from their significance on the question of intention, there is nothing to show that the memorialists would have felt so strongly about them. Hence it is not easy to see the justice of drawing a parallel between the case disclosed by the address, and any shortcomings in rubrical exactness merely as such. The Bishop, in framing the paragraph under consideration, was no doubt moved by a desire to act, and was probably under the impression that he was acting, in a spirit of equitable impartiality. But it may be allowable to express a doubt whether the requirements of such a spirit were altogether what his Lordship seems to have supposed. For impartiality, even in its judicial sense-the impartiality of a court of law compelled to come to some decision on every one of the matters brought before it does not consist in treating all offences as equal, but in duly estimating the importance of each on its proper grounds. And if this be so even with a judge, it is still more the case when, as here, the question is not so much judicial as administrative. For the appeal was made to the Bishop, as a governor exercising the executive power of the Church; and the real point was, whether the cases of the two schools of theology were so nearly on a par that no valid distinction could be drawn between them, and that no steps could fairly be taken on one side without a necessity to take them also on the other. Now in this point of view, it is submitted that it is not usually considered indispensable, for the sake of impartiality, that a government should decline to interfere in a pressing case, because some minor evil happens not to have been effectually redressed. Thus, to take rather a strong instance, the authorities did not think it incumbent on them to inquire whether due punishment had been awarded to all street boys who had let off squibs on the 5th of November, before they determined to prosecute the parties who fired the barrel at Clerkenwell. So again, the Attorney-General does not ask whether every hot-headed speaker has been strictly called to account, before he takes proceedings for sedition or treason-felony against men who deliberately conspire to preach disaffection. Even where offences are committed against the same statute, they are not necessarily of equal importance. What would be thought of Commissioners of Police or Magistrates if they declined to enforce the Metropolitan Police Act against persons provoking a breach of the peace, or driving furiously to the danger of life, or being intoxicated and riotous,* on the ground that the complainant happened to be guilty of having his doormat shaken after the hour of eight in the morning, or did not sufficiently cleanse the footway before his house?† These are extreme cases, no doubt, and I deprecate the supposition that I mean to compare Ritualists, or their opponents, to these respective classes of offenders. But it is by extreme cases that the soundness of a principle is tested, and I am only using a logical right in so testing the principle before us. Let it then be carefully noted that the question is, not whether any departure from the rubric is to be advocated and justified (a position of a wholly different kind)—but whether, looking on the subject dispassionately and in a judicial temper, there is really any fair comparison to be drawn between the proceedings of Ritualists and the irregularities attributed to their opponents. Because, if not, a rigorous enforcement of the law against every small variation from it might possibly be to fall into that very bondage to the letter-that very system of inelastic uniformity-which, as stated at the commencement of this paper, is peculiarly distasteful to the spirit of our times. To enforce a stern code as the only means of dealing with a powerful combination is one thing; to enforce the same code to crush every deviation from the smallest article of it is quite another thing. It is not usual for a prudent government to confound the two, or to conceive that they cannot take the former course without first settling how far it is expedient to adopt the latter also. On the contrary, a sound policy deals at once and vigorously with what is actually dangerous, and leaves minor questions for subsequent settlement, or allows them to settle themselves. IX. It may be said, however, that we have no right to assume that the sins of the Low-Church party are of the comparatively venial kind now suggested. Let us therefore look at the point more closely. We have examined the nature and animus of * See 2 and 3 Vict. c. 47, § 60. + Ibid., § 54. Ritualism; let us now consider whether the characteristics of Low-Church departures from the rubric present like or unlike features. And first, these departures cannot be called innovations. With scarcely any exception of importance, the services are performed by the Clergy of the school of which I am now speaking, in the manner common throughout the parochial churches of England at the beginning of this century and long previously. Be it that it is slovenly or unauthorised, still it is no novelty. It follows, therefore, that members of the school in question are not chargeable with having originated the acts or defaults spoken of; still less have they originated them as distinctive of their own party, or expressive of their peculiar views. If here and there any practice or omission appears to savour of a doctrinal peculiarity, it is, at all events, usually an isolated matter. There is little unity or system about the ritual deviations of Low Churchmen. They do not form a compact body, designed and put together for the direct purpose of giving outward expression to a system of dogmas. No controversial treatises have been written by theologians of this school laying down and advocating a detailed code of observance, or nonobservance, as to matters of public worship, with a view to promote the reception of what are known as Low-Church tenets. We must here distinguish (if we would come to an equitable decision) between what is introduced in order to express a dogma held by those who introduce it, and what by its introduction happens to offend against a dogma held by others. Evening Communions are a case in point. These, no doubt, give offence to the Ritualist school, and are not in harmony with their views as to the Lord's Supper; but they have not been introduced in order to promote an antagonistic view on the subject. Motives of convenience, and the desire of offering greater facilities to certain classes to communicate, appear to have led to the step. It does not seem to have been taken in the interest of a peculiar doctrinal system. So again, the practice of saying the words of administration to more than one communicant at a time, is a usage, the source of which is to be traced to a desire to lessen the fatigue and length of the service where there are large Communions, rather than to any tenet peculiar to those who adopt it. It has, no doubt, been alleged that it is due to Calvinistic opinions; but there is little doubt that this is an error, and that the number of clergymen who adhere to the custom for any such reason is infinitesimal.