RITUALISM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15716, 8 September 1911, Page 4

RITUALISM.

TO THE EDITOB. Sir, —The Bishop’s synodical address, for which his memorialists have so long waited, in regard to ritualistic practices, has been delivered, and although ho has gone into the question at great length, there is a general feeling of disappointment that, while he has expressed an opinion that t> ie wearing of vestments is legal, he has studiously avoided stating what he thinks on tho legality of the vital questions at issue, namely, the adoration of tho elements, prostrations, and so on. Most of us were aware of the opinions of the authorities referred to at such length by his Lordship, but what we wished to arrive at was his own opinion. The Privy Council is briefly set aside by his Lordship as an authority, the bishops being better judges of ecclesiastical law. Yet for the interpretation of any public Act passed by any Parliament within the Empire, the Privy Council has always been appealed to. I am not going to occupy your space with any argument upon the question, because it would be futile, hut I should like to ask for a plainer definition than tho reason given by our bishop. Why, for 350 years following the Reformation, and until a few extreme men initiated what has been termed the Oxford or Tractarian movement, which is of comparatively recent date, why did the clergy of the Church of England ignore such practices, and were content with the pure evangelical services? Were they neglectful of their dutv ? There was peace in the Church until the Oxford movement, and there lias been war over since. Our Bisliop asks: Do tlie decisions of the Privy Council bind Hie Church? He answers himself by stating that “ the Privy Council binds only the parties to tlic suit.” Surely his Lordsliip could not have seriously made this statement. Even the legality of wearing the vestments, _notwithstanding his Lordship’s opinion, is open to question when we need go no further than Australia to find that both the Archbishop and Bishop or Sydney have declared against them, the latter prohibiting the appointment of Mr Burton, who lias been the cause of all tho disturbance here, to the vicarship of St James’s, Sydney, in consequence, it is said, of Ins ritual. When bishops are found to defy the Privy Council, argument is useless. It is difficult for his Lordship to free himself from all responsibility for tlie state of affairs at St Michael’s. I have good authority for stating that a deputation waited upon him prior to Mr Burton’s arrival, to request that he would explain to him tlie feeling of the parishioners and use his influence to prevent any objectionable practices in the services. This he promised to do; but I am equally well informed thnt Sir Burton says that his Lordship did nothing of the kind. Our belief that he was in sympathy _ with the practices complained of received confirmation by the fact that shortly after tho vicar’s arrival, his Lordship, after delivering a sermon at St Michael’s, presumably at the request of tlie vicar, went into" tlie vestry, donned the vicar’s cope, and, following the choir, processed through the church. Thus he was the first to introduce this garment into the service of any church in tho diocese, and I believe I may say in the dominion. _ Knowing tlie feeling of the congregation, it was not surprising that the remarks which followed were auytliing but flattering to his Lordship. • , . The Bishot) will not deny that ho was aware that Mr Burton had written a letter to the vestry or churchwarden, which is still in existence, informing tlie parish that the only innovations he intended to make in the sorviccs were tho wearing or vestments and celebration of tlie Holy Communion daily. Had the Bisliop exerted his influence he probably might liavo persuaded the vicar to bo content with adhering to the terms of his letter. Had thare been no other innovations. I feel confident that the turmoil would not have occurred. The probability is that a High and Low Church will now bo created. 1 judge by wliat I see and hear around me. Even the students at the Theological College are now being requisitioned to assist the vicar at his celebrations. It is painful to see young lads prostrating themselves and going through all kinds of performances, to the amusement of some and

annoyance of others in the church. Would Bishop Harper have allowed the funds of Christ’s College to pass into the channel they are now passing into? Not he. Mr Burton- has now been vicar for twelve months, and let anyone compare the state of affairs in St Michael’s parish now with the conditions under the regime of its late vicar. Any unbiassed opinion, must be that it is incomparable.. It is well known that half the vestry of many of the vicar's proceedings. The church is not half fu'ii at the morning service, and is nothing like filled in the evening, a large number being non-parisn-iouers, and some of them confess that they go only when they want a little excitement, as it is sometimes like going to a theatre. Last, but not least, I am well informed that the number of communicants has dwindled to less than one-third of those who used to attend before the advent ot the ritualistic practices; and as tor parish-visiting by vicar and curate, it is almost unknown unless they are sent for. Even the hospital is said to be neglected. Under. these circumstances tlie memorialists were perfectly justified m adopting the action they did, and it must ever remain a matter for regret that the Bishop has not exercised ms influence in a greater degree than ne has evidently done.—l am, etc., GOD HELP ST MICHAEL’S. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—As such a large body. of the clergy and laity are sitting in Synod iust now, I venture to think a snort reminiscence on the London ritualism of thirty-five years ago might prove interesting. I am the descendant ot. clergy ancestors, dating on my mother b side from the memorable King Charles s reign. My father’s family was Insli (Romanists), though he had been brought to England at an early age and ultimately ordained to the Anglican ministry. Probably this . will account for the profound interest I took in ecclesiastical history as a girl. At twelve I studied Palev’s essays and wrote sermons. J|y tutor was evangelical in his views, and. a noted and eloquent preacher. At the age of eighteen I paid my first visit to London, to my uncle, a physician m South Kensington. I was at that budding a„ when I thought I knew everything m the world, and beyond the world. As each decade goes over I find more and ever more to be learnt. “ My uncle reported some strange goings on” at a church in Westßrompton —candles, incense and. vestments.. I criticised ritualism from a very superior point of view, but decided to go the next Sunday morning. I went, ine service had commenced at 10.30, consequently when I arrived at 11 a-m-the vicar was ascending the pulpit. J-hat day I shall never forget. Midsummer, breathless silence. A bir4,,-flew in tlie door opposite to the one'sD* which i entered. Ho gave forth ' note 6f praise and flew to the organ. A tall man with a noble face, crossed himself. He looked straight at me, tlie latecomer, and gave as his text the words “Jesus only.” I shall never forget that camion. I knelt, and only those lines of Goldsmith’s would cross and recross my mind“ And fools who came to scoff remained to pray. I'or three years the services at St Michael s, West Brompton, were my comfort and delight. The vicar was a true friend. 1 had a letter from him two years ago. He loves to write of tho old days, and regards me in the light of a daughter. Even then as now some objected to ritualistic practices, and well do I recall a sermon lie preached on the subject and now, to put liis discourse into a nutshell, he said ritualism in itself, standing alone, was nothing. It was the casket that contained the jewel, even as our bodies are the casket of tlie immortal soul. He described ritualism as tlie crutch necessary to- the weakling in Christianity who is virtually a cripple. For these the Church is specially needed, he argued, and she must adapt herself to the needs of tlie weakest. He did not insist on ritualistic practices from any. If any found them a hindrance to spirituality, let them, cast this crutch aside, but his experience, had been that it had helped very many.— I am, etc., LUX.. TO THE EDITOB. gir,—The Bishop in his address- at Synod on ritual is, according to my

roading of your report, asking us ishionors of St Michael’s who 4 sjgned the memorial to continue to :tpletate the ritualism of the present vicar, to which we are unaccustomed, and to support our parish church. Undervtlio present condition s many are now going to otnfej churches, and I should think that new we dearly have no practical sympathy or help from our Bishop, many oili«H will do as I have done—leave the parisl] cliureK for an evangelical one.—l aril* etc. OLD MEMBER OF ST MICHAEL’^