RITUALISTS
91
RITUALISTS
I
etantially identical terms in the Prayer Book of 1662
which remains in force to-day. Now it must not of
course be forgotten that the word "ornaments" is
used in a technical sense which has been defined by
the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to include
"all the several articles used in the performance of the
rites and services of the Church". Vestments, books,
cloths, chahces, and patens must be regarded as church
ornaments. In modern times even organs and bells
are held to fall under this denomination. Further
there can be no doubt that if the reference to the
second year of Edward VI be strictly interpreted,
much Catholic ceremonial was then still retained em-
bracing such adjuncts as lights, incense, vestments,
crosses, etc. There is considerable controversy re-
garding the precise meaning of the rubric, but, how-
ever we regard it, it certainly gives much more latitude
to the lovers of ritual than was recognized by the
practice of the English Church in 1850.
Although of recent years the innovators have gone far beyond those usages which could by any possibility be covered by a large interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric, it seems clear that in the beginning the new school of clergy founded them.selves upon this and were not exactly accused of doing what was illegal. Their position, a position recognized in 1851 by the bishops them.selves, was rather that of wishing "to restore an unusual strictness of ritual observance". Their tendencies no doubt were felt to be "popish", but they were primarily censured by the Protestant party as "ultra-rubricians". The first appeal to legal tribunals in the Westerton v. Liddell case (Mr. Liddell was the successor of Mr. Bennett) terminated, after appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, substantially in favour of the Ritualists. It was decided that the Ornaments Rubric did establish the legality of a credence table, coloured frontals and altar coverings, candlesticks and a cross above the holy table. This gave confidence to the party in other directions and between the j-ears 1857 and 1866 there was a considerable extension of ritual usages such as the Eucharistic vestments, altar lights, flowers, and incense, while the claim was generally made that they were all perfectly lawful.
With the year 1866 began a period of almost inces- sant controversy. Six specific practices, known as the "Six Points", were about this time recognized as constituting the main features in the claims of the less extreme Ritualists. They were: (1) the eastward position (i. e. that by which the minister in con- secrating turns his back to the people); (2) the use of incense; (3) the use of altar lights; (4) the mixed chalice; (5) the use of vestments; (6) the use of wafer bread. A committee of the Lower House of Convoca- tion in 1866 ex-pressed a strong opinion that most of these things should not be introduced into parish churches without reference to the bishop. A royal commission followed (1867-70), but came to no very clear or unanimous decision except as regards the inexpediency of tolerating any vesture which departs from what had long been the established usage of the English Church. Meanwhile the Dean of Arches, and, after appeal, the Privy Council, delivered judg- ment in the Mackonochie case and between them decided against the legality of the elevation, use of incense, altar lights, ceremonially mLxed chalice, and against any position of the minister which would hide the manual acts from the communicants. Even more important was the judgment of the same Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Purchas Case (Ap. 1871), which besides confirming these previous decisions, even as against the opinion of the Dean of Arches, declared in more unequivocal terms the illegal- ity of wafer-bread and of all Eucharistic vestments. The reaction among the High Church party against this sweeping condemnation was considerable, and it is probably true that much of the strong feeling which
has existed ever since against the Judicial Committee
as a court of appeal is traceable to this cause. Many
of the Ritualists not only refuse to acknowledge the
jm-isdiction of a secular court in church matters, but
they declare themselves justified in withholding
obedience from their bishops as long as the bishops
are engaged in enforcing its decrees. The passing of
the Pubhc Worship Regulation Act in 1874 which, as
Disraeli stated in Parliament, was meant "to put
down the Ritualists", seems only to have led to in-
creased litigation, and the Risdale judgment in 1877
by which the Committee of the Privy Council, after
elaborate argument by counsel on either side, recon-
sidered the question of Eucharistic vestments and the
eastward position, reaffirming the condemnation of
the former but pronouncing the latter to be lawful,
providing that it did not render the manual acts in-
visible to the congregation, gave encouragement to
the Ritualists by showing that earlier decisions were
not irreversible. In any ca,se there were no signs of
any greater disposition to submit to authority. The
committal of four clergymen to prison in the years
1878-81 for disobedience to the order of the courts
whose jurisdiction they challenged, only increased the
general irritation and unrest. In 1888 came another
sensation. Proceedings were taken before the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, sitting with episcopal assessors
against Dr. King, Bishop of Lincoln, for various
ritualistic practices. In his judgment, subsequently
confirmed by the Priy>^ Council, Archbishop Benson
sanctioned under carefully defined conditions the
eastward position, mixed chalice, altar lights, the
ablutions, and the singing of the Agnus Dei, but for-
bade the signing of the cross in the air when giving
the absolution and the benediction.
Naturally the effect of these alternate relaxations and restrictions was not favourable to the cause of sober uniformity. The movement went on. The bishops had probably grown a little weary in repres- sing an energy which was much more full of conviction than their own, and in the years which followed, especially in the Diocese of London, under Bishop Temple, a large measure of licence seems to have been granted or at any rate taken. The rapid spread of "romanizing" practices, though in their extreme form they were confined to a comparatively small number of churches, began to attract general atten- tion, while causing profound uneasiness to Evangeli- cals and Nonconformists. In 1898 Sir William Harcourt started a vigorous campaign against ritualistic lawlessness by a series of letters in the "Times", and almost concurrently Mr. John Kensit and his followers appealed to another phase of public opinion by their organized interruptions of the services in the churches they disapproved of. It was felt once again that something must be done and this time the remedy took the form of the so-called "Lambeth Hearings", when the Archbishops of Can- terbury and York, after listening to legal and expert argument, delivered a joint "opinion" upon certain burning questions, to wit (a) the use of incense and processional lights, and (b) the practice of reserva- tion. On 31 July, 1899, they jointly pronounced the use of incense to be inadmissible, and on 1 May, 1900, in two independent "opinions", they concurred in forbidding any form of reservation of the consecrated elements. Very little was effected by this or by a series of Church Discipline Bills which were intro- duced into Parliament, but which died stillborn. Consequently in 1904 a royal commission was ap- pointed "to inquire into the alleged prevalence of breaches or neglect of the Law relating to the conduct of Divine Service in the Church of England and to the ornaments and fittings of churches." The com- mission, after collecting an immense mass of evidence from ecclesiastics and laymen of every shade of opin- ion, not forgetting the agents employed by the
