RITUALISM AT ROSLYN.

Evening Star, Issue 7647, 25 June 1888, Page 3

RITUALISM AT ROSLYN.

TO THB EDITOR. Sir,—l know of no topic at present before the Dunedin public of greater interest to the thoughtful or religious portion of tho community than that referred to above, and with your permission I propose to make a few remarks thereon. It seems to me that in considering the present deplorable state of affairs at the recent meeting of the parishioners of St. John the Evangelist, at Roslyn, the thoughts of those present were skilfully directed from the main point into a side issue by the astute chairman. He informed the meeting that "they were not there to discuss matters of doctrine; the statutes of their church were their guide, and, according to them, questions of doctrine could not be discussed at a meeting of this kind " ; and, with the assfetance of Mr Braithwaite, who seems to act as aide-de-camp to the chairman, the discussion was attracted from the main question, as I have said, to minor points. The question which ought to have been discussed was this: What is this Ritualism which Is being gradually introduced into our parish church, what is its object, and where its final ending? Had this, the real question, been considered, a very different decision would have been the result.

To us who know what the absolute object of Ritualism is, and the extent of its ravages in the English Church at Home, a very different conception of it prevails. In order to give fair play, I will confine myself entirely to remarks in connection with the "English Church Union," an instition—or I should say a society—having for its aim and object the introduction of Ritualism into tho Church of England, and ultimately the conversion, by means of that Ritualism, of the national Church of England to Roman Catholicism. Whether Roman Catholicism is right or wrong is a question unsuited for discussion in these columns. I simply wish to prove that the object of the Ritualists is to change the doctrines, practices, and rule of the church, as at present by national law ordained, and incorporate it with a church opposed to it in doctrines, practices, etc. The late Dr Pusey was vice-president of the E.C.U., and among its most zealous members may be found the Dr King, Bishop of Lincoln, whom the chairman is so proud to count as a friend, Canon Liddon of St. Paul's, Dr Littledale, and in fine every Ritualist. The following resolution was passed at an annual meeting of this society : "That there should be no prohibition of the following usages when desired by the clergy or congregation—i.e., (a) the eastward position, (b) the vestments, (cjthe lights, (d) the mixed chilice, (c) unleavened bread, (f) incense." And many of the members are openly and avowedly declaring their antagonism to the Evangelical Church of England, and preaching in the words of the Rev. L. Blenkinsop—one of their members, if I mistake not—that "the Church of Eugland would never be true to her own position until her worship and doctrines were Catholic. . . . And

it was by presenting to the Church of England the whole Catholic ritual, without a modern addition or alteration, that the people would learn to love it " ; and, as the late Dr Pusey, when vice-president of the E.C.U., said, "the breach between us and Romo is not so wide as is commonly thought.' 1 would also draw attention to the fact that the majority of the members of the Society of the Holy Cross are ardent and leading Ritualists, the first " master " of which was tho late Rev. A. H. Maconnochie, of St. Albans, Holborn, a man who stigmatised Protestantism as an "un-Christ-like and godless figment." But when we remember that the object of this society's existence is the introduction of the confessional Into the Church of England, such statements need not surprise us. Most of us remember the excitement when that product of this "Churchof England Ritualistic Society," " the priest in absolution," was unearthed in the House of Lords; and the streets of London stank with it for months after, where it was offered to the libidinous and obscene as a dainty morsel.

This is Ritualism, and the question may be asked the Rev. Mr Kerkham, of St. John the Evangelist, the " friend of Dr King," | and, as he himself says, "not an ordinary man"—How much of it does he want ? Where doe 3he propose to stop ? Where may the parishioners look for the line to be drawn ? If he is a Ritualist—and such he | professes to be—it is not to be expected that he will give any more weight to the prayer-book than another of his friends, the Rev. ,J. S. Lyne, known to the ritualißtically inclined as Father. Father Ignatius, speaking of it, says: "It is the produce of heretics and church robbers, and therefore & calamity which Christians have too long borne in silence." No. As the Rev. Orby Shipley said, when a member of the E.C.U. and before going over to Rome; " The aim of the Romish party is to stabilitate our conquests over Protestantism—to re-catholicise the Church of England." This then is the ultimate end of Ritualism ; and if not that of the Rev. Mr Kerkham, at least is so of his " friends." It is needless I should say this; let those who know speak : The late Archbishop of Canterbury said : "There is virtually a conspiracy in the Church of England. . . . The more honest ritualistic clergymen have gone over to the Church of Rome (upwards of 300), but many who are Roman Catholic in heart still remain in the Church of England, who from year to year are introducing Popißh practices in our parish churches, and teaching Popery from our pulpits in its most advanced forms."

The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, in his pastoral letter of 1885, said : "I fear I must endeavor to dissipate the illusion that what are called extreme practices are in any degree diminishing. It is quite the other way. Practices are now being quietly introduced compared with which lights and vestments are innocence itself."

Parishioners of St. John the Evangelist, the question is this: Do you desire that your church should be changed in worship, practice, and doctrine from Church of England to Catholic ? If so, support Ritualism ; for, in the words of Dr Littledale, a prominent member of the E.C.U., '.'A church which could produce in its highest lay and clerical ranks such a set of miscreants as the leading English and Scotch Reformers must have been in a rotten state—as rotten as France was when the righteous judgment of the French Revolution fell upon it." But if you desire to preserve the doctrineß of the Church of England in their purity, let a stand be taken now against the insidious practices for sometime back introduced, and consider well the following words of that truly good man, Canon Ryle :—•" As to • work,' I am afraid in many ' well-worked' parishes, as they are called, it means nothing more than feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving alma to the poor, l and administering the sacrament to the aiok and dying. Such work is all very well in ' its way; but is it the chief work for which

! a clergyman is ordained ? Is cot hia chief work to preach and teach Christ's Gospel ? Does he do so ? This is the iirat and foremost question, and to answer it you have a right to turn to the Bible and the Articles. Try all that clergymen preach and teacli by one simple measure: Dues it or does it not agree with the Articles ? You have an undoubted rignt to do thia, and no English clergyman has any right to object to your doing it. Say to him, if he does object, ' You publicly read and subscribed to the articles when you accepted your cure of souls. Do you, or do you not, abide by your subscription ?'" Yea, that ib the point. Give us honesty and straightforwardness, and if we cannot agree with its principles we may respect, them. Let a man take a stand and say lam of this religion or that, but let the gates of Hell consume hypocrisy in every shape and form.

Sir, lam not personal; I do not seek to descend to personalities. I speak of principles. I have written at length ; it could not be otherwise.—l am, etc., Tam Arte Qcam Maktk. Dunedin, June 25.