The New York herald., 1869-01-31
Tho R,su.l,.s Controversy in England.

The Rituaiisf Controversy I'm England.
The religious peculiarities of these later
days are receiving at the present moment a
striking illustration In England. High Church
and Low Church are terms which have been
long familiar to all who had any acquaintance
with the Anglican Establishment. Those two
sections Of the Church, though fed by the
same hand, have always, in doctrine, in prac-
tice and in sympathy, been wide as the poles
asunder. In its origin the Anglican Church
was a rather clumsy compromise, and during
no part of its history have the results of that
compromise been hid from public view. The
one party has all along adhered as closely as
possible to the tenets and practices of the
Church Of Rome. The other party has chung
with an equal tenacity to the tenets and prac-
tices most in favor at the time of the Reforma-
tion. The breach between the two parties was
considerably widened by the Tractarian con-
troversy which ragged with great violence
some twenty-five years ago--a controversy in
which DR.. Pusey, DR.. Manning, the two New
mans and the elder Froude took prominent
parts, and which resulted in certain painful
and rather contradictory secessions. DR..
Pusey remained, to lead in quieter fashion the
High Church party, or, as they gradually came
to be named, the Ritualists. Manning and
one of the Newmans went back to mother
Church. One of the Newmans became
an infidel, and the younger Froude,
although already an ordained deacon Of
the Church. made, for a time, ship
wreck of the faith. The latter, the now
famous historian Of England, though now re-
conciled to the Church, persists in consider
ing himself only layman. The Tractarian
controversy died not unnatural death. 1t
disappointed all parties, and all parties gave
itup.
In spite, however, of the general disappoint-
ment the old leayen remained and remained to
work. The High Church party clung to its
opinions, its principles and its practices. Not
able, or rather not willing, to reconcile itself
to the Evangelical party, it sought new outlet.
The Broad Church party, the muscular Chris
tianity set, was the natural result. Not in full
sympathy with ritualism and still less in SYM
pathy with dogmatism, which was the charac-
teristic of the Low Church, or Evangelical
party, the Broad Church cropped out in the
essays and Reviews" and in the still more
offensive illusions Of Bishop Colsnso. The
law was compelled to decide whether or not
the essayists and reviewers and whether or
not Bishop Colenso, who dared to ridcule the
mensuration and general calculations Of Moses,
were correct. The essayists and reviewers
went scot free, and Bishop Colenso was not
wholly condemned. It was very natural for
the men who went in for the real presence, for
candles and for a certain style of millinery, to
conclude that as the big offenders, those who
could call Bible history a fiction or worse,
could not be reached by the law of England,
they, the smaller offenders, ought to take
heart and 60 on in their work of reform.
Why should not there be a grander
exhibition Of the sacred elements? Why
should there not be more magnificent display
of the skill of the wax or tallow candle manu-
facturer? Why should not church millinery
grow and develop itself like Black Crook,
White Fawn and other millinery? Why?
Behold the reason and the character of ritual
Ism in England and also in America. Man
millinery, candles and certain other mysterious
fexions genu, and otherwise-such is ritual
ism.
II SO happens that the English Church is a
Church established by law. The objectors to
all this fine show have appealed to the law,
and the fine show, not being sanctioned by the
rubric has been condemned. The candles
are not orthodox; neither Is the man mil
linery; but the real presence is left an open
question. The body and blood of Christ may
be in the wafer, may be in the bread and wine.
or it may not; great and learned doctors have
differed on thi1 subject. The law, therefore,
prefers not to decide. S:ch is the decision
come to by the law courts, and such is now the
casus betli between the Ri.ualists and the anti
ritualists in England. Man millinery, candles,
wafers--what do they mean? Such is the con-
troversy which is now setting England by the
ears, and which has given Mr.. Martin and Mr.
McConnochie notoriety which puts Mr..
Gladstone, Mr. Disraeli, Mr.. Bright and Mr..
Lowe completely into the shade.
Why is il that in this country, with our
many races and our many churches, we have
not and cannot have any such controversy?
Why? We have our Anglican Church; we
have our Ritualists; we have our st. Adams.
But who cares about them? Who cares about
meddling witlfthem? No one. That some Of
our churches should have special fancy for
music, or candles, or millinery, or other shows,
is the business Of no one but paltry few in
whom no section Of our people have any in
terest. They may do as they please with
their Sunday exhibitions. If they pay, good.
II they do not pay, that is their own affair.
The English people must come round to our
view Of things and get done with church es-
tablshments. Perfect liberty of opinion and