•Ju .«< ^.-^ vj b.^..^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 2.5 I.I I 40 IL25 1 1.4 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 # l\ SV l> ^^ 'O «^^ >> ^ f .^'.v .V i/.x CIHM Microfiche Series (Monographs) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notes techniques et bib.'iographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change tne usual method of filming, are checked below. Coloured covers/ Couverture de coiileur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture endommag^ □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restauree et/ou pellicct6e n Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Caites geographiques en couleur Cofoured ink (i.e. other than blue or bla^k)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight bl iding may cause shr.dows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure D D Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutees lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque ceia etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete f ilmees. Additional comments./ Commentaires supplementaires: L'institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-£tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la methode normale de f ilmoge sont indiqu( . ci-dessous. □ Colourec Pages de ed pages/ couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagees □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculees E7| Pages discoioured. staint^d or foxed/ _i Pages decolorees, tachetees ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages detachees EShowthrough/ Transparence varies/ inegate de I'impression □ Quality of print varii Qualite inegate de I'i □ Continuous pagination/ Pagination continue □ Includes index(es)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header taken from:/ Le titre de I'en-tfite provient: □ Title page of issue/ Page de titre de la I I I Caption of issue/ ivraison n Titre de depart de la livraison Masthead/ Generique (periodiques) de la livraison This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filme au taux de reduction indique ci-dessous. 18X 12X 16X 20X 22X ^fiX 30X 24X 28X J 22X lu'il cet de vue le itjon 32 X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of ihe original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cove" when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are Filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method : L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grSce d la g^n^rosit^ de. Biblioth^que nationale du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire fi!m6, et en conformit6 avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illuctration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires origiriaux sont film6s en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et on terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon !e cas: le symbola — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Stre film6s d des taux de induction diffdrents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Stre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filme d partir de I'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de hfaut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n^cessaire. Les diagramnes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 4 5 6 f nn w i. THE REV. J. J. ROY 'RECTOR OF ST. GEORGES PARISH, WINNIPEG,! i i A RITUALIST." \\ IWlt'I (,. M WiloiiA %'. CONTENTS. T r, , Page I. Supplement to the "St. George's Parish Visitor for February, 1889, entitled "Mass for Ritualism" 1 II. -'A Ritualist's" Reply \ 7 III. The Rev. Mr. Roy's Comments on II 14 IV. " Ritualist's" Final Rejoinder 25 Postscript 34 "Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and cere- monies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authori- ty, ought to be rebuked openly (that others may fear to do the like) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the couscieuces of the weak brethren."— Article XXXIV. 73 I. Supplement to the St. George^ s Parish Visitor for February, 1889, entitled "MASS FOR RITUALISM." •^Thy speech bewrayeth thee."— Matt. 26; . So, we have come to having "Mass" said in one of the Anirh-can churches in Winni- peg. There was a "Mass" said in All baints on tlie 12th inst. on behalf of the iicuahstic Dr. King, successor of that antagonist ot popery, Bishop Wordsworth! A Mass have I said, (a word written at hrst with all simplicity and honesty) but, altered afterwards, (under pressure of shame and mdignation) to the word " ser- vice. And later on in order to gild still more the pill and enable us to swallow it more easily, we are told that St. George's, too, has got the "Mass." * ' My intention is not now to raise a dis- cussion over the use of the word "Mass" however much it may smack of mediieval- ism and be repulsive to our people; but rather to pomt out what is implied in this Mass held at All Saints on the 12th inst On June 2nd, 1888, a petition was pre- sented to the Archbishop of Canterburv, calling upon him to cite Dr. King, BishJp ot Lincoln, to answer before him on a charge of having adopted Romish and il- legal practices. On June 26th, 1888, the Archbishop wrote, declining to proceed on account of want of jurisdiction. On July 28th and