The Sun. — 1868-12-31 (London, England)

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 supposing 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 " alternate 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 apparent, 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 arrangement 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—comprehensiveness. 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 English 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^nclusi,ons.