* This point is the more worthy of notice, because if this school *Supposing that the witnesses before the Ritual Commission were well chosen so as to be fair representatives of their schools, we find the evidence explicit on the points just mentioned. The Rev. D. Wilson says, "I repeat the words once to each railful of communicants" and adds, "when I first became vicar the sacrament was admi nistered to every one or two persons. I was compelled by positive necessity to make a change. My health was not very strong; I very nearly fainted under the fatigue, and was compelled by the necessity of the case to do what your Grace is aware the Bishops are accustomed to do at the time of confirmation, the rubric being very nearly the same in reference to each. I was obliged by the necessities of the case to vary the mode of administration. I perhaps may be permitted to add, that, when the numbers are small, I quite feel that to administer to each individual is the correct and preferable plan. It is simply with me a matter of necessity."-Ritual Commission Evidence, No. 12. And the Rev. E. Clay, being interrogated as to his ground for the same course, says: "It is the ground of convenience. It would be almost impossible to administer to between 300 and 400 persons after a full service separately."-No. 3161. As respects evening communions, Mr. Clay states his reason to be as follows:"We have communion in the evening for the sake of the poor, the working classes, servants, and professional men (I mean specially now medical men, who, as you are aware, cannot attend morning service). It was desirable to try it. I tried it really as an experiment, but I found it succeed so marvellously, and it seemed to be so much appreciated, that I have continued it." Being asked if he had tried early morning communions, he says, "I did try, but I did not find anything like the same success. Certainly none of the poor attended."-Nos. 3114, 3115. I am not giving any opinion as to the propriety of the usages here mentioned. I simply cite this evidence to show that they rest on a supposed ground of practical expediency, not on a dogmatic ground. I subjoin two more extracts in proof of the statement that most irregularities with which the Low Church school are chargeable are not of their introduction, but have simply been continued as they were handed down from former days. The Rev. D. Wilson says-" The point I was anxious to press with regard to the uniformity of practice in our parish was simply this, that during these hundred years, or nearly so, that is, during the time of Bishop Lowth, Bishop Porteus, Bishop Randolph, Bishop Howley, Bishop Blomfield, and your Lordship, the services have been conducted as they are now without any objection being made by the Ordinary for the time being."-No. 27. Dean Close says of the services in Carlisle Cathedral-" They are conducted as they have been for the last hundred years; I cannot tell whether that is consistent with the rubrics or not; I took them as I found them, and I carried them on."-No. 1479. I have not judged it necessary in this paper to say anything as to those of the Low Church school who seek for Liturgical revision, and for a plain reason. They seek to attain their object by legislation, which involves full notice and open discussion, and (if successful) the consent of the ruling powers. The peculiarity of Ritualism is that it seeks to make what is equivalent to a vast legislative change, without legislation. It seeks by the mere will of a party to introduce and maintain vital alterations in the system of the Church without the sanction of competent authority. In other words, it contemplates revolution, not constitutional reform. had been minded to act as the Ritualist school have done, in pressing into their service every rubric, the letter of which could be made to favour their views, though at the expense of recognised usage, they might have found a notable opportunity for so doing. At the commencement of the Communion Service it is directed that the Table at the Communion time "shall stand in the body of the church, or in the chancel, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said." As in parish churches, prayers are said in the body of the church, it would seem that a strict conformity to this rubric requires the table to be moved from the chancel to the nave when there is a Communion. And it must not be forgotten that in the stone altar case, the Court of Arches laid stress on this rubric, and explained the motive, viz.-"that for the purpose of removing the superstition connected with the Popish mass, it (the Table) was to be movable, as the occasion might require."* It is clear, therefore, that a great opportunity here existed for the LowChurch school to make a demonstration in favour of their own views, and to give a blow to the sacredness attached by Ritualists to the "Sanctuary" or "Sacrarium," which is defined by the Directorium Anglicanum as "The most holy place enclosed by the altar rails." But such a step, however tempting in this view, would unquestionably have involved a considerable deviation from established custom, and would have offended the feelings of many. Accordingly the question has not been stirred; but the conduct of those whose interest it would have been to stir it, stands in marked contrast with that of the Ritualists in regard to the "ornament" rubric.† And here it may be worth observing that Dr. Littledale, in speaking of the Communion Service, treats "the liberty of removing the Holy Table," as "now practically abrogated." He appears to have forgotten that his party, when speaking of the "ornament rubric, have put forward in the strongest manner the argument that no rubric can be practically abrogated by any amount of Faulkner v. Litchfield, 1 Robertson, p. 251; and see the judgment of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in Westerton v. Liddell, Moore's Rep., p. 176 et seq. How long this forbearance may last is another question. It is hard for any body of men to see the revival of obsolete laws tolerated only when they make in favour of the tenets of their opponents. Catholic Revision,' p. 22. |