August 3rd, an appeal was heard by the Privy Council, which decided that the Archbishoj) had juria- diction, and that the case should be 'dealt with, by him, according to law. The "New York Independent," a compe- tent and impartial judge, referring edi- torially to this trial, says that "The Bishop of Linco'n persistently practices rites, in the forms of 'Masses,' etc., which have been condemned as Roman Catholic and illegal by the highest Court of Ap- peal, the Privy Council." The "Record," one of the most induential Church papers in England, says of the bishop of Lincoln :~"What Evangelical churchmen, and all moderate men of all schools, do feel very strongly indeed, is the wrong which the Bishop of Lincoln has done to the Church of England by laying himself open to this prosecution He knew when he accepted an English bishopric, with its great position and in- come, and its inevitable connection with the State, what would be required of him * * / * He took all that the Church could give him of profit and in- fluence, and, in return, has involved him- self, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in a degree every Churchman, in a turmoil, of which no one can see the issue * * His reckless, and we must add, most disloyal indulgence in all sorts of ritual practices seems simply childish, although very mis- chievous, and disentitles him to the sym- pathy, which is asked, on his behalf from Charchmen." ' ^ The followinfj charges have been brought against the Bishop of Lincoln, and what aggravates his ease is the fact that all tliese practices have been declared illegal, on several occasions, by the highest courts of the realm: — (a.) The use of lighted candles on the conmuinion table, or on a re-table or ledge immediately above the communion table, when not required for the purpose of giv- ing light. (b.) The mixing water with the sacra- mental wine intended to be used in the Holy Communion. (C.) The causing or permitting to be said or sung before the reception of the ele- ments, and immediately after the reading of the jirayer of Consecration, the words or hymn or prayer, commonly known as "Agnus Dei." (d.) The making, with his hands uolift- ed toward the congregation, the sign of the Cross. (e.) The standing, during the service for the administraiv.: of the Holy Commun- ion, with his back turned to the congrega- tion. (/•) While pronouncing the absolution and benediction, the making with his hands uplifted toward the congregation, the sign of the Cross, etc., etc. Now, such are some of the charges brought against the Bishop of Lincoln, on whose behalf All Saints had a "Mass !" But, after all, perhaps there may be here no cause for alarm. For all I know, it may be supposed that the "Mass'' was on behalf of the Bishop of Lincoln's conversion ! o,nhJf^'':-- -' Indeed, I au. prepared to .suppose almosf anything to represent this "aC" under a tavorable aspect. ^ wS""? H ^ '^''^"^'^ coincidence, however which eads me to think that the fortM W suppositions may not be all quite coiT^ct^ Archdeacon Deni.son, that indefati.rahlp champion of Ritualism, he too, his tSt tit to have a 'Mas.s," pendente lite, and to ask his parishioners of East Brent in Enl land, to pray for the Bishop of Lincoln whom he thinks to be wrongfully and un' justly accused ! ^ ^ ^ ^^' "AW :? "^^ f""^'^' '^''' ^^^ been a Ma.ss also, and some parishioners have been praying for the Bishop of Lincoln t ofLf tef,f 1^/'-^. f- P--oters itii iviass at All baints must havp ' been inspired by Ai-chdeaeon Denison thit Ma&s indeed betrays tliem ; it imoli^ with rCa^- r'""'''y eo-operaC with the Kitualistie movement in England II. A "ritualist's" replv. • Totho Eray for her at such a time. Similar services were held in m^ny of the cathedrals and parish churches in England, attendance at which we know from the English papers was not made a party matter, and it might as reasonably be argued that because you and I both dined on that particular day, your humble servant was therefore " in- spired " by the Rector of St. Georges' to do so ordinary a thing — and that I am of like tastes with yourself — as that the fact of Archdeacon Denison having said Mass on the day of the commencement of the Bishop of Lincoln's trial proves that the doughty Archdeacon "ins|^ired" the service at All Saints, and that those who attendetl 10 11! It were and are in "full synipatljy and hearty co-opeiation with the Ritualistic movement in England," yet that is a fair spocnnen of the "logic" of your article ' bpeakmg entirely for myself, however I have not the least hesitation in avowing my sympathy with the cause represented by Bishop King ; and that the weight of public opinion in England is overwhelm- mgly in his favor is evident to every one who has read the papers and watched the course of events there. It "speaks vol- umes, for instance, that the Church Asso- ciation is having very uphill work in se- curing the necessary funds to carry on the prosecution, and what money they have got has been from a mere handful of sub- scribers ; while the English Church Union has had an enormous influx of new mem- bers since the trial began, and money for the defence fund has poured in from thou- sands of subscribers-some two thousand pounds coming from the accused Bishop's own diocese. ^ In spite of what you