RITUALISM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15714, 6 September 1911, Page 12

RITUALISM.

THE BISHOP'S PRONOUNCEMENT. 1 In the course of his address at theopening of the Synod yesterday niternoon Bishop Julius referred ut length , to the question of ritualism in the j Church, which was brought before him j Mme time ago by a protest from a nvun- | oer of churchmen against tho practices ; instituted by the vicar of St Michael's. J His Lordship said:—Most of you hav« seen the memorial on the Bubject of excessive ritual sent to m» some months ago, and my answer to it, copies or which appeared in the daily papers. . Ihe petitioners complain that ritualistic practices," obnoxious to them and tc other members of our Church, have been introduced at least into one parish in this diocese, und are likely to bo iatroduoe*?. elsewhere. As as fJjUßtration, they specify the wearing of mass vestments, the elevation and adoration of the elements, the use of wafers, prostrations, etc., which practices they declare to be inejrparanly bound up with doctrinal teaching not. in their opinion, in accordance with tho Book of Common Prayer Afte»- reference to the particular parish concerned, they pray that I will take such action as may bo found necessary, in order that the practices complained of may be discontinued. This is, I think, a fair summary ol ifche memorial, which is signed by some JS3O members of the Church of England. You will remember that I undertook to give a full and explicit answer to the memorialists at a later date, and as the matter is one of general interest, it seemed to me desirable that the promised answer should form a part of my annual address to the Synod and Church people of the diocese. . I haro no great love for religious. and still less for ritual, controversy. It has been our boast, if I may say so, tbat ws hav« been free from anything of the flort in this diocese for many years. Now the trouble is come, and I can but pray that we may be the better for' it. After all, troubled waters are sweeter than a stagnant sea. Controversy in itself is stimulating, but religious controversy, above all other, seems to produce a bitterness, inveotire and suspicion which are utterly foreign to the spirit of Christ. They are the offspring rather of ignorance, pride and seif-will than of any love of the truth. I am far from saying that these matters are not worth discussion. They are bound to be discusse'd, and they embody principles of great moment. But I urge that they may bo discussed in the spirit of Christian charity and brotherly love, i Recent years have witnessed the revival in the English Church of usages .practically unknown for three centuries. I cannot withhold my sympathy from those who are anxious and troubled by these changes. Assuming that the changes are in the right direotion, it is unreasonable to suppose that our people can bo prepared to accept them without infinite ipatienco and careful teaching. The Church oannot so easily undo the mis'ohief resulting from _ centuries of negllected duty. . Also, it must be remembered, that 1 there is warrant for anxiety •in tho mind of any loyal churchman. •Not a few of those who were leaders in the movement have gone over to the .Churoh of Rome. Others have introduced practices borrowed from foreign sources, uncatholib, unlawful and unknown to the traditions of the English Church. Against these any rightminded Churchman is bound to protest. f But the question before us now, in regard to the practices specified in tho memorial is-—not whether we like them not, nor whether they, or any of ;them. are in use in the Roman Catholic Church—they may be none the Jworse for that—but whether they are inseparably associated with doctrines whieh are not in accordance with the (teaching of our Churoh; and whether tho practices themselves are unlawful to be used in the Church of England as reformed, and under the law of the Book of Common Prayer. What then are the doctrines with which these practices, or at least most •f them, are inseparably associated? • We have hoard so much of the errors of the Church of Rome, especially in regard to the doctrine of the Holy Communion, that we are apt to forget how much there is which we hold in common. For instance, we share with them. the faith which the Church has held for eighteen hundred years of the Eucharistic and of the Real rreaenoe of Christ in the Sacrament. W» explain them differently, and wo •sprees them differently, but wo hold the same faith.

