The Sun.
London, England, 1868-12-31 00:00:00

THE RITUAL JUDGMENT.

The Rev. Blomfield Jaason, of Stoke Newington,
answers Dr. Pusey's letter on the ritual judgment.
He thinks that Dr. Pusey is very sanguine in suppos-
ing that if the English Church were disestablished
another could take its place. Mr. Jackson says :
" Disestablish everywhere but in England, and the
Church of England is still left. Disestablish in
England, and the Church of England will be gone.
Something else may be. constructed, worse or better,
from the sundered fragments ; but though it may
be called Church of England,' similarity of name
will no more imply continuous identity than an
inherited patronymic identifies father with son.
Indeed, only the very sanguine can hope that when
one phoenix shall have vanished but one will rise.
Probability points to the miseries of a disputed
succession. Mr. Jackson sees little force in the
objection that. the 'Privy Council sanctions " alter-
nate laxity in matters of doctrine, and, more than
rigidity in matters. of ceremony." Rather
he considers this no objection at all. .The Church,
he holds, has always permitted the widest diversity of
opinion on the part of individual members, whether
laymen or clergymen. Dean M'Neile, Dr. Rowland
Williams, and Dr. Pusey may talk, may write, may
even preach, and the State does not fetter them
because they compel the assent of no one except by
the force of moral persuasion. It is otherwise when
the advocate of any one set of extreme opinions
begins to express them through modifications of
the service intended for the use of all. " The
Communion Office, for example, combines what may be
called a Ronian and' a Protestant sentiment. It
would be quite possible for an ultra-Protestant
clergyman, if he allowed himself the lib:'rty claimed
by so-called Ritualists, to celebrate the Eucharist in
such a manner as to -eliminate from the service all
associations but those of a meal partaken of on the
knees. Would he be justified in so doing ? Would
he have any right to wail over the persecution
he suffered if he were forbidden to interlard
the service with Zwinglian hymns, and handle
the. elements with the familiarity usual in
the case of common. viands ? . . The appa-
rent, liberty of the minister would be the bondage of
the people. The inclusion of the greatest possible
number of English Christians in the English
National Church requires that while in the arrange-
ment of the accessories of worship the fullest
allowance should be made for different tastes
and habits, there should be a line distinctly drawn
and rigidly enforced, marking the limit beyond
which, in the opinion of the mass of
English laymen, any variety or eccentricity in the
rendering of the Liturgy would so shock and disgust
Churchmen as to prevent their being able to join in
the service. This laxity in doctrine and fixity in
ceremony both mean the same thing—comprehen-
siveness. Thus interpreted, this judgment, as others,
is seen to be conservative of the Catholic character
of the English Church. It does not pronounce
against even Mr. Mackonochie's continuing to serve
his country as an officer of the National Church. It
simply on the moot points in the cause forbids Mr.
Mackonochie to dwarf to sectarian proportions a
service of a larger and better spirit."

Ocindlah, one of the most powerful chiefs in India, ana
descendant of the famous prince who opposed Wellington
at Assaye, has given his testimony to the blessing of Eng-
lish rule in preserving the peace of the empire. Whilst
rapine and murder formerly prevailed everywhere, and
men were obliged to travel in large bodies, Scindiah is
able to leave his capital without apprehension, and his
absence excites no distrust. In the days of native
rule he would have needed an escort. Now he seats
himself alone in the mail cart. No such result
would be attainable under a native Government.
Nevertheless, we were not popular in India. The natives
are prosperous under British rule, but the Prince, who
hears much that never comes to English ears, says that
native government would probably be preferred. We
have too snuch legislation, it appears, and confuse the
Hindoos by the multiplicity of our laws,' some of which
are directed against prejudices which had better, perhaps,
be left alone. Lastly, we are strangers in the land, and
this is the chief source of the difficulty—one, too, which;
there is no means of avoiding except by the process of
time. As the Times remarks, if putlic order, social
security, popular wealth, and national progress follow on
our rule, the people of India must, sooner or later, recog•
nise the fact, and do us justice in their ultimate o^n-
clusi,ons.