say in your article 1 a,ssert without the slightest hesitation that none ofthe practices with which the ^isJiop of Lincoln is charged are either Illegal or have ever been declared so by any competent authority. The Judicial Com- mittee of the Privy Council, and Lord Penzance the Judge appointed under the Public Worship Regulation Act," may have pronounced against them, but the Ritualists have refused to plead or answer m such courts and their judgments are treated with contempt by all churchmen- High and Low— alike, although at the same time ^ - - >^ Lov/ churchmen are so mcon- 11 sistent as to attempt to use these judgments as a whip for the Ritualists, I have my- self see'^. the Rector of St. George's, for in- stance, officiating in a vestment which is "illegal" according to the judgment of these courts, to wit a stole, and I am pretty certain from what I have heard that a well known principle which they have laid down is continually disregarded at St. George's, namely that the Rubrics in the Book of Common Prayer are exhaustive, and that nothing which is not specifically enjoined in such Rubrics is to be permitted in the services of the church. It was on this principle that the interpolation of the words or hymns known as "Benedictus qui venit" and "Agnus dei" in the Communion Service were adjudged illegal. But if so the interpolation of any hymns, and es[)e- cially of the words "Glory be to Thee, O God," and "Thanks be," etc., before and af- ter the "Gospel" is also illegal, and the Rec- tor of St. George's, who permits such a thing to be done, is in the same box with the Bishop of Lincoln as an offender against "the law," and the instances in which you are at variance with the same "law" might be multiplied almost indefinitely. What a nice time we would all have of it if High Churchmen were to accept the Privy Coun- cil judgments and adopt a policy of retalia- tion against their Low Church brethren ! I fancy your intense admiration for the "law" as expressed by those judgments would be somewhat abated under such cir- cumstances. However, High Churchmen, and particularly the clergy, who arc bound by the principle (Article XX) that the Church, and th Church only, "hath power 12 to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and author- ity in Controversies of Faitli," are convinced that such matters are entii-ely beyond tlie mtertei-ence of Parliament alone, made up as It IS m part, of persons of any and nci religion— of Dissenters, Jews, Atheists and Heretics— and ecpially beyond the juris- diction of the Secular Courts created 'oy it and so they have refused and will refuse to recognize such courts in any way what- ever, no matter what may be the tenor of their deliverances. Even the decision of the Privy Council that the Archbishop of Canterbury has jurisdiction in the case now pendino- has not been accepted without doubt by the Archbishop, who now again has taken that Vomt sub judice, mHtead of saying, so far as it IS concerned, "Rome has spoken the cause is ended." Another point which' tlie A.rchbishop has recognized as still unde- cided IS whether the matters alleged in the complaint against the Bishop of Lincoln are really such as he can be called upon to answer to or be tried upon— although the Privy gouncil has "spoken" on that point also. ^ On the subject of Ritualism generally and as an offset to your (juotations from' the "New York Independent," and Eno- hsh "Record," I submit the opinion of an- other and equally "competent and impar- tial judge," the eminent Congregationalist Preacher, Joseph Parker, who said recently: "rhe High Churchman is alone consistent m interpretation of the Book of Common Prayer. The Evangelical or Low Church- man has to iday tricks with words, and pertorm many metaphysical miracles and . 13 • i.i jucfglerieH," and the following from the "Church Times" which is also, as you say of the "Record," "one of the most influen- tial church napers in England." "We have already drawn attention to the unimpejich- able witness of Dr. Parker * * * * * * * to the inconsistency of the Evan- gelical position * * * ->t * nothing short of a close personal knowledge of their thoughts and ways could make any edu- cated in(juirer credit their astonishing ignorance of the whole literary side of the (juestions at issue; how completely they are the slaves of a factitious and legendary tradition, which causes them to believe that they are not only the most but the only, loyal members of the Church of Enxr- land." We High Churchmen must be allowed to consider ourselves at least as loyal and devoted churchmen as our Low Church brethren ; we are fully persuaded that our principles and practices are entirely in accord with and in no wise contravene or exceed the church's formularies, and in consistently carrying them out we are pre- pared to bear patiently whatever of sus- picion or abuse may fall upon us, having the bright examples of so many of the church's best sons before us, and knowing that the end is with God. The charge of "Romanism" was bandied about long before the days of the so-called "Tractarian movement." It was made against John Wesley for instance, who calls it "a stale objection which many people make against anything they do not like. It is all 'Popery' out of hand";" and Baxter says: "Satan can use even the names of 14 Popery and Antichrist to bring a truth into suspicion and discredit." So too Selden (table talk) "We charge the Prelatical Clergy with Popery, to make them odiouis, though we know they are guilty of no such thing. With an apology for the length of this letter, I am, sir, A Ritualist. III. THE REV. MR. ROY's COMMENTS ON II. The above letter states that the "Mass" ?