RITUALISM, the name popularly hut inaccurately given to the remarkable increase of ceremonial in the church of England since the year 1863. It may be considered as a development of tractarianism, though it is one not contemplated by the authors of that movement, whose aim was rather to disseminate doctrines than to introduce ritual changes. Its collateral causes may be said to be: (1) The great advance of :esthetic taste, and the increased cultivation of the fine arts in the service of religion. (2) The extended study by the clergy of ancient liturgies, and the connection discovered to exist between them and the offices of the English church. With the spread of high-chureh principles, certain changes in the mode of conducting divine service had been introduced by the clergy, which, though unpopular at first, were widely adopted, and, up to a cep tain point, had received the sanction of the law. But the restored church with low and open benches—the separated chancel—the altar-table with coverings of different color according to the ecclesiastical seasons, and candlesticks, and a cross upon or over it— choral services, and weekly celebration of the communion, were all that had hitherto been attempted. To these comparatively small alterations, important additions have recently been made—viz. (1) Special vestments at the celebration of time holy communion, and at certain other times, viz., for the celebrant, an alb and stoles. of different color, and chasuble; for the assisting ministers, albs with tunicles, according to the seasons. At other times a cope is worn instead of a chasuble, (2) Lighted candles on time altar at hot communion. (3) Incense burned either in a "thurible" or in a standing vessel. (4) Tlie mixing of water with wine for the comnmnion. (5) The use of wafer-bread. (0) Elevation of the elements either during or after consecration. (7) Time attendance of non-communicants at the holy communion. (8) Processions with crosses, banners, and vested attendants.
These innovations are defended by their promoters on the following grounds of (a) (I) doctrine, and (e) expediency.
(a) The rubric at the end of the calendar in the Book of Common Prayer enacts " that such ornaments of the church and of the ministers thereof at all times of their ministra tion shall be retained and be in use as were in this church of England by the authority of parliament in the second year of the reign of king Edward VI." The judicial commit tee of the privy council in the case of 1Vesterton r. Liddell (183), ruled that "orna ments" here means, "all articles used in divine service:" that the words "by authority of parliament," etc., refer to the first prayer-book put forth in that reign (1549); and that
"the meaning of the rubric, as of the previous statute of Elizabeth, the language of which it adopts, is, that the smile dresses, utensils, and articles which were used under the first prayer-book of Edward VI. may still be used." Now,' the first prayer-book of Edward VI. prescribes that at the time of the communion the priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall put on him a white alb plain with a vestment, i.e., a Chasuble, or cope;" and the assistants "likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, allis with tunicles." It is therefore inferred that the above are the only legal vest ments in which the holy communion should be celebrated. To this it is objected (1) That the word "retained " can only refer to such vestures as were in use up to the time of the last publication of the rubric—viz., the surplice in parish churches, and copes in cathedrals. (2) That the rubric, when 'first inserted under Elizabeth, was limited by the injunctions and advertisements of that reign, which aimed only at the restoration of the surplice, (3) That whatever be the intention of the rubric, it has been so long obsolete that it is absurd to revive it. It is answered (1) That the word "retained" must have the same meaning that it had in the rubric of Elizabeth, in which it first occurs. (2) That the injunctions and advertisements were not of supreme authority, and were only intended to help toward restoring a decent uniformity in divine worship. (3) That the fact that a law has become obsolete does not invalidate its Force. The same reference of the ornaments rubric to the secOnd year of Edward VI. is held to authorize other accessories known to have been in use at that time, though not specified in the first Prayer-book—such as lighted candles, incense, etc. And on the principle that the Reformed church was legally identical with that before the refo•mation—which the 30th canon of 1003 is cited as maintaining—it is further contended that all ancient laws and usages are still in force, except where directly or implicitly abrogated by subsequent enactment. And as the chief ritual authority before the reformation was the liturgy of Sarum (the Sarum " use" referred to in the preface to the present prayer-book), it is to that standard, as far as possible, that the more advanced ritualists desire to conform. ".