an Act of Parliament.
The present controversy is sufficient proof that the existing Rubric is capable of two interpretations, nor do I wish to deny that taken by itself it is ambiguous ; but when it is read as a whole, and in the light of contemporary history, it seems to me that much of this ambiguity disappears.
The true remedy, Sir, for the present unhappy state of affairs would be that the disputants should agree to obtain from the authorities of Church and State a real instead of a sham revision of our Rubrics. But this, under existing circumstances, is, I fear,
[*** The controversy on the Ridsdale Judgment must close here.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
