IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I Li|28 125 US 12.2 :^ lio 12.0 l» I liil 1 '•^^II'M'* < 6" ► Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WfST MAIN STtllT WIBSTIR,N.Y. MSSO (716) ■72-4503 m \ V <^ <^ ^\ WrS ■^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques d Ttchnical and Bibliographic Notaa/Notas tachniquaa at bibiiographiquaa Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy avallabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibllographlcally uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may algniflcantly changa tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chacicad balow. D n n n Colourad covers/ Couvartura de coulaur r~n Covart damagad/ Couvartura andommagia Covars rastorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raataurAa at/ou pallicuMa □ Covar titia misting/ La titra da couvartura manqua lourad maps/ Cartas gAographiquas an coulaur Colourad inic (I. a. othar than blua Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) rn Colourad maps/ r~| Colourad inic (I.a. othar than blua or blacic)/ I I Colourad platas and/or illustrations/ Planchas at/ou illustrations an coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ Rail* avac d'autras documents Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La raliura sarria paut causar da I'ombra ou da la distortion la long da la marga intiriaura Blank laavas addad during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these heve been omitted from filminfi/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutAas lors d'une restauration apparalssent dans la texte, mais, lorsque cele Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas At* filmAes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplAmentaires: L'Institut a microfilm* la mailleur exempiaira qu'ii lui a it* poaaibia da se procurer. Les d*tails da cat exempiaira qui aont paut-itre uniquea du point da vue bibliographiqua, qui peuvent modifier une image raprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dana la m*thoda normala de fllmage aont indlqu*a ci-deaaoua. r~~| Coloured pagea/ D Pagae de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag*es Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur*ee et/ou pelllcui*es Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pagea d*color*es, tachat*es ou piqu*es Pages detached/ Pages d*tach*es Showthroughy Tranaparence Quality of prir Quallt* ln*gale de I'impression includes supplementary materli Comprend du mat*riel suppl*mentaire r~~\ Pages damaged/ l~~| Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~pt Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~K Showthrough/ r~n Quality of print varies/ r~n includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ Seule *dition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata Blips, tissues, etc., have been ref limed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totaiemerit ou partiellement obscurcles par un fauillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont *t* film*es * nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meilleure imege possible. Tl to Tl P< o1 fil O b« th si 01 fli si oi Tl si Tl w l\^ di er b« ri! re m This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checiced below/ Ce document est film* au taux de r*duction indlqu* ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X aox a4x 28X 32X tails I du odiftor una mao* The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada The images appearing here are the best quanty possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire film* fut reproduit grftce A la gAnArositA de: BibliothAque nationale du Canada Las images suivantes ont AtA reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettetA de l'exemplaire filmA, at en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fllmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont filmte en commen^ant par le premier plat at en terminant soit par la derniAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmAs en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, seion le cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent §tre filmte A des taux de reduction diffirents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmA A partir de I'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. rrata to peiure. a 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 h KITUATJSM, ITS LEGALITY A:^D EXPEDIE NTY: AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECENT WORK • BY THE RIGHT REVEREND BISHOP HOPKINS' 1 i AND VARIOUS OTHER AUTHORITIES. 1 1 * « 1 Ponttcnl : PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL, ST. NICHOLAS STREET, 1867 A % V 'J' ' ( T ■* ITS LEaALITY AND EXPEDIENCY: BEING AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECENT WORK BT THE RIGHT REVEREND BISHOP HOPKINS AND VARIOUS OTHER AUTHORITIES. ly a iviejgt 0^ X^t t&xk^\W&. i^ftUY^it. PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL, ST. NICHOLAS STREET, 1867. iteHlirt PEEFACE. The following remarks form part of a larger pamphlet which the Author commenced some months ago, very shortly, in fact, after the publication of Bishop Hopkins' work. Delicate health, and other causes, hindered the completion of the pamphlet. In the interim the wheel has not been idle. While events have confirmed the Author's views, it would be useless and unprofitable to state facts now obvious to all. At the same time Ritual is a subject of such pre- eminent importance, that the opinion of an independent thinker, removed from the scene of struggle, may be of some value. The issues of the present contest are of vast consequence to the Church at large. Questions of faith are really involved, and much, humanly speaking, depends on the wisdom and discretion of the arbiters in the contest. While we oflfer prayers that the present dangers may be overruled, we should look the matter dispassionately in the face, see what is at stake, what we may lose, and what we may gain. BENEDICAT DEUS. EITUALISM, ITS LEGALITY AND EXPEDIENCY. ■ « <•> «- Ritualism is assuming more and more importance almost every day. The appearance of Bishop Hopkins' work was an event of no slight interest. The presiding Bishop of the United States has a reputation for experience, high character and honesty, -which, combined