the Reformation, quietly remain in the position in which the Reformation placed them, and seem unconscious that a causeless breach of the Church's unity can be visited with any penalties: that they transfer their allegiance from living Bishops to dead ones, who give very little trouble, who will speak exactly when they are required to speak, and will make no remonstrance when they are neglected and that they act as if they supposed the power of instituting rites and ceremonies to belong not to the Church, but to each individual clergyman. Men who act thus are most unfairly accused of Romanizing tendencies, because none are less likely than they to submit themselves to the Church of Rome, which they could not join without exchanging self-will for obedience, and coming under the dominion of a fixed code instead of being allowed to devise one for themselves.

GEORGE SALMON.

ESSAY IX.

THE REVISIONS OF THE

LITURGY CONSIDERED IN THEIR BEARING

ON RITUALISM.

By W. G. HUMPHRY, B.D.,

VICAR OF ST. MARTIN-IN-THE-FIELDS, LONDON; LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

THE REVISIONS OF THE LITURGY,

CONSIDERED IN THEIR BEARING ON RITUALISM.

L-THE English Church, since the Reformation, has been sorely troubled by questions relating to the vesture of the Clergy and other external accessories of Divine service. These questions, however unimportant they may have been in themselves, were debated with as much warmth as if they concerned the essentials of religion; and they led to schisms which have never been entirely healed. The ritualistic movement of the present day has also to do with externals; but it involves matters of much greater consequence. It seeks to bring back into use rites and ceremonies which have long been disused, for the avowed purpose of inculcating a certain form of doctrine. Though by no means a complete definition of the movement, this would probably be allowed, both by its advocates and its opponents, to be a fair description of its most distinctive and most serious aspect.

Compare for a moment the present controversy with those which have borne most resemblance to it in former times., For more than a century after the establishment of the reformed ritual, there continued to be a feverish state of feeling with regard to rites and ceremonies. The surplice was vehemently denounced by a party in the Church as a rag of popery;" the use of the sign of the cross in baptism was looked upon as an idolatrous practice, or stigmatised as "a sacrament of human institution;" the giving of the ring in matrimony was said to be either frivolous or superstitious; the custom of kneeling at the reception of the Holy Communion was charged with being an adoration of the consecrated elements. But the objection to these and other usages was founded rather upon a blind prejudice, or a vague suspicion, than on an intelligent appreciation of their proper purpose: while it was never asserted in their defence that they symbolised a particular doctrine, or that they were anything more than good old customs, worthy to be retained because of their antiquity, or because they contributed to give

beauty and solemnity to the public worship of Almighty God. The only case in which there could be fair ground for the imputation of a doctrinal meaning was the kneeling of the communicants at the Lord's table; but in that case the doctrinal meaning was disclaimed, and to prevent misapprehension, the "black rubric,” as it has been called, was added, in 1552, at the end of the Communion Service. The controversy was renewed with fresh virulence from time to time; but the stoutest adversaries of ceremonial must have been convinced at last that no use was made of the objectionable rites for the propagation of objectionable doctrine.

A few ceremonies indeed there were, expressive of doctrine, which, having been allowed to remain in the first Prayer-book of Edward VI., were afterwards omitted. Such were the use of the chrism and the unction in baptism. They were dropped, however, not from a dislike of their doctrinal significance, for it does not appear that any objection was made to them on that account, but because they were obnoxious as ceremonies. They fared the fate of other parts of the old ritual, which never were shibboleths of doctrine, such as the Office used once a month for the benediction of the fresh water placed in the font, and the use of the sign of the cross in that and other Services, especially in the Order of the Holy Communion, at Confirmation, and at Matrimony.

Within our own time the surplice has again become a subject of controversy and a sign of division. Its use in the pulpit was resumed, not because it symbolised a dogma, but because it was considered to be the proper and prescribed dress of the preacher: it was objected to as indicating the leaning of those who wore it towards the so-called "Tractarian" party in the Church. And whether the resumption of it as the preacher's garb be considered judicious or not, whether rubrics and canons be cited for or against it, whether or not, on the grounds of a true symbolism, it be thought appropriate in the pulpit, no one probably would now contend that its recommendation, or its offence, consists in its being the exponent of any particular doctrine.

II.-But it is not so with the usages which, within the last few years, have been systematically revived, and which are included