^'l^^^l^'.^^"^' ' ^^^ simply a prayer on be- half of Mother Church. Much anxiety and sorrow, among local churchmen, would thereby be removed were it really so. But, the fact that the celebrant of that Mass is a member of an ultra-ritualistic organization, the confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament ; and the fact, that said Mass was reported next day, in the public press, without contradiction, as, "a special Mass, at which prayers were ofered on he- half of the Right Rev. the Bishop of Lin- coln, preclude our giving to it Ritualist's interpretation, and forces us to say, that his statement of facts, is not correct. Further, Ritualist, takes his stand on the prayer book of 1549. Why not stand, as well, on the Roman Missal and Breviary, as so many of his confreres do now-a-days; these books have as much authority, in our present Reformed Church, as that Prayer Book of 1549 n I 15 i Ritualist evidently iirnores that cmrs is a Reforincd Churcir and that our Prayer Book, is a Reformed Prayer Book : and, that the Reformation was not brought about instantaneously, but gradually and progressively. In 1534, the Papal Supremacy was abol- ished ; under Henry VIII the services were not reformed; the Mass remained as it was ; monasteries were suppressed ; the Scriptures were translated ; and, the Lit- any was lendered into English. Under Edward VI, commissioners were appo'nied to revise the services ; this resulted into what is known as the Prayer Book of 1549. This revision was very incomplete. In 1550 another commission was appointed to revise that Prayer Book. The commis- sioners expunged, among other things, from that Prayer Book, the name "Mass" to designate the Holy Communion ; the word "Altar" as applicable to the holy table ; the mixing of water with the wine in the Lord's Supper ; the use of the wafer bread in the same ; the reservation of the Sacred elements ; the use of the chasuble, cope and other Romish garments, etc., in a word, the Revisers struck out the "Mass, name and thing" and gave us what is known as the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI, which came into use on All Saints' Day 1552, and which is* substantially the same as the one now in use to-day, revised by Convocation in 1G61 and which was the last Revision made by authority. This appeal to the Prayer Book of 1549 in support of the "Mass, name and thing," is it due to ignorance or dishonesty ; or would it be that Ritualist's appeal to the 10 ;Praycf Book" of 1549. in support of his Mass name and thing," is flue to the fact that the Prayer Book of 1549, is already in use in Ritualistic churches.as a preliminary step towards introducing the Roman Missal and Breviary? Of course, a "priest" re- quires a Missal and a Breviary, to chant the Mass. In the ahove letter, an eftbit is made also to tack the Mass to the XXXVI Article bee, with what results ! That article refers strictly and solely to the Book of the Ordination Services ; and in that Book there is not a word about the Mass name and thing." Said articl.; was trained, expressly, to meet objections raised both by Puritans and Romanists, who pre- tended that the Ordinal contained some superstitions and lacked some essentials In that sense, and that sen.se only do the vvvl'rx'^i'''^^', '^''"' ''^''^''^ to-day, to this A AX VI Article. How could .said article countenance the "Mas.s, name and thine/' when the XXXI Article declared it to be "bla.sphemous fables and dangerous deceits " It the Ordinal of 1550, however, does not contain anything about the "Mass, name and thing" it does contain- "From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities— Good Lord deliver us." Is this what Ritualists calls support- ing the "Mass, name and thing ! !" ' "Ritualist" would have our readers be- heve that : "The principles and practices of Ritualism are entirely in accord and in no wise contravene or exceed the Church's formularies." How conciliate such an extraordinary as- sertion with the fact that the ecclesiastical 17 courts have condemned sixty-seven cere- monies and practices symbolical of Popish Doctrines illegally introduced by the Ritu- alists into the services of our Reformed Church ? Think, besides, what the found- ers of Ritualism, teach. According to New- man, the discarding of the Mass by our Reformers gives rise to "a feeling of indig- nation" — Pusey, "believes the Council of Trent, whatever its look may be, and our Articles, whatever their look may be, each could be so explained as to be reconcilable one with the other." Froude, regards "the Reformation as a limb which was badly set, and which must be broken again, in order to be righted." Froude says again, that our "Prayer Book has no claim on a lay- man's deference, as the teaching of the Church, which the Breviary and Missal have not in a far greater degree." In op- position to the statement made by Ritual- ist, we may quote also the views of those high in authority, well qualified to speak impartially on the subject of Ritualism. The late Archbishop Tait, said, speaking of Ritualism : " There are some of the clerg}' who are bent on restoring the Mass and the distinctively Roman doctrines which the country rejected at the Reformation." And the late Archbishop Longley spoke the following words, about the alleged soundness and loyalty of Ritualism : " I cannot but feel that those who have viol- ated a compromise and settlement which has existed for 300 years, and are intro- ducing vestments and ceremonies of very * * doubtful legality * ^ ^ '^ '•'' are really doing the work of tlie luorst enemies of the Church" Ift< estroy the R'^'for- 7,S speak of In,/,*' "ley mean ,' **■» eai" wiutual f^ ' Pleads .