with his wide reading, give weight to his utterances. We cannot but regret that the Bishops of the mother Church of England should have allowed one of the Bishops of the daughter Church of Ame- rica to be the first apparently to investigate carefully and to speak authoritatively on this topic of the day. The English Bishops, although as a body they have evinced some charity towards the Ritualists, although they have acknowledged the self-devotion which characterizes the leaders of the movement, have not really looked into the question. It would be chari- table to assume that their feelings and associations have warped their judgments, and perhaps unconsciously influenced their expressed opinions. The motion of the Bishop of Oxford in Convocation, Feb- ruary, 1867, in answer to a report from the Lower House, seconded by the Bishop of London, and sanctioned we pre- sume by the twelve Bishops present, is an instance of lament- able ignorance of the true state of the case. It is not easy to conceive much more time serving than was manifested on a 6 later occasion by the majority of Bishops, who were prepared to surrender the liberties of the Church, and to Erastianizo it still further, in order wo fear to^ain popularity. The greater number of those present in the House of Lords were ready, if not eager, to promote Lord Shaftesbury's bill, if by so doing they could crush the Ritualistic movement. For years, by slow and painful degrees, the Church has been endeavoring to assert through Convocation the independence which must belong to her as part of the Catholic body. But the mass of Bishops would give up all that has been gained, and take the lead in truckling to ignorant partizanship. Although Bishops arc, from their high position, free from any evil conse- quences that may attach to unpopular opinions, and although the inferior Clergy may know that their very daily bread may, humanly speaking, depend on what is called their views, we yet find that the former are as timorous, to say the least, as the latter are fearless and uncompromising. It is true that Bishops in these days must be large-minded, not party men ; but this implies a readiness to sympathize with all that is good and earnest, and is entirely opposed to the line of policy which we trace in the conduct of some Bishops now-a- days. They seem to shut their eyes to any neglect of Church order, while they animadvert severely on what they conceive to be excess in Ritual. When we notice the disingenuous bigotry and extraordinary ignorance which characterize the Bishop of Durham, as recently exemplified in his correspon- dence with the Bishop coadjutor of Edinburgh, and the Rev. and Hon. Francis Grey, when we notice the animus of the Northern Primate, can we wonder that, in the opinion of some, and they sensible, thinking and loyal Churchmen, it is un- desirable to have more Bishops, so long as they are appointed as at present by the Crown. One Bishop, and one only, has not been afraid to speak the truth. The Bishop of Salisbury knows that the faith of the Church is covertly assailed, though people suppose that chasubles and incense are alone complained of. Wo have to thank him for his manljr and able apology for some of the central truths of Christianity, and to admire his wise and judicious toleration to all parties on the matter of Ritual. The names of those appointed to serve on the Royal Com- mission arc now made public, and we should be grateful for the evident desire of Lord Derby that both sides should bo fairly represented. The querulous croaking of the Record, and the secession from the list of members of Lord Shaftesbury and the Archbishop of York, prove plainly that there is no desire on the part of many to examine th» disputed points calmly and dispassionately, but simply to strike the hapless Ritualists, without hearing. They were to be sacrificed without mercy, wIOi scarcely the form of a trial, and the Royal Commission wii' to legalise tlie injustice. We have been saved from this <^reat danger, .ind the natural thought is, what will the Ro^.*i Commit^^ioii do ? Their pro- ceedings must occupy some time if nonestly and laboriously carried out. They can then rcporr evidence and oft'or sugges- tions. Convocation will most likely ni xt be consulted, and we presume that the matter will then be laid beioio Parliament. Many minds have been rendered anxious and unsettled by the fear that the Church and her own rightful Assembly would be entirely ignored. No statement was at first made that the opinion of Convocation would be asked in the matter at all. We owe it to the Clergy of the Deanery of Chew and Portishead that they elicited from the Primate a reassur- ance on this head.* But why should so important and funda- mental a point be simply an understanding between the Bishops and the Government ? Why should it not have been announced at first that the voice of Convocation would be heard ? Why should the truth come out in this back stairs sort of way ? What can the mass of Churchmen be about, that they should sit down satisfied under the mere uncertain- See Guardian of June 26, 1867. ^ 8 ty ? * When Lord Shaftesbury's proposed bill was first laid before the house of Lords, two laymen in the presence of se- veral Bishops were the only peers bold enough to lift up their voices in defence of the Church's Convocation. It cannot be a matter of surprise that Christians outside our Communion, should believe that we are more state ridden than we actu- ally are, and that the Queen, through the Parliament, decides on what the Church should do and teach. All we ask for Ritualism is the toleration so freely extended at present to neglect of some of the Church's plainest rules. If it be found (as we believe it will) that Ritualists do not go beyond legal latitude, we trust, in a spirit of justice, that the Rubric ad- mitting their practices may not be repealed. Ritualists are not an aggressive body. They are only aggressive against sin and irreverence. They only ask to be let alone. It is a singular circumstance that while Lord Shaftesbury's bill was framed to alter the Rubric, Mr. Martin should bring an action against Mr. Maconochie, for doing what the latter believes to be sanctioned by the Rubric. It is also instructive to notice that the vestments do not enter into any