Lest any of you should think that in •peaking thus I am expressing my own opinion, and not the mind of the Church, let me quote the sober and cautious words of the late Archbishops of Canterbury and York, in their raPV IS.^ lO ■*P os *oH° Letter of Pope Leo XIII., on English Ordinations : i» « t er, .' wo the doctrine K Encharistjo Sacrifice and do not beT \" to be ' a nude commemoration at the Sacrifice of the Cros3.' First, W , offer the sacrifice of praise una thanksgiying; next, wo plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross j lastly, wo offer We sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator •- .. VH 11 ® 5 ' which we have already •lgmned by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people have necessarily to take their part with the Priest, wo aro accustomed to call the Eucharistic Sacritct." - >

» lou will bear in mind thnt when wo •peak of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, wo j do not for a. moment supposo that there ; IS jn_ it any repetition "whatsoever of i •he Sacrifice on Calvary, but thnt the Cnurflh dees present as a memorial before God the Sacrifice onto offered for the sins of the whole world. i Now, with regard to the Presence of ©nr Iwrd in the Holy Eucharist, it imist snfHce to say that we hold what the Chnroh has always held from the Beginning, that He is verily and indeed present, not only in the sense in which Ha is always present where any aro gathered together in His Name', but aacramentally. The consecrated broad »t>d wine aro not to 113 common bread »nd wine, but the ecidence to our sense *f a Divino reality present among us. ■We do not'define the Presence, nor do «r» localise It, but wo believe that He Is present after a heavenly and spiritual manner. VESTMENTS. It was natural that the Church in ••riy days, having regard to the greatness and dignity or this Sacrament, should seelc to invest it with mch beauty and magnificence of ceremonial as it was able. Probably, at the first tho celebrant and others wore their ordinary garment"!; but, as on great occasions we avo accustomed to put on our best, so they, at this great and solemn Feast, wore the best that thffv oould iind. In later days, when fashions changed, and men wore other clothing, tho Church retained the vestments ti> which she had been •ccustomed. Such appears to have been tho origin of tho vestments. In themselves, they aro doubtless innocent of *ny doctrinal significance whatsoever; Ant it must be evident to n.s all that they have acquired such a significance, otherwise their use would he scarcely worth talking about. Neither would the one party maintain their use, nor the other eo vehemently oppose it. What is their significance ? The memorialists beg the wholo question when they call them " Mass Vestment?," by which, I suppose, they mean tin t tho veetmenta .sro significant of tho doctrine of tranjubstantiation. and other teaching of the Church of Rome. But the use of vestments is many centuries earlier t*D*n the doctrine of tr/\nsu.k-

stantiation, and the corruptions which gathered about the Holy Communion in the middle ages. Tho fact is that their significance is precisely that of tho doctrines of tho Eucharistic Sacrifice and of the Real Presence, which, as wo have seen, have been held by tho Church from the beginning until now. At the same time the Church hath authority to decree rites and ceremonies ; and it might be that tho use of vestments had come to be ro closely with corruption of doctrine that it was thought well to disallow it at. the Reformation.

We now come to the question whether the wo of vestments is unlawful in tho Church of tho province" of Now Zealand. The rule of the Church of Englnnd concerning tho ornaments of the Church and of tho ministers thereof, is to be found in what is known aa "The Ornaments Rubric," which was originally printed on one page, by itself. It runs as follows : "And here is to be noted that such ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof,- at all times of their ministration, shall bo retained, end bo ill use, as wero in this Church of England, by tho authority of Parliament, in tho second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth."

Without discussing a slight ambiguity attaching to tho date herein mentioned, it is certain that, at the least, the rubric refers to the regulations laid down in the first Prayer-book of Edward VI., which was set forth at tho close of the second year, and came into forco early in the third. The rubric in this first Prayer-book of Edward VI. is as fellows :

"Upon the day and nt the time appointed for the ministration of tho Holy Communion, tho priest that shall executo the holy ministry shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say, a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope. And where there bo many priests or deacons, there so many shall bo readv to help tho priest in the ministration, as shall be requisite; and shall have upon them likewiso the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, albes with tunacles."

