RITUALISM

DR. MOLESWORTH's views on ritualism have been given in his annual pastoral report, as follows:

With some reluctance, but convinced that it becomes me, and is due to those committed to my charge, I notice the (so-called) 'ritualistic questions' which have agitated and threatened to divide Churchmen.

I do not intend to discuss the details of controverted opinions; but I recommend to disputants, on both sides, the charitable and rational counsels of St. Paul, upon things which even the Church itself, much less private individuals, ought not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.'1

The Apostle counsels in such things Christian meekness and charity, not contentious enforcing our own decisions. 'Let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby one may edify another.' 2

6

Also as to what is lawful,' he says: All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.' 3

To St. Paul's moderation, I would humbly add my personal recommendation that both sides should bear in mind the different inferences deducible from the word 'lawful.' It is not necessary that we should be compelled, either legally or orally, to do all that the law permits us to do. What we may, and what we must do, are different questions.

This is obvious in municipal law, wherein statutes (obsolete by common usage, because they are practically inapplicable from change of time and circumstance) are not obligatory, unless restored to action by some lawful tribunal, or by an individual appeal to such tribunal. But that individual may use his own sense of 'expediency,' in making or not making the appeal.

If such statutes, when revived, are found mischievous

1 Article XX.

2 Rom. xiv. 19; also xv. 2.

3 1 Cor. vi. 12; 1 Cor. x. 23, 24.

or inconvenient, remedial power can be easily and safely exercised by Parliament; but it is not so easy to deal remedially with obsolete Church laws and practices. The remedial powers of Convocation have been totally suspended, and a kind of 'common law ' legislation has virtually put out of practice many old (quasi-statutory) regulations of the Church. Convocation has been restrained from dealing with these according to necessities arising from change of times and circumstances; and, consequently, the tacit legislation of reform and consent may be equitably interpreted with at least as much liberty in church as in secular matters.

Remedial enactments, if practicable, through even ecclesiastical (and yet more through secular) legislation, would be fraught with schism and strife.

Better it is for all parties to bear and forbear. Let each give their opponents some credit for reason and sincerity, and therefore view their differences with meekness and charity. Let the elasticity and moderation of the Church's regulations and Articles remain unimpaired. Let the oscillations of the ecclesiastical pendulum between opposite extremes be entrusted to the centripetal gravitation of general reason and piety. The edification of some congregations may render it expedient and edifying' that the ritual may be carried out in all that is lawful; while the edification of other congregations may make it expedient to use the discretion of omitting some things which the law permits, but does not compel. Any attempt to restrain this liberty, or even the abuse of this liberty, by legislation or litigation, against High or Low Churchmen, can end in nothing but schism and increased contention. In such things Gamaliel may be a useful mediator. 'Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought, but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.'1

For my own part, I desire to avoid extremes. On the one hand, I would rather bear the infirmities of the weak than please myself, or 'receive them to doubtful disputations.' I would not appear to enforce things permitted, as though they were compelled by law, or were 'to be believed as of necessity for salvation.'

2

On the other hand, I would not blindly resist progress, or revival of disused practices, either because they had been, or

because under ignorant prejudices were, misrepresented to have been adopted in the Romish Church.

I am a sincere member of the Anglican branch of the Holy Catholic Church. I am not unfaithful to her doctrine, and I do not see the expediency of so using debatable ceremonies or symbolisms;-of so super-adding' outward and visible signs' not ordained by Christ himself, as a means of receiving inward sacramental grace; that I may seem to others to be unfaithful to her doctrine ;-especially to that doctrine which she so emphatically sets forth in the consecration of the elements of the Holy Communion, viz. That Jesus on the Cross made (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world.

J. E. N. MOLESWORTH,
Vicar.

CHURCH OBSERVANCES

AMONGST other means of insult and annoyance to the vicar was an agitation against certain observances in Divine service, which are now adopted in almost every church throughout the kingdom, and which have been from time immemorial observed in all cathedral churches; these are: (1) The presenting the offertory to the priest. (2) The permitting of a weekly offertory. (3) The wearing of surplices by the choir.

(4) The progress from the vestry by the choir and clergy to their seats, and their return to the vestry.

(5) The standing up of the congregation on both occasions.

In protest against these observances agitators and mobs, Sunday after Sunday, obstructed the services in every way, hindering the procession and breaking it up, hustling the choristers and pushing rudely before the curates and the vicar so as to impede their progress.

On one occasion the clergyman carrying the offertory pushed one of these obstructors in order to enable him to pass, whereupon he was summoned for assault. The case was tried before four magistrates, three of whom were dissenters, and the fourth abstained from voting because he was not on the Rota.' The magistrates, instead of dismissing the case and reprimanding the brawler, fined the clergyman half a crown.

Dr. Molesworth subsequently issued the following reasons for the observances in a pastoral address :

On each of these questions I will endeavour candidly and lovingly to express my views and principles. First, to object to the presentation of alms is simply a contradiction of the plain direction of the Rubric,-that those who receive the offertory shall reverently bring it to the priest who shall humbly present and place it upon the Holy Table.' With respect to the beautiful harmony of this direction

6

with the spirit of the Bible, I will take leave to quote a few words from my remarks at the Manchester Congress in 1863:

'In the form prevailing, there is no departure from the Scripture principle. The weekly offerings were originally, and are now, employed for pious and charitable uses. There are persons who object to the Church form of applying the principle, on the plea of its being "Popish "; but it had no such origin or connection. It would be craziness to wish to separate the twin sisters piety and charity (“ Thy prayers and thine alms "). The Holy Ghost showed these blessed sisters to Cornelius, as coming up hand in hand with their memorial to God's Throne in Heaven; the Church could not be charged with departing from Scriptural principle, when she directed them to be brought hand in hand to the Lord's Table on earth.'

Secondly, in permitting the weekly offertory the question is: Am I exercising my lawful liberty with due regard to the liberty of others, and to the requirements and edification of the Church? With respect to liberty, remember that I do not press the offertory on to people, chiefly as a duty or as a tax, but as a privilege. Jesus has pronounced that privilege to be blessed.' The weekly offertory presents equal liberty to all. Those whose faith and love are too weak to value that privilege are (so far as human law is concerned) at liberty to reject it, or to use it seldom. Those whose faith and love are stronger are at liberty to enjoy it, and to use it often. Nothing but ignorant bigotry or tyrannical intolerance could prompt anyone to obstruct or limit that liberty.

As to the edification of the Church, the effect of establishing the weekly offertory was manifested by an almost tenfold increase in the number of communicants, and in the abundance of the alms. And, (resting the value on only the lower ground of mere expediency,) remember that during the abeyance of Church rates it has been the means of upholding the decent maintenance of God's temple and of supplying the necessary aids for the reverent observance of public worship.

Third, the wearing of surplices, by the choir, is objected to. I might rest my right to order it upon the unquestionable ground that it is lawful. But I wish to persuade the objectors that it is moreover beneficial and edifying.