almost irresistible temptation to the poor labourer ought to rank amongst the worst class of culprits.

There will be occasional cases of hardship; such must arise under every law: abolitionists will agitate, for unanimity is unattainable; but whatever be the pleasures and pursuits of an artificial state of existence, the love of the chase is a passion that springs from the fountain of natural life, cherished alike amidst the rude magnificence of barbarian courts and the turbulent followers of medieval barons. In place of declining, it has spread with the march of civilisation, and trained the youth and animated the manhood of the most vigorous races in modern times. The rights of the chase are founded on the first principles of law, and however strained through the abuse of power, have held a place in the institutions of every civilised community. It is singular that a radical fallacy should have so long pervaded the whole system of game laws, but that fallacy has been at last expunged from English jurisprudence by the recent decision of the House of Lords. We must now invoke the action of the legislature to consolidate the necessary reform by statute, for the policy and philosophy of the law alike require that the game on the land (now adjudged to be the absolute property of the landowner) should be included in the same legal classification, and receive the same protection, as other descriptions of property.

ART. VII.-1. The Directorium Anglicanum. Third edition. Edited by the Rev. Frederick George Lee, D.C.L. London, 1866.

By the Rev. Thomas Walter

2. Lawful Church Ornaments. Perry. London, 1857. 3. The Church and the World; Essays on Questions of the Day. By various writers. Edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley. M.A. London, 1866.

4. The cases of Westerton against Liddell, Clerk, and others (St. Paul's, Knightsbridge), and Beal against Liddell, Clerk, and others (St. Barnabas, Pimlico), as heard and determined by the Consistory Court of London, the Arches Court of Canterbury, and the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Most Hon. Privy Council. By E. F. Moore. London, 1857.

5. The Ornaments of the Minister. Case submitted to Counsel, with the Joint Opinion thereon of the Attorney-General [Sir Roundell Palmer], Sir Hugh M. Cairns, Q.C., Mr. Mellish, Q.C., and Mr. Barrow. London, 1866.

6. Disputed

6. Disputed Ritual Ornaments and Usages. A Case, with the Opinions thereon of Her Majesty's Advocate (Sir R. Phillimore, Q.C.), Sir Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C., Sir W. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. W. M. James, Q.C., Dr. Deane, Q.C., Mr. J. D. Coleridge, Q.C., M.P., Mr. C. G. Prideaux, Mr. J. Hannen, and Mr. J. Cutler. London, 1866.

7-11. The Mixed Chalice. The Elevation of the Host. The NorthSide of the Altar. Incense. Catholic Ritual in the Church of England. By Richard Frederick Littledale, M.A., LL.D., Priest of the Church of England. London, 1865-6.

12. A Charge Delivered to the Clergy of St. David's, October, 1866. By Connop Thirlwall, D.D., Bishop of St. David's. London, 1866.

THE

HE Ritual movement, which began in the English Church soon after the publication of the Tracts for the Times,' and has been already twice discussed in the pages of this Review, has lately entered on a new phase, which at the date of our earlier articles could hardly have been imagined as possible. It is no longer a question of surplice against gown as the dress of the preachers in parish churches, of a weekly offertory, or of reading or omitting the Prayer for the Church Militant; but vestures and ornaments are revived, ceremonies are practised, which no one had ventured on in 1843, or even in 1851, and the novelties of external worship are justified by the assertion of principles which in those days had not been discovered, or at least found no champion bold enough to maintain them. The Ritualists (as they delight to style themselves) while they acknowledge a connection with the Tractarians' and 'Ecclesiologists' of an older time, look back on those fellowlabourers in the great Catholic Revival' as mere babes in knowledge. They tell us, for instance, that Dr. Newman 'completely misconceived the very nature of the Catholic Church when he was among us, and, of course, the English Communion also;' that when he seceded he was yet in a semi-protestant state;'† whereas they themselves have made the discovery that it is possible entirely to shake off the bondage of Protestantism and yet to remain in the English Church; nay, that those who do so are its only true and consistent members. And between the earlier ceremonialists and the new party the contrast is thus drawn by Dr. Littledale :

6

No. clxiii., Art. 8, Rubrics and Ritual of the Church of England' (May, 1843); No. clxxvii., Art. 8, Rubric versus Usage' (June, 1851).

The Church and the World,' p. 247.

Littledale, 'Catholic Ritual,' pp. 14, 20-1.

'It may not be forgotten that in a former day, and notably about 1842, spasmodic attempts to revive various external rites were made, and that they fell through (just as two hundred years before, in the Laudian movement), not so much because suppressed, or even because ridiculed, as because they did not spring naturally out of matured theological convictions. In "Loss and Gain "[a tale by Dr. Newman], some examples of this merely dilettante spirit are mercilessly derided. But the phenomenon which has to be dealt with now is that ceremonial observances everywhere in England to-day co-exist with active parochial and missionary work, and are regarded by practical men, perfectly free from effeminate sentimentalism, as important adjuncts in their labours. In short, Ritualism is not employed as a side-wind by which to bring in certain tenets surreptitiously, but as the natural complement of those tenets after they have been long and sedulously inculcated.'*

Moreover we are told that, whereas Tractarianism' in its earlier phases was only a 'religion for gentlemen,' it has now taken a shape which will enable it to wrest the middle classes from dissent, to civilise and Christianise those poorer classes which have hitherto been either neglected altogether, or approached in a manner which had no effect on them; that, whereas its earlier time was a 'Tory stage,' it has now practically assumed a democratic aspect, of which the vigorous antipew movement is an exponent.'t And as another token of progress, we find that the epithet histrionic,' by which (even though qualified by the word 'almost,') the late Bishop of London gave deadly offence to the ceremonialists of 1850, is now boldly appropriated by the more advanced and more outspoken Ritualists of the present day, who do not scruple to avow themselves histrionic, both almost and altogether.

