The Express.
London, England, 1867-09-11 00:00:00

NIGH RATIO AT LONDON.SETDOIL

nes DAT:ltainig:ZoE- fil RT. :: 1 Iteime IV. Oh. S.
rollohaow—Monalag. Ob. 50m..--Alterpooo. 112. 20m.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11.

Ir is impossible to read the evidence taken
before the Ritual Commission without remark,ig

the considerable extent to which this movement

is practically changing the polity of the Church of
EngLuid. The doctrinal and resthetic aspects of
Ritualiam are more obvious to the view, but this

incidental consequence is of itself of the first im-
portance. Nor has it altogether escaped public

rotice. It has been reserved for the Ritual;ts to

reduce enormously the popular estimate of the
power of the Bishops. Belonging themselves to

that ecclesiastical party which insists, or at least
has hitherto insisted, on Episcopacy as one of the
marks of the true Church, they have notwith-
standing done more to teach their own diocesans
the limits of their power than any other
of their brethren. The public has observed
with astonishment, not to say alarm, how little
control a bishop can exercise over a beneficed priest
who deliberately sets himself to un-Protestantise
Fs parish. We have seen bishops delivering or
publishing charges full of reproof of ritualistic
extravagance, and di'sting to deputations upon
the bighly dangerous character of the movement,
and immediately afterwards expressly oonsen.ing
to the use of the Ritualistic vestments and the
oope, with the use of incense and the processional
mess. This utter failure of episcopal authority
may be a misfortune, or the contrary ; but it is
one of the most conspicuous facts of the day.
Perhaps more important, however, than the decay
of .;:soopa: prestab• mg is sue ..=cline of the parochial
vatem which is steadily going on as one of the con-
sequences of the development of Ritualism. This
fact deserves far more attention than it has
hitherto received, and illustrations of it are abun-
dant in the evidence which accompanies the
Report of the Commission. The ri.malisec clergy
owe little or nothing to the parochiAl system, and
although quite ready to use the prerogatives
it gives them under certain circumstances, they
have little respect for it when it stands in
their way. So far as they feel bound to consult
the feelings and veshes of their people—which
they may do as a physician measures the capacity
of his patient—it is the congregation, not the
parish, and, of the congregation, more particularly
thosewho are communicants, that he keeps in view.
The great body of the parishioners may be either
neglecters of public worship or dissenters ; but the
communicants at the ritualistic churches are for
L tle most part such as the incumoent has edu-
cated to his own views or attracted from other
parishes.

- It is of course a condition of this method of
management that the funds necessary for provid-
ing for the sere :ma shall be raised in a form which
excludes the intervention of disaffected parties,
and the offertory exactly meets the case. At St.
Andrew's, Wells-street, the offertory amounted
las; year to 2,600/., out of which all the expenses
of the church and parish were paid. At St. Bar-
nabs', Pimlico, it reaches from 1,2001. to 1,3001.
a year. The St. Albans offertory last year
amounted to more than 2,0001. These gifts are
anonymous, and the donors neither enjoy nor
expect any oontrol over them. Of course the body
of the parishioners could not claim any right to
decide how the money should be applied,
even if they had the means of doing so ; the
funds have not an exclusively parochial origin,
because the congregation is not parochial. The
Rev. B. WEBB, incumbent of St. Andrew's, Wells-
street, stated before the Commission that the
greater number of his worshippers were non-
parishioners, although St. Andrew's is a PEEL
District church, intended for the benefit of the
poor population in which it is placed. It would
be easy to show in detail from the evidence,
how completely the parochial system is being
obliterated where Ritualism has been freely deve-
loped, and where the parishioners have a choice
of churches ; but we will take the direct evi-
dence of two witnesses on this point. The Rev.
W. E. Bs:elem., of Frome, returned the following
replies to questions put by the Dean of ELY :
Do many of the non-perishioners attend that church in
which you minister!—Yea, a greet many. The incumbents
of the town have agreed among themselves to permit their
people to go to whichever church they please, and there-
fore many of my people go to their churches, and many of
their people come to my church.
So that in Frome persons Gan satisfy their own tastes as
to the kind of service they will attend 7—Exactly so.
But it is with the entire approbation of the other incum-
bents that they do so 7—Yee.
There is no jealousy felt on the part of one incumbent if
one of his parishioners goes to another church because ha
likes the service better'—No ; that appertains to all the
offices of the church amongst ourselves, such as visiting the
sick, sad so on.