NOTE. THE several contributors to this Volume are responsible only for the statements and opinions contained in their own Essays. INNT ESSAY I. RITUALISM AND UNIFORMITY. BY BENJAMIN SHAW, M.A., LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. B CONTENTS OF ESSAY I. 1. Impatience in the present day of questions of mere external uniformity. 2. The question of Ritualism not such a question. 3. It is a question of acts done in the prosecution of a purpose which is (a). Important in itself. (b). Common to a number of persons combined to carry it out. (c). Hostile to the Reformation settle ment of the Church of England. 4. Evidence in support of allegation (a). 5. Evidence in support of allegation (b). 6. Evidence in support of allegation (c). 7. Peculiar constitution of the Church, and how it bears on the subject. 8. Consideration of the objection that there are variations from uniformity on the part of the opposite school in the Church. 9. These variations distinguishable in nature and principle from those of Ritualism. 10. Consideration of the assertion that extreme Protestant opinions are even more alien from the Church than are the principles of Rome itself. 11. Recognition of Protestant bodies in former times. 12. Did the last revision of the Prayerbook effect a change in this respect? 13. Opinions of Bishop Cosin. 14. And of Archbishop Wake. 15. Resumption and conclusion of the argument. Under the circumstances at present existing the rules of the Church on the subject of uniformity may fairly be appealed to against Ritualist practices. RITUALISM AND UNIFORMITY. I. At the close of the seventeenth century, when the Turks broke into Christendom and besieged Vienna, Louis XIV. suspended his operations against the Spaniards, saying, "I will never attack a Christian prince while Christendom is in danger from the infidels." With what amount of sincerity these words were uttered by the French king we need not inquire. I have quoted them merely because they seem to express a feeling very prevalent just now with thoughtful men, and which, in their case at all events, is sincere enough. They see that the foundations of the faith are brought into question, and that the battle rages round the Ark itself. And they not unnaturally wonder that those who, like Ritualists and their opponents, profess to hold in common the essentials of Christianity, cannot merge their lesser differences in its defence. If Ephraim (they think) would cease to envy Judah, and Judah forbear to vex Ephraim, the spoiling of the Philistines would make greater progress. And this is felt the more strongly because men look upon the contention about Ritualism as relating mainly to the degree of outward uniformity to be observed in public worship. And a rigid uniformity in outward matters is in itself alien from the temper of the age. We pride ourselves on looking everywhere beneath the surface of things, in being disciples of the spirit and not of the letter, in detecting the deeper unities which underlie apparent diversities. We cannot wonder, therefore, if men cry out that to attach much importance either way to ceremonial details, when weightier matters press for a hearing, shows a narrow and bigoted mind. II. Now the answer to all this, so far as the case of the Ritualists is concerned, lies, as I conceive, mainly, in a direct denial that it is a mere question of ceremonial details at all. The opponents of Ritualism would use the same language as would be used by a minister of state when justifying restrictions upon liberty at a time of national danger. If pressed by the common-places about the rights of the subject and the tyranny of minute and vexatious interference, a minister so situated would reply that things small in themselves become important when they are known to be overt acts done in pursuance of a common purpose inimical to the constitution of the country. He would say that when a combination is proved to exist for the carrying out of such a purpose, restrictions which at other times might well be suffered to lie dormant, must be enforced as the only available means of averting the common danger. A great and perilous movement may chance to be amenable to the law only in some indirect form, and upon what an uninformed person would call a mere bye-point. The technical charge by which it is brought before the court may in no degree express to the mind of a common reader the real nature or extent of the evil. He may even be tempted to speak of it as a petty and unworthy proceeding. But the statesman knows that, as on a comparatively small field the fate of empires may be fought out, so on that narrow issue may depend the result of a vast struggle between those who maintain and those who would overthrow the constitution. But it will be said this is all plausible enough, but when we come back from politics to Church matters, where is the proof of such a dangerous combination against our Ecclesiastical Constitution? Let us first consider what we have to show in order to prove our case. We have to establish, III. (1.) That the details of ceremonial, which in themselves appear trivial, really derive magnitude from being acts done in the prosecution of an important purpose. (2.) That this purpose is common to a number of persons combined together to carry it out. (3.) That this purpose is one hostile to the maintenance of the great settlement of the Church of England at the time of our national Reformation. On none of these heads is the evidence far to seek mus confitentes reos." "Habe IV. Thus as regards the first point, we find in the Directorium |