[6] Charge, p. 75.[7] Report, p. vii.[13] See History of Savoy Conference: Collier, Vol. ii. pp. 876–886.[15] Report, p. vii.[16] If the Commissioners should justify their thus reporting on things not essential, in the face of the very letter of their instructions, by saying that they understand the term essential to be relative; essential, not necessarily to the Being, but to the well-being of the Church, and that the repression of the vestments is, in their mind, thus relatively essential; it occurs immediately to ask, why, if they were thus so quickwitted to perceive this sense of relative essentiality on their own side, were they so obtuse in seeing that the same construction should equally be allowed to the witnesses examined, in their use of the word essential on the other side?

Or, further, if they should plead that although the things themselves were unessential, yet the liberty to deal with them was essential, (and in their mind essential on the side of repression,) and that thus their recommendation to restrain ceremonial is brought within the terms of their Commission; it must again be asked, why did they not award the same latitude of construction to the witnesses upon whose evidence they ground their sole recommendation; when it would be seen immediately that their inference and conclusion are wholly illogical and absurd. For their reasoning fully stated would then run thus:—“We find the vestments are by none regarded as essential to the Being, though we are aware that by many they are considered essential to the well-being of the Church; and therefore we come to the opinion that all variations in respect of vesture be restrained and abolished.” Or, (on the other view,) “We find the vestments are by none regarded as in themselves essential, though by many the liberty to use them is regarded as essential, and therefore we recommend that they be repressed and disallowed.” What must be said of a Report the compilers of which can only present even the semblance of avoiding direct collision with the terms of their appointment by such treatment of the word essential; who claim this latitude of interpretation on their own side, whilst they wholly overlook or deny the same to the witnesses whose evidence they desire to make responsible for their illogical conclusion? Truly if the Commissioners have taken such interpretations for themselves, and in the same breath deny them to the witnesses whom they quote, what words can be too strong to describe their blindness if they did not see this incongruity, or their unfairness if they did; whilst, if to escape such a dilemma, they repudiate both the above pleas, what defence can they make against the just rebuke of the trenchant Archdeacon of Taunton, when he said at Wolverhampton that “they had been appointed to report only upon things essential, and had reported only upon things non-essential”?[19] For this and the following quotations see Charge of Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol, p. 57; also pp. 66–77.[26] Report, p. 131.[27a] Opinions will no doubt be different as to the accuracy of this account of what is Romanism. The passage is not cited to bind anyone’s judgment in this respect, but rather for its negative weighty shewing at least what in the judgment of such a man (one as it is evident with no bearings which anyone can call Popish) is not Romanism.[27b] Appendix to Report on Ritual, pp. 130–131.[28a] Appendix, p. 130.[28b] See p. 24.[36] Times, Nov. 26, 1867.[41] Speech of Hon. C. L. Wood, English Church Union Circular, July, 1867, p. 241.[43a] Letter on “Ritual,” by Rev. John Keble, 1865.[43b] The following, very recently published by the Dean of Norwich, is worthy of insertion as a note to Mr. Keble’s remarks:—“From the alteration of the Lectionary to that of the rubrics there is but one step; and from an alteration of the rubrics we shall pass by an easy transition to the rearrangement of prayers—the cancelling (or bracketing) of some and the insertion of others. Questions of this kind being once opened, the Prayer Book would become an arena of fierce and furious controversy, and the reconstruction of it in what would be called an improved form would be the dismemberment of the Church of England”—Preface to Two Sermons: A Word for the Old Lectionary. By E. M. Goulburn, D.D., Dean of Norwich. 1867.[45] Bramhall’s Works, p. 141.