It is at length very generally being admitted that this is so; that the ritualists have the written law on their side for much of their practice: but then it is urged that precedent as to the observance of that law is utterly wanting, that in fact there has been a general consent of bishops and parochial clergy (for 300 years) that the law was not to be observed. I have shown you my brethren why it could not be observed, why it had to be repealed in Edward VI.’s time. If you know anything of the Marian persecution, and the bitter animosity against suspected Romanism which it naturally begat; of Puritanical infatuation and its superstitious horror at the sight of a surplice, its general disuse of the Holy Ordinance to which “high-ritual” and glorious vestments peculiarly belong, its perversity in wearing black, simply because others wore white, in fasting (as on Christmas day) when others were feasting; if you know anything of the worldliness, the apathy, the deadness to Evangelical truth, the utter ignorance of it or utter indifference to it, which characterized the last century and the early part of this—then you will surely be able to explain to yourselves, why the Rubric in question has not been generally observed, you will be surprised to find that any one has at any time observed it.
I could easily show that it has been, here and there, in part observed, almost to our own time; that it was designed by those who first inserted it in the Prayer Book, by those who restored it, and by those who deliberately confirmed and continued it, to be actually used, as soon as circumstances would allow. (Surely it is vain to argue on the other side, in the face of the repeated discussions about it, and the persistent maintenance of it; in the face, too, of the fact, that those, by whom it was defended and preserved at the last revision, were among the men who have most distinctly taught the doctrines which it embodies!) But were it otherwise; were they one and all, from first to last, in their own private judgments and by consent among themselves, against its actual use, or at any rate deliberately acquiescent in its disuse, are _we_ to be bound by their personal tastes and their private judgments, so as to yield up what at least they have preserved and solemnly handed on to us, what we have seen to have such full Scriptural sanction, so to harmonize with the dictates of true Catholic devotion, so to express _in act_, as, thank God! our Liturgy does many times _in word_, that we believe and confess that we have no way of access to God but through the Veil which Christ has consecrated for us, even His own flesh; that He is our only Sacrifice and the only sustaining Food of our souls; that He condescends ever to plead for us that Sacrifice and to give to us that Food; that on the altar He makes for us, by the hands of His representative, the Memorial of that Sacrifice and by the same hands gives us of the heavenly Food—He Himself Priest and Victim both? This is the great, the glorious, the soul-thrilling truth which “high ritual” is intended to picture to the eye, and so to bring home to the mind and heart; nor only nor chiefly this, but rather to express it in worship,—in intelligent, open, adoring, thanksgiving, splendid worship, to the Lamb that was slain, that sitteth upon the Throne!