I cannot resist the temptation to add a few words more from the Bishop’s work, so aptly do they meet many of the popular prejudices and fallacies pervading the unreflecting or intolerant public mind at the present time. After some excellent remarks upon the symbolism of the ministerial garments, their adoption under Divine command in the old dispensation, and their naturally passing from the Jews to “the Gentiles on the strongest ground of Scriptural consistency,” he adds, “there are many good and respectable Christians in our day who regard this matter of distinctive ministerial garments with contempt, and sometimes even with positive aversion, because they look upon it as one of the corruptions of Romanism. But the ancient Church of God is not to be regarded with contempt by any man who professes to believe the Bible. That sacred institution was Divine, and was given by the Almighty Himself to His own chosen and peculiar people. None but a fool would say that the Church of the Jews had any connection with the system of Popery. Nor will any sensible man pretend that the Reformation of the 16th century was occasioned by the dress or ecclesiastical order of the Church of Rome; which are in no respect more splendid or imposing than the usages of the Oriental Churches.” {27b} And, further on, after having examined various points of evidence as to the principles and law of the Church of England in the matter, he adds, “to my mind, therefore, the legal position of our English brethren in this matter of Ritualism is justifiable as to its main design, and stands on a far higher ground of Scripture, law, and reason, than that of their adversaries. So long as the great doctrines of the Reformation are faithfully preached by the clergy I can see no danger that a solemn, rich, and attractive ritual will ever lead any one to Popery. Is it not more reasonable to believe that the restoration of the old ceremonial which existed in the second year of Edward VI. would give our Church the advantage which now forms the most alluring characteristic of Rome? . . . Has not truth as good a right as falsehood to be adorned with beauty? And is it to be questioned that religion should favourably affect the senses, in order that it may better reach the soul?” {28a}