of the counts. This is a tolerably clear implication that against them at all events lies no valid legal objection. Churchmen should be reminded that the much disputed Rubric has for them the highest Ec- clesiastical and Civil sanction which it can possess. Nothing * Since writing the abo^re the Debate in the House of Lords on this particular question has reached us. It seema that the Archbishop of Canterbury had no distinct authority for the assurance he gave. He judged by analogy that Convocation would be consulted. Perhaps it may. Lord Derby implies somewhat vaguely and haltingly thit this will be the case. But we maintain that the position of the Church is most humiliating. Parliament may legislate as it likes. We will not accept its enactments in spiritual mat- ters unless they are sanctioned by Convocation. Though that body imperfectly represents the Church at large, we must be satisfied with its voice in preference to complete state tyranny. Churchmen must rouse themselves. Even the Press seems in part to be at length alive to the crisis, and to be conscious that the final conflict is rapidly nearing. See "Literary Churchman," for July 13th, 1867, article "Forewarned." 9 which repeals it is worthy even of consideration, if it does not possess equal authority. But to turn to the question now of interest. Are these vestments legal and desirable? We propose briefly to examine this point and naturally have before, us the book of Bishop Hopkins. It has been read by many doubtless with considerable interest, and a cheap edition has been recently issued by Masters. Whilst we agree with many of the conclusions, we difller from some of the writer's premisses and arguments, for which disagreement we hope to shew good reasons. In a good cause it is important to have good weapons, and some of the Bishop's seem to us very faulty. It is rather singular that the logical fallacies so noticeable in the Book have not attracted the attention of Reviewers. More than one of the grounds on which he justifies Ritua- lism would to many minds appear rather to make against it, and the Bishop's somewhat low sacramental views do away with the real ground on which Churchmen should desire Ritual. We cannot, however, but admire the spirit of the book. Though the Bishop is naturally indisposed from age, associa- tions and habit to sympathise with changes, he yet rises above any narrow ultra-conservatism, and is superior to pre- judice or fear of unpopularity. It speaks much for the rela- tions of the Bishop with his Clergy, that some of the latter writing in their own name, and apparently in that of others, some of whom were laymen, should desire to know their Diocesan's views in full upon Ritualism, and that the Bishop should readily and cheerfully comply. His Book divides itself into an Introduction, Nine Chapters, and a Recapitulation or Conclusion. We propose to touch upon each portion separately, in order to do justice to the Bishop's arguments. The Introduction has for its subject, the necessity of some form and order in Public Worship. The Bishop by arguments drawn from Scripture, and the analogy of creation and nature, briefly combats the notion, that form 10 and order are matters indifferent. As all bodies of Chris- tians adopt some form and order of Public Worship, the ques- tion cannot be " shall there be any Ritual at all, but what is the best form of Ritual" ? To put such a question is like opening a sluice gate, so that the hapless questioner runs the risk of being swallowed up by the stream which he has evoked. At the close of his Introduction, the Bishop, with almost superfluous earnestness, protests against the idea tha what is called Ritualism means a tendency to Rome, and shews well that the Reformation was a resistance against various corruptions and modern innovations of doctrine, and had nothing essentially to do with ceremonies. This is per- fectly correct with regard to the great leaders of the Refor- mation. But every movement has its narrow-minded sup- porters. Hooper was one of these, and he probably was as afraid of the color and make of a robe, as he was of the Papal supremacy. The Bishop next proceeds to unfold the scheme of his work. 1st. — He refers to Scripture, and proposes the Divinely- ordained Jewish Ritual as " the only model entitled to our highest reverence." 2nd. — He sets himself to examine the " common opinion that this Ritual has been entirely done away ;" which he " considers to be a very manifest error." 3rd. — He proposes to shew that the " Gentile Church, though free from the ceremonial law, yet took its whole system of Ritualism from the Jewish pattern." 4th — He discusses the existing law of the Mother Church of England. 6th. — He states " the merits of the question as", in his opinion, " it affects the interest of the Church in the United States." The first chapter of the Bishop's work may be dismissed with a few words. Every one can see that even the minutest and v5 11 @ most elaborate details of the Jewish Ritual, were prescribed by God. The carving, the embroidery, the altar of incense, the golden censers, the seven-branched candlestick, the mitre, breast-plate, and robe of Aaron, the robes for his sons, the provision for the public service, were all of Divine ordin- ance. These facts, more or less familiar to all, are espe- cially valuable, inasmuch as they shew that Ritualism cannot be "per se objectionable to the mind of the Almighty, and that to speak of it with a calm supercilious affectation of superior knowledge, or with indignant horror, as if in itself superstitious, are both really profane. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chapters of the Bishop's book, are in our opinion the weakest and least satisfactory. They are not likely to do service to the cause of Ritualism in the minds of many, and we trust to shew that they arc fallacious. In order to prove that the ceremonial law given by God to Israel, was not, except in part, abrogated by Christianity, the Bishop cites the Circumcision of Timothy by St. Paul. It is known that Timothy was of mixed blood, his father being a Greek, his mother a Jewess. In consequence of his father's nationality, he might have been reckoned as a Gentile. Yet St. Paul circumcises him.