-n "niter ' f "ause. ff^'^^oe. were tLv • , "'""''' Siv, '"oked ,n "^ '"'^hiof Z """' «'"' th ""•^- iJ^^ , T^'' ""'y are n , "•'"' "''"o- i'eneral isXf '« serve, and If, ^""s. "'''" "°n« are of^' "'"J' -V so""^*'?: flock i " «""a;i.s«:'v"e;^-""M„ Thi, ft- -*r-' «^J^ to b ar > '« uniterj 1 1 »'■ column (■„,, gospel si. P ^^ «o much •^^'^^ and th. ""^^ ^^'ej. are ^^^''"» «'»' forn.ed Serf™?!, ""''. P^'o^tant Re- tl.e real jfi^H *™ ""^ ^"""'-f'. ^^lan for means of throwino- ,J,,J ■ .^ ""^ as a nog„ta„d„rf/tUl^^^^-»f'«- '"^^^y t-xpouuded the law. It is a 2\ ng to bring J pnncipIoH. fc long u.if() J . in some lulists. Lt'fc <-'ak out as r less t hari 'i»'l Latin uirc}i,\vitii I'eir plan, )ose. is to I tho voc- Vnd so We upper but ' be culled styled a •pi ice and 3 "Mitre," plicity of nanients, ie. Once Rome's d, think r reader, rom the ^ou will bant Re- t/ian for potency ^t" as a 'S of ion- o dedges, n con- Realni. e law, impl V Lt IS a notorious fact, that the Ritualists thein- selves, were the lirst to appeal to, and to recognize tho eouipetency of the courts, they now repudiate. The English Church Union, no mean authority amonu' Ritual- ion ty a ed Dec, ists, in a circular, dated Dec, ISfiiJ, p. 25H, made the following declaration : "The desire of the Union is to defend the Ritual Law of the Church of England. * * * * * It is difficult on some points, to ascertain what the law of the Church exactly is. The only method of ascertain- ing it must be found in the Courts of law. Hence arises the necessity for legal investi- gation. When then the law has been clearly detined, we must be ready to be guided by it, we must neither fall short of it on the one hand, nor go beyond it on the other." Such were theprofessionsof theRitualists, twenty years ago, about the competency of the Courts, they reject to-day. They had no idea, then, that sixty-seven of their piactices and ceremonies, would be con- demned by those courts. We can under- stand the Ritualists seeking to day to keep out of the I'each of such courts, when they are still writhing under the sting of sixty- seven lashes inflicted by the ju« *i * * * * '«en in Wland whl ? *^'' P^^^ «*' Church- doctrine wSi^r^vTe' VnCed' /'^ ^•^^-- Though our Court of a .^ *" condemn ? ;vere received wit Z' Zf ""'i f^gnients those I have 8111,1^^ ?'" ''"t'^'-ence by .}i'dg'»e„fe had been nl"™" 'J «'e sj fenzanee." Pronounced by Lord *c^CfZdSS»ir'*''o worth reproducing f-!! "''"'' '**»9. «'■« well that disturbi uliVe ?,T""" "*' «<""-t.s courts on the .me««„„,yw ?"':;"* "* "'ose "> the Church rfF„,^"->'<^"""""nion question of sacerdotahs,S '?'"^- '''''« *hole '°. and therewith Ir 'V"?'™^ there- Church of England la R^^'^'^^ "*' "le Protestant bmSch of Chti^''^"''* -^t" '^ present the le™! °j;V'?"''t? Church. At rituaJ of the K w t Tte" > "»™"^' *'- Estabh-ahed Chureh „f ''^''"'chIngs in the Jl^^'^tion i,s, Shan that ritual'\ '*'"''"• '^'^"' fhe Ritualists sav 'It he sanctioned ? ™en cry, never!" •^' '* "'"«t." English- "'rfances,' said Dr. Baring, 23 the late Bishop of Durham, "in wliich the Church Association obtained a favorable judgment have exhibited indisputable evi- dence that where there existed disloyalty to the Church of England, and a yearning towards the doctrine and ritual of the Church of Rome, the practices condemned, have with some trivial change, been per- sisted in ; and that no amount of legal pro- ceedings will make the foolish wise; or the traitor to his church, loyal ; or the Jesuit, horied" Those who have the welfare of our church, and the salvation of souls at heart, but are reluctant to o})pose Ritualism for the sake of peace, I would ask to reflect seiiously and prayerfully over the follow- ing words of Dean Burgon, in a sermon preached Oct. 13th, 1878, before the Uni- versity of Oxford. Dr. Burgon, as avery body knows, was no Low Churchman, and still he says, in an Oxford pulpit, of Ritual- ism : "It really would seem as if a miser- able endeavor to familiarize our people with Romish dresses, Romish gestures, Romish . practices, Romish phraseology^ Romish doctrines. * * '<■ * * "a material theory of the Holy Eucharist- repudiated by all the formularies, and Ignored by all the doctors of our Church- lies at the root of this new development of error : together with the impetuous advo- cacy of the practice of habitual auricular confession. What would such men as Cranmer, Andrews, Hooker, Laud, Sander- son, Bull, Pearson, Beveridge, — what would the framers and revisers of our Bocjk of Common Prayer have said— could they just now appear and stand among us ? Mean- 24 time, the weaker disciole^ nf ^h; —(for a sect it i^^ +1^ ? *"^^ "^^ sect The Dean of Chesfpr ;« n. t mon, says aeain "1,Z , /^ '*'"«' ^«^'- Faith at all Z spin'" '" ""^ ""'""^^ <>'' ■"uch as vanity and^^plf! -n* "?r"""S «' lesaness is it, from fiXto w' ^-"'y '"«•- f^d (what is singular) an ^,hI T ?""