Ritualism

19th Century evangelical Anglicans were often opposed to what they called "Ritualism". Rightly or wrongly, what might be meant by the term and why might one object to it? 

These days we are perhaps more aware that ritual is inescapable. Saying hello and shaking hands and a few rules of conversation constitute the rituals of polite social interaction. 

And there might actually be ritual where it is not always recognised or owned. If our church service begins with a Bible verse and a prayer and then we stand to sing a hymn and then sit for another prayer, and so on, this is a kind of ritual. 

Some might object that ritual is Old Testament. Perhaps the New Testament might be claimed to be simpler. Or more spiritual. Or more Word or Faith Alone. 

Versions of the Regulative Principle of Public Worship might be thought to rule out certain rituals. Is there an explicit New Testament command for clerical vestments? 

Ritual might be rejected as foreign. 

Or as alien to Reformation Anglicanism. 

Or as contrary to law. Or the formularies. 

There could be guilt by association arguments. The French are Ritualists. Papists are Ritualists. 

Ritual might be associated with a negative kind of clericalism. 

Or with fussiness. 

It might be seen as a barrier to evangelism or connecting with the young or working class or.... 

There might be objections to particular rituals. For example, Eastward facing Communion might be seen as emphasising an offering made to God rather than a gift of grace received. 

Some might be tempted to depend on some particular ritual for salvation.