ETO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.") will leave it to
others to defend the divine constitution and mission of the Church against the interference of the world- power in things spiritual, which is at the root of the whole Ritual controversy, and I will only ask you to allow me to answer your question,—" Where is the vote of Convocation pronouncing the Ritualist interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric to be the true interpretation P" As regards Canterbury, on July 5th, 1875, the following resolution was passed by the Lower House :—" In consideration of the long disuse of certain of the ventures specified in the First Prayer-book of Edward VI., and referred to in the Ornaments Rubric," &c. On July 3rd, 1879, after specifying the surplice, stole, &c., as vestures to be worn, the Lower House goes on to say, " Nevertheless, he that ministreth in the Holy Communion may use, with the surplice and stole, the other vestures specified in the First Prayer•book of ling Edward VL," &c.
As regards the York Convocation, in spite of the endeavours of the Archbishop, the Bishop of Manchester, and the Dean of Chester to persuade them to curtail the liberties of Churchmen, and to order the surplice, hood, and stole, only, at Holy Com- munion, that body refused to repeal the Ornaments Rubric, knowing full well the historical value attaching to it on the Ritualist side.
The Southern Bishops, no doubt, did not agree to the resolu- tions of the Lower House, which I have quoted. But the Bishops represent no one but themselves, unless it be the State, by whom they live, and move, and have their being. Though their writs of summons to Parliament direct them to bring the Proctors of their clergy "to consent to such things as shall be ordained," yet in the burials question and the divorce question they went clean in the face of the Clergy.
And this it is which is bringing about a catastrophe. The Clergy do not trust the Bishops, as a body, and, rightly or wrongly, they are in constant dread lest faith, or morals, or ritual should be imperilled by the action of the Bishops and Parliament, or by unrighteous decisions of the Judicial Com- mittee, acting on supposed policy.
If, however, disestablishment and disruption come, it will be entirely owing to want of statesmanship,—i.e., large-hearted tolerance, on the part of our de facto rulers. Compre- hension necessitates liberty of teaching and variety in worship. It necessitates also liberty of choice on the part of congregations, or any sections of them. Arrangements for different types of worship at different hours, and facilities for establishing proprietary chapels, would relieve the strain. If the strain is not relieved, there will be a crisis, for the simple reason that the present state of things is indefensible, either upon Church principles, or upon those of the age in which we live.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