<"''"• ever reason fJ^A ^-,1 !. ' ^^^ lor what- "".settleT",!^'; ar^' t erT'' "^ '.''r"'"'''^ opposite poles ; of deta's n^sZ^^^^l'''^ .: oThe'Xe"' "r ^^'-f ™ -thin™ ^n '«.t zz- colt r z:t ™''y ''«"'^^-'' boundary Hnew"?! eCbeeffSuSh^d ""^ between them \t„4.,, , ,™""J drawn Imvenone" "™' boundaries they loelwpLron In' V? '""'"^ »'' ''- '^ ..■ea-t distant! ^S'l^ri^irut''""^"^' new sect 1« of this -indulge millin- ^ion for t of the ig posi- ime ser- hat the 3ome of jlves, it ling so 'y law- inioral, moral- of all ay for hit— what- ughJy m the on on ig, on erent, No rawn they as a 3€^an very 25 IV. ritualists' " FINAL REJOINDER. To the Rev. J. J. Roy: I have received the fly sheet whicli you have been good enough to send uie, con- taining my letter commenting on your ar- ticle entitled "Mass for Ritunlisni," and your reply to it. The latter, from beginning to end, is mere 'dust throwing," and I must ask the impartial reader of this controversy not to be blinded by it, but to keep these very plain facts steadily in view : — (1) It is a fact beyond all possibility of dispute — I repeat it with the book itself before me— that "the Mass," name and thing, does (in spite of your denial) form part and parcel of the Ordinal of 1550, and I now enlarge upon my former stnte- ment on this point by calling attention to the further fact that the Ordinal in ques- ti(m distinctly required the use of the ad- juncts and ceremonies for which Ritualists now contend. Here are some instances. "Priest," "altar" and "ea.stward posit' on," all in one rubric, which reads, "The priest standing humbly afore the midst of the al- tar shall say, &c. ;" "vestments" (copes, albes, tunicles, &c., all named) ; the 'mix- ed chalice" — the priest being ordered to put "wine into the chalice * ■^- * put- ting thereto a little pure and clean water, and setting both the bread and wine uj.on' the altar ;" "wafer bread;" the singing of "Benedictus qui venit" and "Agnus Dei;' the "sign of the cross" (inserted in sever a 26 must hf ."T f i^"",^'''^ Ronianists-and it cons which had been n pl • ? , ^''''- riiiitans, it is needless to remark- fl.of ^u • With what degree of "m«r.+oi How co„Id if '^^ "^'^^Phemous fable, &c." •shown Art eieXXXW- T ^^'"' "'^^'^ ••eceiv?,! o^°nio„'' Tout U hr'"""'^ nothing ag'ainst the Masa' itself ?^'? your attempt to mislp»7 , ' ?"'' -.this poin't i^ tT:ay\^rz.rTi disingenuons, ^ ^^' ^^^^^^ (3f A3 further proof of my contention, it 27 is a well established fact that in the very Convocation which ratified the Thirty-nine Articles an attenijit was made to introduce a Canon which would have required that each communicant should declare that "he detests and renounces the idolatrous Mass," and that the Convocation threw it out. (4) The prayer, "From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities, Good Lord deliver us," to which you call attention with such a flourish of trumpets, proves nothing for your side, but ought rather to acquit Ritualists of at least one charge that is brought against them by unthinking and unscrupulous persons— that of "Romanism"— for that prayer was used in the same service with the Mass and all the ceremonial "adjuncts" for which we contend, and this is proof positive that the Reformers of our Church, whatever they niay have meant by the phrase, did not include these things amongst the Pope's "enormities." (6) We have a perfect right confidently to appeal to the Prayer Book of 1549, but not (as you falsely represent) because we assert that it has in itself any authority in the Church to-day— and I must refuse to believe, in the absence of proof, that it is now " in use in Ritualistic Churches " as you iia,y,— that I believe to be a false state- ment — as false, and as senseless too, as the one you add to it about the Ro' .an Missal and Breviary. The ground of our appeal to the book in question is that it fully and faithfully represents the authoritative teaching of tlic genuine Reformers of the English Church. The " Second Book," to which you refer, was put forth distinctly 28 as an unwilling concession to a set of curi- ous and mistaken men, and with astron<>-lv worded declaration (which I have quoted trom m my former letter) in favor of the tsook It was mtended to replace. (6) The Second Book did not receive the unanimous assent of the Church as the tirst had done, and as Dr. Morrran Dix states. It "never came into use, but fell stillborn, into its tomb"-the just and pro- per tate oi so weak and wretched a com- promise of Catholic truth. (7) In each subsequent revision of the Prayer Book the tendency has been to re- turn to the Book of 1549, and the Book now in use has just those points of differ- ence iroin the Book of 1552 that exist between High and Low Churchmen. In tact it would almost appear that Low Cnurchmen are laboring under the strange hallucmation that the Book of 1552 is the one to which they have given assent, and not the hnal revision of 1662, the