The Express.
London, England, 1867-09-07 00:00:00

MGM \WIZ AT LONDON BRUM.

Es DATZi•WinTn7.-s4-07.—_.-.AT1:7070.17 ab. Ns.
rtrikelloW-311@11s& at 6m.... „Attamoon. Wu. 46 al.

LONDON. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7.

Tus evidence taken by the Royal Commission on
Ritual and now published enables us to understand
a little better the singular character of the First
Report of that heterogeneous and discordant body.
By its aid we can account for a meagreness and I
poverty of thought unprecedented we believe in
the reports of Royal Commissions; for the studious
avoidance of points which the Commission were
expressly commanded to examine ; for the in-
sufficiency of the considerations alleged ; and
for the mingled violence and feebleness of the
practical conclusions. The last witness was
examined on the 16th of July, and on the same
day the Commission began their deliberations.
Ten meetings were subsequently held, of which all
we learn from the minutes is told in the constantly
recurring line, " The Commission deliberated."
But the Report carries its history on its very face.
The Commissioners shrink from publicly and
freely treating the questions they were appointed
to examine. They had before them parochial ex-
perience, learned researches, legal arguments, epis-
copal consultations, and the report of Convoca-
tion, and it was reasonable to expect that from
these materials they would have elaborated a de-
liberate opinion fit to enlighten and guide the
action of the Legislature. In the place of a fruit-
ful discussion we get an arbitrary recommendation,
or rather the suggestion and promise of a recom-
mendation, one which may temporarily help the
Commissioners out of • difficulty, but will as-
suredly be of no use to the Church of England.
This barrenness of the labours of the Commis-
sion is not the lees to be lamented because it
was clearly foreseen.

The cardinal point of the First Report is a
statement contained in its second paragraph that the
vestments are by no members of the Church regarded
as essential, while they give offence to many.
This is the entire basis of the recommendations to
which the Commissioners proceed. Looking at
the importance thus given to a single word, we are
led to ask wing is essential ? Are the two sacra-
ments essential to grace 1 Is collective and out-
ward worship essential to religion ? Are spoken
words essential to prayer 4 But one answer can
be given to each of these questions, and that answer
shows that the most valuable aids and instru-
mentalities of religion may be found among things
which no one would like to say were essential. The
Ritual now in question is but the manifestation
and expression of that which its adherents believe
to be of the utmost importance. It is a language
which speaks to the eye. If it proclaims to the
young and the ignorant every week and oftener what
is untrue, the fact is of must serious moment, and
worth any amount of investigation and trouble
which learned and noble persons can bestow upon
it. But if the doctrines it expresses are true—if our
priests can regenerate our children, absolve us
from our sins, and by a few words work a
miraculous change upon the altar--it is the
merest trifling to squabble over their claims to do
these things in gorgeous raiment. If dress and
ornament are not objects of great importance,
why all this fuss about them—why public meet-
ings and irritating discussions--why the Royal
Commission itself ? There has been much talk
about the " millinery " of the church : but let
the Commissioners, and those who appoint them,
take care that, while they hold their peace
about the preaching of doctrines which our
fathers renounced for the most solemn reasons, and
propose to make laws about vestments, they do
not themselves sink to the occupation and rank
of " milliners."

The Ritualists are charged, and justly, with
exalting the importance of the outward and visible
when they load the public service of the church
with ceremonial obscuring the simplicity of the
Gospel. At the same time, it must be admitted
that their ceremonies and vesture; being symboli-
cal, are the appropriate dress of their system of
faith. But what would be said of a policy which
should allow the spirit and grow angry with the
. . . .

_ .. .
letter--should tolerate the soul upon the strict
understanding that it was never to appear in a
body 1 Against such a policy the charge of a
false externalism would surely lie, and well would