In 1552, the second reformed Prayerbook came into use under the authority of a Second Act of _ Uniformity. Among the changes made in this book we're tho prohibition of alb, vestment and cope. This book was suppressed a few months later, nt the accession of Queen Mary. In 1559 it wa3 restored, with a few minor alterations and additions, under the authority of the Act of Uniformity of Queen Elizabeth. Towards Jho close of this Act is the following section: — " Provided always, and bo it en-

acted, that such ornaments of the Church and of tho ministers thereof shall be retained and bo in use, as was in the Church of England by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI.. until such order shall be therein taken by the authority of tho Queen's Majesty, with the advice of the commissioners appointed and authorised under the Great Seal of England, for causes ecclesiastical, or of tho metropolitan." In the Prayer Book published in tho eamo year the following rubric was prefixed to the order of morning prayer:— " And here it is to bo noted that the minister at tho time of the communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use such ornaments as were in use by tho authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI., according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this book."

At the last revision of the Prayer Book in 1661-2, the Presbyterians at the Savoy Conference, referring to the rubric as it then 6tocd. noted that " this rubric soemeth to bring baok tho cope, alb, etc., and other vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer Book 5 and 6, Edward Vl."—that is the second Prayer Book; and desired that it might be" wholly loft out. To this the bishops replied: "We think fit that the rubric continue a 3 it is." The wording of the rubric was mado to conform to that of the Act of Parliament of 15o'J, but deliberately stopped short and ignored tho limitation of tho proviso. Such is tho rubric as it stands in our Book of Common Prayer to this day. It would seem, therefore, that, except for the few months during which tho Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. was in force, the law of tho Church of England in regard to Vestments has been unchanged, and that their use is not only lawful but enjoined. Yet the.fact remains—and this is the first argument against them—that for three centuries past they have been disused. Once more we must return to j the sixteenth century. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth there was rising up a strong Puritan party, which opposed, not only tho Vestments, but almost every kind of symbol and ceremonial, including the surplice, the Cross in baptism, the marnago ring, and many others. The Bishops complain again and again that, despite the law, they can scarcely induce the clersy to wear the surplice. Elizabeth ordered more vigorous measures, but the tide was too strong even for her, and the Bishops had to be content with tho very minimum of tho Church's order. The law remained, but a custom grew up contrary to law, which has prevailed to this day. If the use of veEtments had been the only thing in question it would havo mattered little. Unhappily, there were others far more- seri;:u3. The Holy Communion ceased to be tho great central act of worship on the Lord's Day. You can see it for yourselves. The Bock of Common. Prayer provides a morning and evening prayer for avery day in tho week, a celebration of tho Holy I Communion on Sundays and holy days, I and a litany to be b-aid three times a ■ week. It also provides that a sermon i shall be preached every week after tho ! Niccno Creed in tho communion service, and that notices shall be given at tho same time and place in the service. What is tho meaning of these last provisions? Surely that tho sermon shall be preached, and tho notices given when tho great mass of people are present to hear them. You must bo well aware that) until the last few years, almost everv one of these directions was ignored? The churches were closed on tho week day; morning prayer tcok the placo of the Holy Communion as the chief service on Sunday; the Holy Communion was celebrated net more often than once a month, and these taking part in it were only a select few. I do not like to dwell upon it. Thus you will sco that the intentions of the reformers wore frustrated. If things nrc better now the change is duo,~undcr God's mercy, in part to tho great evangelical revival which brought men bade to repentance and faith; and in part to that later revival which nas taught us the meaning of sacramental nri-ace and restored to us, in some measure, tho beauty of our ancient worship. But. to return to my point. Every one of you are thankful for these changes; nous of you would wish to return to the- dreariness and neglect of former years. Is it then any moro disloyal'to the Church to break with tho custom of three conturiss in the uso of vestments, if they are found to ho according: to tho law of the j Prayer Book, than it was to rosters the" frequent communion, the daily [services, catechising nncl such like? I But thero is another argument I against their use, which on the face j of it appears formidable enough. Tha j Privy Council, in 1871, and again i:r i 1877. declared that the use of Vestj ments is unlawful in tho Church nf j England. Does lot that settle the

