The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1867-03-19 00:00:00

HIGH RITUAL

WITH Fenianism in Ireland unhinging the
whole of society by its insane outrages,
Trades Unions at home threatening to
paralyse the active employment of capital,
and Mr. Reales and the Reform League
thundering at the gates of the House of
Commons, it must be a subject of no
ordinary importance that can attract and Ss
the attention of men of all ranks and all
political parties. And yet the subject of
Ritualism, as lately introduced Into the
Established Church, seems to be taking the
lead of every other question. We find it
uppermost in the thoughts of those who
dwell in the metropolis; and the most retired
village in our agricultural districts is not
uninfluenced by the discussions that it has
raised. The Timee devotes whole columns
to its consideration, and Peach embalms it
in cartoons and epigrams. The charges of
members of the Episcopal Bench are full of
it, and the platform and lecture-room echo
with its condemnation or its praise. Ritualism
is no doubt a great fact, whether for good or
evil. It ha, made its appearance amongst
us, and the question is how are we to deal
with it Shall we welcome it, and permit
its naturalisation ? or shall we place it, as a
suspicious alien, under the surveillance of
iiur eceesiastical police? Whatever is to
tic done with it, it is now clear that
things cannot remain in their present
state of uncertainty. Nuch a system
is too powerful, too aggressive, to occupy its
present position on sufferance, nor can it
reasonably object to have its right and title
to a place in the Church of England settled

and defined in the Courts of Law, or by the
Houses of Par!lament. If it be of the
Church, let it continue is the Church, and
those that are dissatisfied with it must
submit, unless by external pressure the
Church can be altered ;if it be sot of the
Church, then let it be suppressed or com-
pelled to exercise its energies In some other
ecclesiastical field. Any way the question
ought to be settled; and we therefore look
upon the Earl of Shaftesbury's Bill which he
has introduced into the House of Lords, as
an important step in the right direction. It
is importar.t, because the fact of his intro-
ducing it is a public declaration that the
Laity are an important part of the Church,
and have a right to see that Oat Church is
rightly administered. It is a safe and
prudent measure, because it alters nothing,
and adds nothing: it only enforces a canon
of the Church, that is being ignored and set
at naught. 111 course there is great opposi-
tion to it. When was there ever a useful
measure proposed, but there were always
vested interests to interfere with it ? And
so the great opposition arises from the bishops,
who claim a vested interest in all ecclesiastical
legislation. At present that opposition takes
the form of a rival Bill which the Amhbishop
hopes to introduce shortly with the con-
currence of his brethren of the episcopal
bench: but we may gather from the utter-
ances of some of their lordships what kind
of measure they are likely to introduce.
In dealing with this question, the Bishops
of Chester, Gloucester, and Oxford, while
professing great objection to ultra Ritualism,
have bestowed all there praise on those they
pretended to condemn; and kept all their
rebukes for those who found fault with
them: while the Bishop of this diocese,
contrary to hia usual kindness and geniality,
has exhibited but scant courtesy to those
who have memoralized .him on the subject.
Again the Time. is decided in its oppo_
sition to the Bill of Lord Shaftesbury.
This may seem steange to those who
are not acquainted with the manage-
ment of that paper, alter all it has said, and
all it has admitted into its columns ; but
when we read the language of the Bishop of
Oxford in his recent charge, and see his
decided dislike to, if not fear of, all legisla-
tion and legal proceedings on the subject,
we shall not be surprised to find that, while
opposing Ritualism is a principle, and ad-
mitting and approving of thepowerful writings
of "S. GA)." to please and fall in with the
growing feeling of the people at large, it should
oppose any definite and pr ictical method
of resisting it, to please the personal friend of
its principal proprietor. The Bielicp writes
thus:—" Then beyond this again, there is the
danger of provoking what is too likely to prove
the injurious, becalm, if for no other reason,
the premature legislation of Convocation and
Parliament iii these high matters. And again
there is the dancer too, of waking up the half-
s'ambering spiiit of religious suspicion and
narrow intolerance, which needs but to be
, awakened to do, as in the times of
1 our fathers, deeds of ignorance and brutal
violent* which might make us hide
our faces before Christendom in shame."
Whilst therefore his Lordship has any influence
on the Bench of Ili/Mops, we can never hope to
have this question settled. There can be no
doubt that the Ritualists are afraid of appeals to
the law. It is one thing to have their claims
argued by theologians. another to have them
sifted by clear headed and unbiassed lawyers.
who will examine the evidence of Dr. Posey or
the Bishop of Oxford, with the same care and
Impartiality, as that of poor Bill Sykes, or any
other plaintiff or defendant. An able writer in
" he Church in the Worle endestours to show
that this desire for legislation on the part of
Anti-Ritualists is an evidence of their not being so
truly mmuteut in their churchmanship, as those
against whom they seek for legislation—but this
is begging the question. The point at issue is
this :—Are these new practices, ceremonies, vest-
ments. (covering, as they do. the introduetion of
doctrines hitherto unknown to our Church) con-
sistent with ti's formularies of our Church or no
It is easy for men to dispense with new legisla-
tion, who ignore the plain deolarution of the
law as it stands already ; what we want settled
is whether the law of the Church recognizes this
Ritualism or not; and Parliament and the
courts of law can alone determine it. Another
evidence of this shrinking from legal and Par-
lialtientary action is to be found ill the threats
thrown out of retaliation. To these Dr. M'Nei'e
and others have responded by a plain challenge
to the Bishops, which, if they are consistent,
they are honed to take up, but which they never
will take up, because they know that the
threats are not real—they mean nothing. and are
only adopted in order to stave off a settlement
of the who e question We are told to look at
the immense congregations that ire gathered by
these minim, and the great strenth that they give
to the Church, and the consequent weakness of
Dissent. The greater their influence the more
necessary to see if it is built up on a right
; otherwise, it is a vast building
raised on sand, the more rapid its increase,
the more sure its fall and destruction,
when it as found that it has nothing solid to stand
upon ; and so if this movement be let alone, a
few years will not only develop its powers, but
show its essential inconsistency with that church
within which it has sheen itself, and then it can
only be stopped by the destruction of the Church
itself. We ask for t otbing unfair; all we seek
for is investigation, and we are unwilling to leave
the matter in the haods of those who are afraid to
deal with it. Meanwhile the question thus
raised is doing good Is leading men to think,
who never thotight before—to read and examine
for themselves; and with perfect confidence in the
result, we have no hesitation in expressing our
hearty thanks to Lord Shaftesbury for having
taken the "bull by the horns." Whether his
bill pass into law or not, it will shew the House
of Lords that men are in earnest on this subject,
it will show the Bishops that the eyes of the
Gauntry are upon, them, and that the Church will
no longer be trifled with, to suit their timidity
or love of quietness.