'It is,' says Dr. Littledale, 'an axiom in liturgiology that no public worship is really deserving of its name unless it be histrionic. Histrionic for three reasons:-First, because it is an attempt to imitate and represent on earth what Christians believe to be going on in heaven. Secondly, because this representation is partly effected by the employment of material symbols, to shadow forth invisible powers. Thirdly, because personal action rather than passive receptivity is the essence of its character. The whole histrionic principle is conceded and hallowed by the two most sacred rites of the Christian religion; Baptism, which physically suggests the idea of moral cleansing, and the Holy Eucharist, which shows forth the broken Body and the out

*

'The Church and the World,' p. 31.

Ibid., pp. 35, 36, 41.

We may take this opportunity of noting that a sentence which the editor of the Directorium,' in quoting it at second-hand (p. xxviii.), ascribes to Bishop Blomfield, really belongs to a very different person, the late Bishop Pepys, of Worcester. Archdeacon Freeman makes the same mistake, having probably copied from the 'Directorium.' Rites and Ritual,' p. 48.

poured

poured Blood, at the same time that it presents to the mind the notion of sustenance.'

We copy these words merely as evidence of the change which has taken place, and do not think it necessary to make any comment on them.

Within the last twelve months the Ritualists and their system have been much before the public. Their more remarkable functions and celebrations have filled a large space in the newspapers, where much has been written both for and against them. The subject has been discussed in both Houses of Convocation, and even in Parliament. A committee of the lower House of Convocation has drawn up an elaborate report on it; certain archbishops and bishops, a majority of the English bench,'† have submitted some of the chief points of ritualistic usage in the form of a case for the opinion of four eminent counsel; and an attempt has since been made by the Ritualists, with very indifferent success, to draw out from nine other learned lawyers an opinion which might be set against the unfavourable conclusions of the four. And, as was to have been expected, Ritualism has been a chief topic in the late episcopal charges, among which it is hardly necessary to say that the Charge to the clergy of St. David's is conspicuous for the deep learning, the vigorous thought, the acute penetration, the calm and independent judgment, the grave, keen, and subtle humour, the well-weighed and forcible language, which in their combination give to Bishop Thirlwall's charges a character altogether unique.

The Ritualists themselves are much given to boasting loudly of their progress. One of them, who was Secretary to the Exhibition of Ecclesiastical Art,' lately assured us that they are a large and increasing, if not actually the largest, party in the Church; and, although this is only an instance of that exaggerated self-importance which (as we know by the case of the Three of Tooley Street) is apt to be produced by vestiary occupations, there can be no doubt that their numbers are considerable, or that they are bent on doing their utmost to swell their following and to extend their influence. We therefore think it worth while to lay before our readers such materials as the necessary limitation of our space will allow us to bring together for appreciating the character and merits of a movement which so imperiously claims our admiration and submission.

Among the books named in the heading of our article we may

* 'The Church and the World,' pp. 28-9. Bishop of St. David's Charge,' p. 76.

'Times,' Oct. 30, 1866.

first notice Mr. Perry's volume on Lawful Church Ornaments," which appeared so long ago as 1857. A more unskilful piece of literary workmanship, a more wearisome trial of the conscientious reader's patience, than this extra-large octavo of about 650 pages, it would be very difficult to find. There is no intelligible method; for any one who is moderately acquainted with the history of our Church from the Reformation to the reign of Charles II., there is hardly any novelty of matter; * the burden of the whole is a dull and dreary reiteration of Mr. Perry's fancy that whatever articles of church ornament were sanctioned by the mediaval canons are still lawful in the Reformed English Church, unless expressly forbidden by later legislation. Of the manner in which this astounding conclusion is worked out it is impossible to give any idea. Mr. Perry seems to be quite incapable of rational argument; he appears to see no difference between which was to be demonstrated' and which is absurd.' If, for instance, a person of opinions strongly opposed to Rome is found complaining that a number of Romish ceremonies are kept up in certain quarters some months after the appearance of the first Reformed Prayerbook, Mr. Perry, instead of seeing that this is a complaint of disobedience to the Prayer-book, assumes that the silence of that book as to the things in question was intended to continue the sanction of them.† If a foreign reformer, writing from England, expresses fear that certain things may be retained in the forthcoming Prayer-book, and if out of four such things three are retained by name, Mr. Perry concludes from the absence of all mention of the fourth, not that it was excluded, but that it must have been retained too! ‡ These and other such arguments might perhaps be supposed to be the tricks of a dishonest controversialist, presuming on the party feelings and on the ignorance of those for whom he wrote; but as they re-appear in the case submitted to counsel on the part of the Church Union, we must acquit the man who thought them good enough for skilled lawyers of anything worse than hopeless wrong-headedness. Mr. Perry, however, seems to be the great authority of his party on matters of dress and ornament, for he is cited as such throughout the 'Directorium ;'§ and in addition to laying on us the

* Mr. Perry actually knows no better than to copy (p. 256) from Grindal's Injunctions' a prohibition of 'holy-water stocks, or fat images,' with the Parker Society editor's ridiculous explanation, Solid images, as distinguished from pictures.' We had thought that every one who cared about the matter was aware of the true reading, holy-water stocks or fats, images,' &c. The blunder is repeated at p. 336.

The Church and the World,' p. 468. § See the Preface, p. xxxi.