* Why? The Bishop has given us the reason, as he thinks ; one, we say, with all deference, not provable from Scripture. The fifteenth chap- ter in the Acts of the Apostles relates the disputation upon the question of Circumcision. That dispute was the occasion of the First Council of the Church, which was held at Jerusalem, under the presidency of St. James, the first Bishop of the Holy City. The Council pronounced tl it Circumcision was unne- cessary, and lays down certain conditions required of the Gentile converts. These were, that they should abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication. The last of these things pro- * Acts xvi. 3. i 12 hibited has nothing to >&o with the question at issue. We know that the Gentiles accounted fornication an indifferent matter.* Its fearful prevalence needed this prohibition. But the other three practices were in themselves indifferent.f In the case of an animal strangled to death, the blood was not to be shed from it. This was esteemed a delicacy by the Gentiles, but was held to be forbidden in the command given to Noah,:j: and repeated in the Law.§ The abstinence from blood, enjoined before the giving of the Law, was re- iterated many times. In the Western Church this injunc- tion was observed almost till the time of St. Augustine. Few at that period thought it obligatory. It is still maintained in the Greek Church, in the case of clergy, according to the GOth of the Apostohc Canons. || Eating of meat with the knowledge that it had been offered to idols, was so closely con- nected with the worship of idols, that its prohibition was held to be advisable by the Apostles.^ The other two customs pro- hibited, would of necessity have wounded the susceptibilities of the Jewish converts, and tended to separate them from the Gentile Christians. Hence the Apostles made this wise con- cession. But says Hooker,** " this was in respect of the con- veniency and fitness of the state of the Church, as it then stood," and again the same author elsewhere,!! observes, " A positive law is that which bindeth them that receive it, in such • According to some instead of Trnpveiag it should be iTopKeiag, that is, swine's flesh. Bentley would suggest A:o'P"'«f. See Dean Alford's Commentary on Acts xv. 20. t See Dr. Wordsworth's Commentary in loc. X Gen. ix. 4. § Lev. iii, 17; vii. 26 ; and I Sam. xiv. 33. II See Wordsworth's Commentary, ^ See 1 Cor. viii. on this special point, and a very interesting paper in the Literary Churchman for July 13th,1867, entitled " St. Paul's Theory of the Eucharist." •♦ Eccl. Pol. b. k. 4, 0. 11. tt Serm. 3, p. 619. 13 tlunga as might before have been either done or not done without offence, but not after, during the time it standeth in force. Such were those Church constitutions concerning strangled and blood. But there is no person whom, nor time wherein, a law natural doth not bind." Bishop Sanderson remarks,* " The Apostles in the first Council holden at Jerusa- lem, laid upon the Churches for a time a restraint from the eating of blood, and things sacrificed to idols and strangled." Kindly consideration for Jewish prejudice shaped the legis- lation of the Apostles and the practice of the early Chris- tians, as is proved in Church History. The Jewish Sab- bath was for a time observed by early believers concur- rently with the Sunday, although St. Paul tells the Colos- 8ians,t that they are free from the necessity of observing this or any other JcAvish rite.| But the law, with all its Heaven ordained ceremonies, was but a shadow, an outline of good things to come,§ and hence to assert its claims on any one after authoritative Christianity came, is an anachro- nism, and misses the meaning of Scripture and Divine dis- pensations, || Christianity has not only in part but entirely • Serm. 5 ad pop. 3 vol. p. 160 § 16 and p. 169. t Col. ii. 16. X Inclusive of distinctions of food. Compare also Romans, xiv. 2. § Heb. ix. 15, x. 1. II See Blunt's History of the Christian Church, p. 132 and 133. " There was yet another argument adduced by the Christian writers against the Jews, not open to the Apostles themselves, or at least to those of the Apostles who did not survive the fall of Jerusalem ; an argument which could not but have great weight with them ; namely, that as the actual existence of the capital and of the temple was necessary to the discharge of many of the rites of the Law, these being now destroyed, and the whole of the hierarchical dynasty done away, (agreeably, indeed, to prophecy,) they ha*', no longer the means of fulfilling the ordinances of their law, circumstances had broken it up ; nay, many prophecies relating to Zion could not any longer be possibly accomplished ; and, therefore it was for them to consider whether they could be in the right whilst they still cleaved to that Law and rejected the Gospel, into which it i i 14 fulfilled and taken the place of Judaism, and to be consistent with Bishop Hopkins' reasoning, a Christian Jew should not in part but wholly obey the ceremonial law of Moses, if he obey any portion of it. Timothy had some Israelitish blood in his veins. The Apostle Paul, to please his own country- men, circumcised him, though in no way bound to do so.* He refused subsequently, against all influence, to circumcise Titus.f Bishop Hopkins also alleges in support of his view, St. Paul's joining the four men who had a vow on them|. It is a matter of doubt whether St. Paul was in this case himself a Nazarite.§ But the vow, of which he bore the charges out of charity, seems to have been a real Nazarite vow. He assisted these men to defray their expenses, || and thereby bring their vow to a conclusion, by shaving their heads. All that this proves is, that the Apostle prudently and kindly desired in non-essential matters to disarm oppo- sition, and, if possible, thereby win his enemies over to the Gospel. The Bishop is in fact inconsistent with himself, for while he instances the Circumcision of Timothy as a proof that the rite in question was binding on those of in any sense Jewish origin; he, in p. 13, tells us, that the " Sacrament of Baptism was established by supreme authority as an indis- pensable rite of initiation into the Church of the Redeemer." bad died away. And, on reflection, one cannot but suppose, wbat in fact seems to bave proved the case, that the Jew, thus dislodged by the force of events from the revelation of Moses, and unwilling to accept the reve- lation of Christ, found himself soon without a creed, and accordingly lapsed into a religion of his own, which has hardened bis heart against all wholesome impressions, beyond any other class of men." * See Wordsworth's Commentary on this passage. t Gal. ii. 3, 4. i Acts xxi. 26. § The vow mentioned. Acts xviii. 