former so much more nearly representing their opinions than the Book of " Common f rayer and " Rites and Ceremonies " to which they so loudly profess to be attached whilst in practice treating many of its' provisions with contempt. (8) And as I have before pointed out there i.s the same wide discrepancy between the professions and the practice of "Evan- gelicals in the matter of the so called -CiCclesiastical Courts. Certain tribunals set up by Parliamen- tary authority alone-without the consent and as a matter of fact indirect opposition to the wishes and rights of the Church- are dubbed "the highest Eccleciastical 39 Courts," and you profess a tremendous res- ])Gct for their deliverances. But the pre- sent correspondence has shewn that in certain specific matters connected with the services at St. George's you have gone on either in blissful ignorance of, or supreme contempt for "the law" as laid down by these same Courts. But you say you mean nothing by it ! If that is not " formalism" pure and simple, I would like to know where the real article is to be found ! Fan(!y a lot of people met together for divine worship standing up of one accord and singing words of praise and thanks- giving to God — and yet attaching "no significance " to the act ! You are (juite mistaken in stating that I plead for mutual toleration on any such ground as the "insignificance" of the things High Churchmen are contending for. I do not wish to boast unduly, but I think that on all hands we attach a very real significance to all that we do in the worship of God, and that not many exam- plvJrt are to be found amongst us of such trifling as you have confessed to in what surely ought to be a very serious and solemn matter. (9j We hold that the "ceremonial ad- juncts" which I have shewn above are de- clared by the Church of England to be neither superstitious nor ungodly (in o[)po- sition to the Puritan assertion that they are both) are also positively enjoined in the present Prayer Book ; that they ought therefore to be used, and that their use is (a) to glorify God, by adding dignity and solemnity to His holy worship, (b) to edify man by inculcating and aiding his faith in 30 si'mir^^ doctrines which you say they (10) And this brings me to another of the misstatements with which your articles hterally teem ! You would lead your readers to sup- pose that the doctrine symbolized by lights "vestments" etc., has been pro- nounced against by the Coui-ts a.'ove referred to. The exact contrary is the li r^ .u 1- ^Y' ^^""^ Sheppard v. Bennett the Catholic doctrme of the mass was fully upheld, and "therefore" as the Church ,/ i7/i6« points out, "thesubseciuent proceed- ings of the Church Association are utterly inconsistent with that respect for its favorite tribunal which it so loudly pro- c aims By its persistent and irreconcile- able attitude of intolerance the Association has gone clean contrary to the dicta of the Judicial Committee." And not only in the judgment now cited is the doctrine we con- tend for fully upheld and endorsed, but it was declared by the Ecclesiastical Judjre ot Arches to be the church's "only harmo- nious doctrine." ' ^3^^ ^'^der such circumstances the entire justice of these words of the Bishop of Ely in a recent charge to his clergy will I am sure be recognized by all fair minded men : We have recently seen a renewal of tlie prosecutions for excess of ritual * * Of course, I am not going to give my opinion on the particular questions which are now before the courts of law. But as regards such trials generally. I think I may point out their extremely mean character, i-artic-.lar practices are objected to, not for their own sake, but for their supposed 31 meaning, their supposed connection with some doctrine. Now the reason I say these prosecutions are mean, is tliat thej^ are re- sorted to tor the purpose of attacking doctrins whicli the movers object to ^' * but which when they have been directly attacked, the courts hare refused to eon- demin. If the courts of law cannot be used to forbid such teaching, I think it is not straightforward to call upon the court to forbid some form, some action, about which no one would trouble himself were it not supposed to involve that veiy teach- ing." Doubtless it is this phase of the question too which has called forth a vigo- rous remonstrance against the ritual pro- secutions now pending, which at latest accounts had been signed by over eighty thousand persons. (12) I think I have already, in my first letter, sufficiently indicated the reasons for Ritualists refusing to recognize the courts now claiming jurisdiction on Ecclesiastical matters (and it will be seen from what is here shewn that the reasons you allege are not the correct ones) but I will now add that besides possessing no competent juris- diction these courts have proved themselves unworthy of respact by an utter lack both of technical knowledge and of honesty in dealing with ritual cases. The first was exhibited in "Liddell v. Westerton," where the formal judgment of the court was based on a sheer blunder ; and as to the second (intentional dishonesty) we have the testimony of Sir John Taylor Cole- ridge, one of the first jurists of his time, who said that the Privy Council 'abolished the rubric which it professed to interpret," 