Remarks upon the First Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual in connection with the integrity of the Book of Common Prayer: A lecture delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Brighton Branch of the English Church Union, Nov. 27, 1867Mayow, Mayow Wynell
Religion
Remarks upon the First Report of the Royal Commission on Ritual in connection with the integrity of the Book of Common Prayer: A lecture delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Brighton Branch of the English Church Union, Nov. 27, 1867
Mayow, Mayow Wynell
Church of England. Book of common prayer; Great Britain. Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Rubrics, Orders, and Directions for Regulating the Course and Conduct of Public Worship, &c, According to the Use of the United Church of England and Ireland; Ritualism -- History -- 19th century
But now to return. Let me explain the position which I am throughout
maintaining. I have not been speaking as the advocate of high Ritual. I
do not understand the aim of the great meeting held last week in St.
James’s Hall to be this advocacy; nor do I so understand the Memorial to
be laid before the Commissioners. It is not to defend high Ritual in
itself, however incidentally Ritual may be affected; but it is to defend
the Prayer Book. It is to preserve our present _status_. It is to allow
no door to be shut upon the Catholic side, whilst all are left open on
the Latitudinarian. It is to preserve an outwork which defends
doctrine—dearer than life to many among us. It is to keep all which
God’s providence has given us in our Reformation and subsequent
Revisions. It is to preserve our character and place in the face of
Christendom; it is to shew our loving memory and gratitude for all which
our blessed Lord has done for us, and is still doing at the right hand of
God, that we will not consent to have this our heritage mutilated or
taken from us. And surely in this all Churchmen who believe the ancient
Catholic Faith are interested with us, Ritualist or non-Ritualist. I am
not myself a Ritualist in the sense of using any of the higher forms of
ritual, ceremonial, or vesture. I believe indeed, and who that believes
the doctrine so represented, but _must_ believe, that England would be in
a higher, holier, and happier state, if, not neglecting one other point
of holiness, humility, repentance, or faith, yet, I say, if all among us
longed for and delighted in the higher and fuller expression of the
faith. But I do not think this fuller expression is to be forced on
those who are unprepared for it. I believe in many cases this would
hinder rather than help the doctrine. And I have been accustomed to
consider that the _abeyance_ of much of the usage (I take the term in its
true sense of a practical discontinuance, not of a legal forbidding,
which is the repeal or extinction of a thing), that such abeyance may
well justify us in not harshly shocking prejudices or wounding feelings;
and, therefore, certainly it is not as a mere movement in support of the
higher forms of ritual that I am addressing you:—but I ask this;—What is
the object of our opponents? Assuredly not merely to put down vestments,
or put out candles, or extinguish incense; but to drive out of the Church
of England the whole doctrine which those things represent; to expel
every one, whether Ritualist or not, who holds and teaches it; to run
riot in the destruction of every vestige of faith in the Real Presence,
in the Priesthood, the Altar, and the Sacrifice. The papers of the
Church Association (_passim_), the writings of the whole anti-Ritualistic
world, who are also the anti-Sacerdotal party, from the well-known noisy
and ignorant correspondents of the _Times_ to the miserable man who so
lately has shocked every feeling of decency in his, at first, most
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account