18, wag apparently not the vow of a Nazarite, for the Apostle shaved his head at the beginning and not at the close of the period. II This was a custom not uncommon with the charitable and devout. I ^ 15 What becomes then of Circumcision ? It was of old the sign of a covenant between God and His chosen people, and was the appointed means of entrance into His Church. This was the ground of its existence and of its necessity in former days. Why then was Baptism instituted as necessary for all, Jew or Gentile ? The institution of Baptism virtually abrogated Circumcision, and thus the Circumcision of Timothy, as a support to the Bishop's argument, falls to the ground, bringing the argument down with it. The Bishop's reason- ing, if it proves anything, proves too much. He rightly observes that the authority, which has made a law, can alone repeal it. But the Apostles were commissioned by Christ to estabUsh His kingdom. They doubtless received full instruc- tions from their risen Lord, at their interviews during the great Forty Days.* They received plenary authority and power of the Holy Ghost to reject rites that had become unnecessary and would soon be obsolete. The cautious pru- dence, which their whole line of conduct evinced, must not be misunderstood. They did not, unless compelled, attack ex- isting institutions. We do not find St. Paul in so many words condemning slavery, although he did all in his power to ameliorate the condition of the slaves. Yet we find the early Christian Church gradually introducing emancipation throughout the Roman Empire, because it was felt that slavery was opposed to the mind of the Church, f The at- tempt to uproot suddenly an institution of so long standing would have been futile without a miracle, and very inimical to the spread of Christianity. The Church of Jewish Chris- tians came to an end, when Jerusalem was taken by Titus, A. D. 70. We have not therefore any opportunity of judging what they would do in matters relating to their law, if they * See Clemens Romanus, § 44. t Enfranchisement was recognized as a religious act, and the Code of Justinian is highly favorable to enfranchisement. See Goldwin Smith's " Does the Bible sanction American Slavery ?" p. 70. 16 were now a separately existing community. The Bishop falls into a twofold '■'•petitio principii" when he asserts, that when the Jews are restored to their own land they will manifest the same reverence for their Church prescribed to them by God. It is an open question whether the Jews will be, in a literal sense, restored, or whether their restoration will not be a spi- ritual one, viz. their conversion, their restoration to the cove- nanted mercies and grace of God. Also, to judge by St. Paul's conduct, and that of the early Christians, we can hardly con- clude that in the event of the literal and physical restoration of the Jews, they will carry on the observances not forbidden in so many words by our Lord's Apostles and narrated in the Acts. The Bishop remarks, p. 14, " There has been no abroga- tion of the ancient law given to Israel. The Jews through- out the world still obey it, so far as their circumstances allow." What if they do ? Miserably languid and almost dead as is the Jewish religious practice, what has it to do with the present question ? Do they observe their law as Christians ? Do they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ at all ? Has not, in their eyes, the Messiah yet to come ? Of what weight then is the statement ? Even if the language of St. Paul, and the practice of the early Church be disre- garded, the very facts of the destruction of the Temple, the failure of every attempt to rebuild it, and the dispersion of the Jews, are proof enough that the Jewish Ritual is intended by God to be a thing of the past. After these events the law was not only " mortua" but " mortifera,^'* and though inter- esting as the germ of higher things, of no binding authority upon any Christian, be he of Jewish or Gentile extraction. We entirely agree with Bishop Hopkins, that the Christian Church is a development of the Jewish Church, as the fruit is a development of the bud, or the perfect insect from the • When Christ came it was " moribunda," I 17 larva. This very fact ir Mes a change of condition, to our minds entirely subversive the very conclusions drawn by our Author from this anaio«ij. The Jews, who now worship according to the Mosaic Ritual, are not in a state of enlight- ened knowledge, but of darkness, for a veil is on their hearts. In the 3rd chapter of his work, the Bishop examines what he calls the " ordinarv view." He attacks a statement of the present Bishop of Ely, in his well known work on " The Articles." — Bishop Browne observes, " we know well how strongly St. Paul condemns those who adhered to the Jewish ceremonial. — Indeed, in the Epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle declares, that if a man is circumcised, and strives to keep the law, (i. e. the ceremonial law of Moses,) Christ has become of no effect to him, he is fallen from grace." Bishop Hopkins rightly explains this expression of St. Paul to be a condemnation of those who rested upon Circumcision and made it a question of salvation. But we must most strongly demur to some passages in p.p. 18 and 19. The Bishop therein places Baptism and Circumcision practically on an equality. We are astonished to meet with such teaching in any work of any Bishop. Circumcision is on a parallel with Baptism, inasmuch as both have been outward marks, or signs of a covenant between God and man. Circumcision also was the appointed means of entrance into the ancient Church, as Baptism is the ordained mode of admission into the Catholic Church of Christ. But the parallel extends no farther. Cb- cumcision,* though a symboUcal act, is not a Sacrament, or means of grace, as Baptism. Circumcision did not, as Bap- tism, confer the new birth of the Spirit. And