32 and of Chiet Baron Kelly, a most ominent common lawyer, who said of one of their jlecKsioris that. " it was a jud^^ment, not of law, but o policy." And as to their clear- ing up "doubts" about the ritual law of the Church, it is sufficient to state that the I'rivy Council judgments have been one series of ridiculous contradictions, which It at ail binding on us would render it next to it not absolutely impossil>le to carry on our public services. Here are some exam- pies. Ihey have ruled: Twice that the Ornaments of ] 549 mav be used ; "^ Twice that thqy may not ; Once that " standing before the table " applies to what follows : Twice that it does not ; Once that wheaten breads may be made round ; Once that they may not ; Once that the Injunctions of Elizabeth are inconsistent with her Prayer Book ; Once that they are not ; Once that a cross may be placed over the holy table ; Once that it may not ; Once that the priest when consecratino- may stand in front of the table ; ^ Once that he may not ! And it is quite possible that they may have as you say, condemned "sixty-seven" ritualistic practices— a?KZ endorsed them as well I If anyone would like to see this matter ot Ecclesiastical Courts more fully dis- cussed, and the reforms demanded by xtituahsts clearly set out, 1 would referhiin to the file of the "Church Times" in the 88 Historical Society's Reading Room (City Hall Buildin*') and particularly to an article entitled "The Dean\s Eristicon" in the number for 12th April, 1889 (P. 341). And now, with the facts thus far dis- closed in view, I would ask the candid reader of this controversy to consider again for a moment more particularly the utter inconsistency of my opponent-the necessity he nmst have been under to exercise quali- ties commonly attributed to the Jesuits in order to attain to the rank, prestige and emoluments of his present position. In- deed it must be abundantly evident that he never could have got there unless gui- ded by some such principle as " the end justified the means," for, to accomplish his object he CI) submitted to ordination as " a Priest in the Church of God," whilst hating the very name of Priest; (2) solemnly accepted and assented to a "Book of Rites and Ceremonies," whilst despising the rites and ceremonies therein contained; (3) subscribed to a declaration (Art. XX.) which speaks only of the Church as having " power to decree Rites or Ceremonies and authority in controversies of Faith," and yet he asserts that such power and autho - rity reside in a civil tribunal ; (4) sub- scribed to a declaration in favor of " mass," " vestments," "altar lights," etc., his real sentiments being that the first is a " blas- phemous fable and dangerous deceit," and the others " Popish enormities," and so on ad infi,nitur)il But I must here add that, worst of all, it is a matter of common belief in Winni- peg (and iia.s never, I tuink, been contra- dicted) that he has been guilty of a gross 34 breach of a perfectly plain and unambigu- ous law of the Church, commonly called the "Table of Prohibited Degrees "—an offence from which the saintly " criminal " of Lincoln would shrink with abhorrence, and which makes it simply preposterous that "the Rector of St. George's^' should set himself up as an accuser of his brethren. " Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye!" One word more and I have done. The side in this controversy which is usually charged with "Priestcraft" and " alienating the laity" is championed in the present instance (although very un- worthily) by a layman, without assistance from any clergyman, and as a matter of fact against the expressed wishes of his own Parish Priest, who dislikes controversy — the other side being taken by a clergy- man. I call attention to this because it serves to illustrate a marked characteristic of the Catholic Revival, which is, and all along has been to a very great extent in- deed a laymen's movement — and this shews the hollowness of the charges I refer to. The truth is that nothing has so stirred the enthusiasm and increased the love of the Anglican laity for their church — and at the same time diismayed her enemies (both within and without) as this same Catholic Revival. I am, etc., A Ritualist. Postscript, — I think that ^^on would have no difficulty in accepting my account 35 ot th(! paititular Muhs which gave rise to this correspondence if yoii were not so ex- ceedinj^dy unxioius to ])ut a wrong con- struction upon it. A moHient's friendly conversation with tlie then acting Rector of All Saints', or with any parishioner who had been present, would have elicited the fact that neither the service as a whole, nor the special ]>rayers said for the Bishop of Lincoln were of a partisan character, hut followed (as far as (!ould be ascertained) the example of the services held at the same time in so many churches in England. Other "special i)rayers " were also used (as for instance for the Bishop's Judges) and your attempted distortion of the facts of the case is I am sure most offensive to all concerned. It is just the spirit which you have shewn in this matter that has done so nmch latterly to reduce Evangelicalism from its former respectable position as a school of thought to the level of a mere contentious faction, and troubler of the Church. R. i