Now from this, which is the whole substance of the Report, it is evident that the conclusions of the Commissioners are wholly based upon the ground that the vestments are “by none regarded as essential,” whilst “they give grave offence to many.” And of course the stress of the argument, such as it is, rests upon their being admitted to be _non-essential_; because, if they were _essential_, the consideration of their giving grave offence to however many would be no reason at all for restraint in the matter. A thousand things give offence to a world lying in wickedness which are only all the more to be proclaimed and declared on that account. The “offence of the Cross” has not “ceased” now any more than it had in S. Paul’s day. It is well known and widely spread, but this affords no reason for restraining the preaching of the Cross. But it may be said, admitting all this, yet as these vestments are confessed to be _un_essential, the conclusion is very sound that their use should be restrained; and, in fact, a great deal has been made on all hands amongst the advocates of restraint of this the solitary argument of the Commissioners. There is often a sort of triumphant appeal:—“The Ritualists themselves admit the vestments to be non-essential. What can be the hardship or evil of compelling them to give them up?” Let us examine this view a little more closely, and see whether there be not a lurking fallacy running through the whole argument. In the first place, more than one of the witnesses has repudiated the admission of the non-essentiality of these things; and even granting that the term may have been used, it is a further question in what application or connection. Essential is a relative term, depending as to its sense on the context in which it occurs, or the subject matter upon which it bears. It needs, therefore, in each case to be asked, Essential to what? To the _being_ or to the _well-being_? There is here a great and important difference. It is quite true that no one maintains that the vestments are essential to the office of the priesthood, or to the validity of any priestly act. But they may be essential to the giving due expression to the act; and to give this due expression may be essential to the salvation of many. Or yet further, the _thing itself_ may be unessential as to the validity of acts done, and yet the _liberty_ to use it may be of essential importance—aye, even though it may give grave offence to some, perhaps to many.