al though we may be right in saying that Circumcision was in a sense a spiritual ordinance, and should be spoken of with respect as of God's ap- pointment, yet to place it on an equality with Baptism, is, to say ♦ See the introduction and early Chapters of Wall's learned work on Paedobaptism. B 18 the least, loose and inaccurate religious teaching. St. Paul in Rom. iii. 1, asks the twofold question : "What advantage hath the Jew, or what profit is there in Circumcision ?" To this ho replies, " Much every way ; chiefly because unto them were committed the oracles of God." In other words, they enjoy- ed the privilege of being selected as God's peculiar people, of receiving His revelation, and Circumcision pointed that fact out to them and to others. It separated them from surrounding nations, and demonstrated that they were the people to whom the oracles of God had been committed. A Jew was not a Jew who was only one in the flesh by the ordinance of Circumci- sion, and who might transgress and set at naught the law. Neither is he a Christian in deed, who though baptised is yet disobedient. But to say p. 19, " neither are those Sacraments •which are merely outward in the flesh," really degrades Bap- tism. A Sacrament is a Sacrament quite apart from the reci- pient. The " res Sacramenti," and the " virtus Sacramenti" are not necessarily synonymous terms. A Christian may misuse Sacraments, but he cannot do away with the fact that they are Sacraments, though he may receive no benefit from them. The Bishop's view is all but Zuinglianism, and the confusion in these statements is as singular as it is unsatisfactory. If as Churchmen we are bound in every point to conform to Apostolic precedent, we should be compelled to institute communism of property. The conduct of the Apostles at a special time was characterized by remarkable discretion, and this discretion was given them by God Himself. It is of course permissible even now for any one, be he Jew or Gentile, to be circumcised, and to eat unleavened bread, provided he do not make such a habit a crucial test of faith in himself or in others. But we do not see how the cause of Ritual is any way furthered by such a concession. We would also ask how does Bishop Hopkins explain the words " Jewish Law," which was to remain till all be ful- filled? Does he interpret them as the whole ceremonial 19 as well as moral law ; or simply the latter alone, or by a self- constituted eclectic process, the latter and a portion of the former ? Admitting as we are prepared to do, that the Bishop of Ely's statement* is perhaps somewhat rhe- torical and scarcely close enou<:h in its reasoninji; for a Theo- logical manual, yet the proj)hecies (juoted by Bishop IIo).kin8, as invalidating this statement, make in our opinion nothing for him. They are inap])licable to any earthly condition. They can scarcely be fulfilled except in a heavenly sense, and that very fact would suggest the idea that the literal carrying out of ceremonial observances was not signified. Does not the word " law," point to the principles of morality, which are eternal as God Himself? Even if we grant, which we are not disposed to do, that the word " all " spoken by our Saviour is to be taken as relating to every single proi)hecy in Scrip- ture, and not to the Incarnation, the Atonement, the events in fact of our Lord's earthly life ; still we cannot dogmatically declare that the word *■' law " hicludes the ceremonial edicts as well as the moral precepts. And indeed if we examine the context of our Lord's remarks we shall notice that the question of externals of Ritual did not come under considera- tion. f Morals were the subject of His teaching, and the con- sensus of Commentators has thus explained the passage. For we may fairly conclude the word "all" here is co-extensive with the scheme for man's redemption, when in the fulness of time the Law retired to make way for the Gospel, and Christ came into the world. It ought to be unnecessary to remind ourselves • Our Lord had indeed declared that one jot or tittle, i.e. of the Law, should not pass away till all was fulfilled. But all was fulfilled when the Sceptre departed from Judah, and so the Jewish commonwealth was dissolved ; and when the types of the law had their full accomplishment ia their great Antitype, our Prophet, Priest, and King. t Dr. Littledales' little work, from which we quote further on, takes, as we conceive, the right view of the argument from the Mosaic Dispensa- tion. 20 that one important canon must always be followed in the expli- cation of Scripture, namely, that the general scope must bo looked to, and no undue preponderance given to isolated pas- sages. Bishop Hopkins allows that he is in a minority, and we must say with all respect, that the general teaching of Scripture and of Theologians is opposed to him. He should bear in mind too that his conclusion would naturally predis- pose people against Ritual. The Law with all its detailed, com- plex, and almost fretting restrictions, was intended for an im- perfect state. It was the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ. It symbolized discipline. It enjoined literal obedience. The Israelites had to conform to an ordinance without knowing its meaning. No man, who has attained the liberty of the Gospel, would sympathize with a movement which would seem to restore him, if ever so little, to a condition of bondage. Nay too, by the Bishop's own showing, p 21, the Ritual of Moses belonged to the Jews and not to the Gentiles. Of what use then is the urging of the argument in this chap- ter, at the present crisis ? It cannot strengthen the claims of Christian ceremonial upon Gentile Churches at the present day. In the 4th chap., Bishop Hopkins examines the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with special reference to a passage in Bishop Browne's work on the articles. " The Epistle to the Hebrews equally shows that the law had waxed old, and was ready to vanish away. Its accomplishment being perfected in Christ, there was no longer benefit to be gained by adhering to it." Bishop Hopkins considers that the " New Covenant," mentioned Heb. viii. 8, and following verses, refers to the restoration of the Jews. Assuming that the lit- eral theory upon this much disputed and mysterious point is