(b) The doctrinal grounds of defense are expressed in the following statements: (1) The eucharist (as the Lord's slipper was anciently called) is the special institution of Christ, the single rite of continual observance which he enjoined on his disciples, and the chief act of Christian worship. It is therefore right ti exalt and dignify it above all other services, and mark it as standing on different and higher ground than any other institution. (2) The eucharist, according to the universal belief of the ancient church, is to be regarded as a sacrifice, commemorative, as the Jewish sacrifices were anticipatory, of the death of Christ—not as iterating or repeating it (which idea alone the 31st article is held to condemn). but as a solemn pleading and offering of it before God, as Christ himself offers it in heaven. Hence the position of the celebrant in front, of the altar, and the use of a sacrificial vestment, as the chasuble is held to be. (3) In the eucharist, there is a real presence of Christ, which, though spiritual, is objective, i.e., not dependent on the receiver, but as a result of consecration, and to a certain extent local. ( l'he growth of this belief is marked by the change made in a recent edition of Keble's Year of the words, in the hands," in a poem on the eucharist, to, "08 in Mite hands.") Hence distinct acts of adoration, addressed, nut, as is explained, to the ele 'mews, but to the divine presence, of which they are the vehicles and signs. ' (c) On the ground of ezpedieney also, it is contended: (1) That experience proves that the only way of attracting and gaining a hold on the vast uneducated masses of our towns and cities is by a worship addressed not merely to the ear, but to the eye. "Ritu alism," says one of its defenders, " is the object-lesson of religion." Services conducted in grand and beautiful buildings—brilliantly lighted—with splendid vestments, touching music, costly decorations, and every outward token of reverence and solemnity. will impress the young and the poor as nothing else can do. Those churches in London where advanced ritual prevails are said to lie thronged with Worshipers—mainly of the lower classes, and in great proportion of men—when others are almost 'empty. (2) A further argument, under this head, is connected with the desire, which has grown up of late years among the High church party, for the restoration of the visible unity of Christendom, and specially the renewal of communion between the church of England and both the Eastern and the rest of the Western church; and with this view. it has became an avowed object to assimilate the Anglican service as much as possible to that of other Catholic churches.
It remains to notice briefly the effect of these innovations. It is a remarkable index of the change of popular feeling within the last twenty years, that such bold and start ling changes, altering the whole character of the Anglican service, should, by a large number of people be not only tolerated, but approved. In 1859 the attempt of the rec tor of St. George's-in-the-east to introduce eucharistic vestments led to riots which con. vulsed the whole of east London. In the year 1867, in about twelve churches of the metropolis andin several country towns and villages—a far more advanced ritual, with vestments, altar-lights, and other ceremonies, regularly an eager throng, not of spectators only, but of worshipers. And the spread of the movement may be judged by the statement, which appears authorized by facts, that within a few months after the first report of the royal eonunissioners on ritual, the vestments were introduced in more than thirty churches. On the other hand, among the "Protestant" members of the church, and those of other denominations, the movement has provoked the loud est opposition. Most of the bishops have, directly or indirectly, expressed their disap probation; the press, except two or three journals, which are its strenuous advocates, is almost unanimous in denouncing, it; the more moderate members of the high church party disedurage it; and active efforts have been made to arrest it by legislative inter ference. In the lower house of convocation, on the motion of the dean of Ely, a com mittee was appointed to consider the subject, which, after careful examination, reported, in June, 1866, that vestments and altar-lights, whether legal or not, should not be intro duced without sanction of the bishop; that the tensing of persons and things, elevation after consecration, wafer-bread, and presence of non-communicants (except in special cases), were to be discouraged. In deference to this opinion the ceasing of persons and
things has been in some churches given up. Suits were instituted against several indi viduals—the rev. A. II. Mackonochie, incumbent of St. Albans, London; the rev. T. 13. Simpson, in the diocese of Essex, and others. The points complained of in these are chiefly elevation and the mixed chalice. In the beginning of the year 1866 an opinion was obtained, at the instance of some of the bishops, from five eminent counsel, among whom were sir R. Palmer and sir Hugh (now lord) Cairns, against the legality of all ritualistic innovations (the main grounds of which opinion are given in the objections above stated). In reply to this, another opinion was obtained, by the council of the English church union, from nine leading counsel—some of whom have since been raised to the bench—all of whom advise in favor of the legality of vestments, all but two in favor of hltar-lights, and all against incense; on the mixed chalice and wafer-bread they are nearly equally divided.
In the session of 1867 the earl of Shaftesbury introduced a bill—founded on the 58th canon of 1603—to limit ecclesiastical vestments to the ordinary surplice and hood, in favor of which more than GOO petitions were presented; while one against it, presented by lord Redesdale, was signed by more than 9,000 clergy and lay communicants. (Au earlier memorial, to the archbishop of Canterbury, against any change in the existing law, was signed by more than 40,000 communicant members of the church.) This bill was withdrawn on the appointment by the government of a commission " to inquire into the rubrics, orders, and directions for regulating the course and conduct of public worship, etc., according to the use of the united church of England and Ireland." The commissioners included the archbishops of Canterbury and Armagh. and the bishops of London, St. Davids, Oxford, and Gloucester. They published a report to the effect that "it is expedient to restrain, in the public services of the church, all variations in respect of vesture from that which has long ben the established usage of the said church; and that this may be best secured by providing aggrieved parishioners with an easy and effectual process for complaint and redress." The evidence appended to the report sup plies much information as to the various practices prevailing, and the widely different views entertained. The general conclusions appear to be that vestments, and probably altar-lights and the mixed chalice, are legal; that an ornate ritual is useful among sum' classes, and might, with certain safeguards, be allowed; that absolute uniformity is impossible, but that the law might be obeyed a good deal more generally than it is; that the maintenance of the present law, with a wide and liberal interpretation, but limited as a maximum to the ritual of the 2(1 year of Edward VI.. with some recognized eccle siastical authority to restrain unauthorized variations, would be most for the welfare of the church. The report produced no restraint on the progress of ritualism. and in May, 1873, 60,000 persons of standing and influence presented an address to the two arch bishops requesting them to adopt means for checking the growth ofritualistic practices. In April, 1874, a bill for this purpose was introduced in the house of lords by the arch bishop of Canterbury, entitled the public worship regulation act. It was adopted by the government, but was opposed in the house of commons by Mr. Gladstone in a series of six resolutions, and notwithstanding a considerable amount of ecclesiastical agitation it became law in August. Its main provision is the appointment of a judge for the trial of ritualistic cases. A complaint against the use of vestments, ornaments, and rites and ceremonies, or the omission of such as are ordained,in the book of common prayer. in the churches or bu•ial-grounds of the church of England, may be presented to the bishop of the diocese by an archdeacon or churchwarden, or by three parishioners, members of the church, of full age, and a year's residence in the parish. In the event of the parties not submitting to the directions of the bishop, he shall forward the case for trial by the judge, from whose decision an appeal lies to the privy council.