matter? I answer—No. It has not settled it in England; it certainly cannot sottle it in New Zealand. In 1854 began the famous Westerton v. Liddell case. Tho points raised in tho suit referred almost entirely to tho ornaments of tho Church. The defence was based upon tho directions found in the Ornaments Rubric; and the decision of tho Privy Council was in favour of what I may call the Ritualists all along the line. The question of vestments was raised only indirectly.; but Dr Stephens, tho great champion of Protestantism in legal matters, and the greatest occlesiastic.il lawyer of his time, gavo it as his opinion that no "other order" as referred to in tho Act of Uniformity was ever made; and that therefore, according to law, tho ornaments of ministers in performing Divine sorvico aro tho samo now as they wero in the second year of Edward VI. Following this decision of tho Privy Council, which at least inferred the legality of the use of vestments, they wero introduced into many churches in England. You will remember, by tho way, that all this occurred before the date of tho constitution of tho Church of the Provinco of New Zealand. In 1871. long after that date, in the case of Hibbort v. Purchas, we have tho first decision cf the Privy Council on vestments, wafer bread and tho mixed chalice, every one of which was declared illegal. This was followed in 1577 by what is known as the Ridedale caso,"in which once more vestments wero declared illegal. Do theso decisions bind tho Church? Strictly speaking, a decision of tho Privy Council binds only the parties to tho suit. But, apart from this-, it- is not too much to say that tho decision itself has been completely set aside. Let :ne give you some proof of this. Tho first will not count for much with come of you. The use of vestments in the Church at Home is rapidly increasing, and not moro than two or three of the Bishops attempt to maintain tho judgment. A sub-oommitteo of tho Upper House of Convocation of the Provinco of Canterbury, consisting of tho Bishops of Salisbury, Bristol, Exeter, Gloucester and Ely, appointed to draw up r.n historical memorandum on tho ornaments of tho Church and its ministers, gave this opinion at the close of their learned and weighty report in 1908: "We feel bound to state that out own study of tho facts leads us to the conclusion that tho ornaments rubric cannot rightly bo interpreted as excluding tho use of all vestments for the clergy, other than the surplice in parish churches, and'in cathedral and collegiate churches the surplice, hood and cope." The truth is that, sinco 1877, a vast amount of light has been thrown upon the times, and especially upon the character and policy of Queen Elizabeth, which havo much to 1 do with the whole matter.

After all, the argument with which we are most concerned is this:—Tho decisions of tho Privy Council in Ecclesiastical matters, made sinco the Constitution of the Church of this Provinco in 1857, are not binding upon us in New Zealand. In our Fundamental Provisions wo accept the doctrines and tho Sacraments of Christ as tho Lord hath commanded in His Holy Word, and as " the United Church of England and Ireland " hath - received and explained the samo, in tho Book of Common Prayer, in the Form and Manner of making, ordaining and consecrating of BishoDS, Priests and Deacons, and in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion. Wo have our own tribunals for the purpose of deciding nil questions of doctrine and discipline, and a Court of Appeal from the decision of any such tribunal. It must also be remembered that the Acts of Uniformity aro not in forco in this country, and that tho King's Ecclesiastical law does not run in the colonies. In support of this, let mo borrow from the Archbishop of Melbourne a quotation from, a decision of tho Privy Council in 1862, in the case of Long v. the Eishop of Capo Town: — " The Church of England, in places where there is no Church established by law, is in the samo situation with any other roligious body, in no better but in no worse position; and the members may adopt, as the members of any other communion may adopt, rules for enforcing discipline within their body which will be binding on those who expressly or by implication have assented to them.

" It may be further laid down that where any religious or other lawful association has not only agreed upon the terms of its union, but has also constituted a tribunal to determine whether the rules of the association have been violated by any of its members or not, and what shall bo the consequences of such violation, tho decision of such tribunal will bo binding, when it has acted within tho scope of its authority, has observed such forms as the rules require, if any forms bo proscribed, and, if not, has proceeded in a manner consonant with tho principles of justice."