the right one, the Bishop's conclusion is still to our mind in- admissible. If the Ritual of the Jews was to be binding on them, and to be retained by them till all be fulfilled, and if this fulfihuent be, to take the Bishop's view already stated in SI 3rd cliap., not the restoration of Jews, but the consummation of all thiiij^s at the General Resurrection and Day of Judg- ment, how can this bo reconciled with the acknowledged development of the Mosaic into the Christian Dispensa- tion V Are then the Jews, God's originally chosen people, if Christians, to be condemned to a lower and less perfect condi- tion tlian (ientiles ? Are they not freed from the obligations of all but the moral law ? There is something vexatious to be fighting with shadows in dealing with a book intended to clear the ground. The Bishop's premisses appear, though with perfect honesty, to have been constructed to suit his concbjsion. The desire to find Scriptural arguments for Ritual seems to have become parent to the thought. Bishop Hopkins, p. 23, would limit the word ' law" ii llcb. vii. 12, to the law^ of priesthood. This does not appear correct. The word " law," throughout the whr-'e Epistle has the wide signification of the Mosaic code which referred to externals. We may gather then, that the same Authority which changed the Priesthood, by superseding the Levitical descent, also changed the Law. The Bishop would make the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews guilty of truism, if the verse in question is " the Priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (of the Priesthood).* The Bishop gives a lengthy quo- tation from Heb. viii., but strangely enough omits the IHli verse, which helps to make the passage clear. He interprets '' after those days," to mean, after the Jewish restoration.! But the peculiar condition of the Jews at the time that this Epistle was written, renders such a theory improbable. They had lost their chief Pastor, St. James, and were perhaps tempted to lapse into Judaism. The writer of the Epistle reminds them, that since a new Covenant had been spoken of, the word of God had • See Wordsworth's Commentary in loc, and his interesting intro- duction to this Epistle, page 375 and 376. fZacbariab, ch. viii. 23. 22 proleptically antiquated the old Covenant.* The period of trial was terminated by the destruction of Jerusalem, declared impending by St. James.f This solved the doubts of the Christians in Jerusalem, for it shewed them that the old Cov- enant had finally vanished away. How can the words " ready to vanish away " be applicable to what, according to Bishop Hopkins' view, was to last for thousands of years ? The ex- pression " Covenant," is of course comprehensive, and ap- plies, though not exclusively, to the covenant of works as un- derstood by a Jew. In fact it should embrace the whole Jewish system. Bishop Hopkins puts, p. 30, a hypothetical case. Supposing a church of converted Jews should arise, could we with any warranty forbid them to circumcise them- selves ? We could not, any more than we could prohibit ani- mal sacrifices, however useless and unmeaning both would be now. But the Bishop's hypothesis is highly improbable. If a number of Jews became Christianized in the 19th cen- tury, they are not likely to make a stand for their own ancient ceremonies. They would, if thoroughly Christian in heart, if perfectly convinced of the symbolical nature of the ancient Ritual, lay all down and accept the laws of the Christ- ian Church. If a Jew is baptised, he receives grace over and above the outward mark of covenant with God, implied in Circumcision. On what ground, therefore, could he stickle for the latter over and above the former ? The Bishop does not seem to appreciate the wide gulf which separates the numerous and great difficulties which beset the Apostles in relation to Judaism, from the state of things at the present day. He also makes an apparent con- fusion between Ritual and Ordinances, two very distinct things. For the second time, moreover, he lowers the Sacra- ments by placing them in the same rank with Jewish ordinan- 7!p U • Jeremiah xxxi. 33. t St. James iii. 9. 1* 23 ces. His language upon the Holy Communion is extremely meagre and unsatisfactory, and he apparently understands the words " generally necessary to salvation," to mean something which is vague, and something contradictory to the very sentiments he elsewhere expresses on the obligation to receive the Holy Communion. The word "generally" simply means that the Church does not pass judgment on those who cannot receive this Sacrament. Those who can and do not, are guilty of wilful sin. The Bishop's beUef upon the grace of the Sacraments seems a subjective one. He seems to forget the parallel passage to Gal. v. 6, viz. : Gal. vi. 15.* There near the end of the epistle, which St. Paul had written with his own hand, he says solemnly, " neither circum- cision is anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature," or rather a new creation, miv// Krhti;. This expression is an obvious allusion to regeneration. To speak of those blessed means of grace which are the sources of life to a Christian soul, as if they were merely forms of order, is extraordinary lan- guage in a Bishop of the Church. The Apostles frequented the Temple at Jerusalem, as long as it was standing, to shew that they were not hostile to it or to the synagogue. They preached to the Jews first, for their message was first to be oflfered to the Jews, and they tried to win them over to Christ- ianity. But when Christ died, He fulfilled in his own person the ceremonial law, and thenceforth it was dead. To reha- bilitate it is to galvanize r corpse, and to misunderstand the whole typical teaching of the Old Testament. It is with heart^^ pleasure that we turn to the 5th chapter of Bishop Hopkins' work. This touches upon points of conformity between Mosaic Ritual and that of the Church. f It is known • St. Paul goes on to say in IG v. " and as many as walk according to this rule" (the rule of faith professed at Baptism) " peace be with them," &c. t See the Book of Revelation, vi. 9 ; vlii. 3 ; ix. 13. The Ritual in the Apocalypse seems to suggest splendour in Worsiiip, and the use of the word " Altar " sanctions the adoption of it by Christiana. mmmim 24 that the early Christians borrowed much of their ceremonial theory from the Ancient Temple Worship.