To sum up our inquiry:—It appears that Vestments aro'ordered to be used under the law of the Prayer Took, by which alone we aro governed and controlled in such matters; that this viow of the law obtained very widely at tho time when our constitution was formed; and that tho only courts to which wo churchmen can appeal in tho matter are our own church courts, duly constituted. It is not often that inconsistency strengthens any man's position; and yet ib may bo. that my explanation or tho law on this subject may gain additional weight from the fact that I have neb obeyed it. Perhaps it is right that I should toll you why. After nearly lorty years' service in tho ministry of tho Church ib is difficult to change the tiso to which I havo been accustomed. It is perhaps this feeling which gives mo the greater sympathy with those laity of tho Church who aro in tiio like position. As n parish priest I should certainly refuse to make any attempt to forco the rule cf the ornaments rubric upon an unprepared and reluctant congregation. Any such action would, in my judgment, be contrary to tho lav,- of Christ.

I do not of course maintain that no change should bo mado in a parish until everyone approves cf it. After all, although ;n some respects I dislike our system of patronage, it certainly avoids tho danger of violent change, inasmuch as tho nomination of a priest is, to a great extent, in tho hands of tile parishioners. Onco more to define my own position as Bishop or tho Diocese, I consent to wv;\r tho vestments in a church accustomed to their use, but shall certainly refuse under other conditions. WAFER BREAD.

On this subject it will be sufficient to quote tho words of the hi to Archbishop Temple, which set forth ns clearly as possible tho rulo of the Church in this matter: " Tho rubric concerning the bread to bo usad at Holy Communion is somewhat ambiguous. At tho time when it waa inserted there were a great number who preferred ordinary bread; but thero wero also a groat number, in nil probability tho majority, who preferred the old practice, sanctioned by tho First Prayer Book, and used unleavened bread. Of oour.se there was much disputing. To put nn end to the dispute this rubric was drawn up. Now this rubric dees not sav that either practice was henceforth to prevail, but simply that tho new practico was to suffice In other

words, it did not say that henceforth ordinary bread was to .be used, but that ordinary bread was to be allowed." THE ELEVATION AND ADORATION OF THE BLBMENIS. The Elevation of the Sacred Elements is of two kinds. In ™ ancient liturgies it is directedl tliao the nries't shall elevate tho Holy Bread with* tho words, " Holy Things to Holy Persona," to which the people responded, " The Father is Holy, tho Son is Holy, and the Holy Ghost is HolyIt appears from this that in such elevation, the priest presented tho memorial of the Divine Sacrifice before God. . L , , Another Elevation was introduced into tho Roman Liturgy in the twelfth centurv. Its object was to bring out strongly the idea of adoraton; a rubric being introduced enjoining tho people to kneel and adore. It is worth notice that this rubric was never introduced into any liturgy or the English Church. Here lies the root of tho .whole matter. Some Elevation is necessary, for the priest is instructed to take the paten and cup into his hands. The Elevation of tho Sacred Elements before God is consonant with the doctrine of the Church in all ages. Elevation before the people, tor the purpose of adoration, was unknown to the'primitive Church, has no place in tho teachino: of the Fathers, and is contrary to the doctrine of our Church, which teaches that "the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ s ordinance lifted up or worshipped. CONCLUSION. I have a few words to say in conclusion, on the whole subject. We have seen that the courts appointed for the settlement of such differences aro our own church courts. Nov/, I atk to bear in mind that, under our cuuons, the Bishop, who is denied any voice in the appointment of pastors, has absolute authority in the matter of discipline. If a charge is brought against any of his clergy or office-bear-ers, the Bishop, if ho thinks the charge to bo frivolous and vexatious, or that tho facts alleged are not sufficient to warrant further proceedings, may dismiss tho charge. I am not asking for more than the Church has given mo when I beg you to leave these matters in my hands. Tho Prayer Book requires you to refer such questions to the Ordinary. I have never known any good whatever come of ritual trials. I know that they give abundant causo for the enemy to blaspheme. I believe that my clergy will loyally accept and obey the ruling of thoir Bishop; and I do not think that tho laity have any reason to doubt my sincerity or question my love of justice. I havo never failed, so far as I know, of sympathy with men who differ from mo; and, God helping me, neither Evangelical nor High Churchman, faithfully doing God's work, shall over suffer at my hands.