* This was natural for three reasons. 1st. The Jewish Church was the mother, her ceremony was of Divine institution, and the daughter Church would be ready in outward matters to show her an- cestry, from whence she sprang, and the bond which united her to the older communion. It is well also to mention that the conversion of the Jews would thus be assisted, and their prejudices conciliated. 2nd. The Christians had no other model to go by, and the Saviour, when He instituted the two Sacraments, had already adapted Jewish customs, and incon- ceivably exalted them by making them means of grace. 3rd. The gorgeous imagery of the Apocalypse, the terminology of the Heavenly worship therein so magnificently depicted, car- ried their thoughts back to their spiritual ancestry. It also suggested the possible antitypes of all such rites in the king- dom to come, and the spiritual significance at all events at- taching to all of them. We cordially commend this chapter to all who take interest in the subject. The Bishop sweeps away the dusty objections to the word " Altar," in Christian wor- ship. The material was at first indifferent, but after the 6th century stone seems to have been selected. The most ancient altars were of wood. The Bishop shows the mistake of those who necessarily connect the idea of Altar with Animal Sacri- fices. This idea is contradicted by Scripture itself, wherein the term Altar is applied to the Altar of Incense,f and also to the memorial altar erected by the Transjordan- ite Tribes in Joshua xxii. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in ch. xiii. v. 10, uses the word evaiaarfipiov and applie,'^ * It 13 easy to understand that the arrangements of the earliest Christ- ian Churches were nearer those of the Temple than we should find in modern Churches. See Bingham, Vol. 2. Alexander Severus was the first Emperor who permitted Christians to build Churches at all. t Exod. xl. 5. 25 it to the Christian as opposed to the Jewish Altar.* It is a matter of regret that according to the present English Eccle- siastical Law, it is apparently illegal to erect a stone altar. We believe that the illegality is doubted by some competent persons. The custom is an ancient one, and although the word " Altar" does not occur in the Book of Common Prayer, it is of frequent occurrence in the writings of the best Anglican Divines, and is undoubtedly very primitive. It is probable also that the lighted candles used very early by day,t in the Church, were as the Bishop supposes, an imitative allusion to the seven branched candlestick. | Incense also is plainly derived from the Jewish Ritual, and is mentioned in the Book of Revelation, as symbolizing prayer, while in the Old Testament it seems to mean mediation. The Apostohc Canons mention incense as used at the time of the Oblation, i. e., the Eucharistic office. The Bishop thinks that incense implies censers. This is probable since the Jews had used the latter, but there is no -express mention of them as far as we know, as used by Christians, earlier than the 6th century. The custom of bowing to the Altar existed by an unbroken tradition in some old fashioned English Churches prior to the Oxford movement. Bishop Cosin recommends it, and it is probably of considerable antiquity. It obtains in the Eastern Church also, and is supposed by ♦ See Hooker, Bk. 4. 10. ; also Bp. Andrewes' works, Vol. 5. p. 56, Waterland, " Distinctions of Sacrifice," and Archbishop Trench's "Sy- nonyms of the Greek Testament." t In the 4th century. X As there were windows in Solomon's Temple, I Kings vi. 4, the Can- dlestick must have had some mystic meaning. The striking prophecy in Mai. i. 11, must have furnished to the early Christian Church an additional argument for the use of incense. The pure offering there mentioned is a type of the Eucharist. On tiiis point see Mede's " Christian Sacrifice." The Church of Cirtain Numidia had in the 4lh century " inter alia,'' seven silver lamps. Church und World, p. 43. Essay by Dr. Littledale on " Missionary Aspect of Ritualism." 26 Bingham to have arisen from a Jewish habit of bowing towards the mercy-seat. The Chrism used at confirmation, of very early use, seems to correspond to the Anointing Oil, enjoined in the Mosaic Ritual.* The ancient Episcopal and Clerical vestments, detailed by Bishop Hopkins, in his quotations irom Bingham, were a follow- ing of the " garments for glory and beauty" commanded by the Lord Himself to be worn by His Priests. White linen emblematical of purity, and mentioned so often in Scripture, formed part of the vestments. These were clearly the ancestors of the modern Alb and Surphce, and are not passed over in the Apocalypse. There we read that " fine linen is the righteousness of Saints." Rev. xix. 7 and 8. The Bishop, in eloquent and animated language, claims beauty and splendour as seemly in the Sanctuary of God, and consonant with common sense. He condemns black as unscriptural and unprimitive, as it undoubtedly is, and the only argument in its favor, a somewhat fanciful one, is that laid down by Bishop Cleveland Coxe, in his recently published Criterion. f In the 6th chapter. Bishop Hopkins in a summary, presents the various features, which as he conceives, the Christian Church borrowed from the Jewish. With the general tenor of his remarks we entirely agree. These features were : 1st. — The three orders of the Ministry — Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, which are the counterpart of High Priest, Priest, and Levite.:|: I • Ex )d. XXX 2. t " Criterion," p.p. 128 and 129. — The sombre hue of mourning and hu- miliation, appears to me most befitting our sad times. Who does not be- wail the departed glories of the Catholic Church? Who does not per- ceive that sackcloth and ashes are the proper symbolisms for all those who thinlc upon her stones, and grieve to see her in the dust ? I am disposed to vote that all questions about blue and purple and scarlet should lie on the table to be called up only, wlien the beauty of holiness shall be more visible among us." W hut are the departed glories alluded to ? JThe Rev. Mackenzie Walcott, in his Essay on Cathedral Reform (Church I 27 2nd. -The Festivals of Easter, Whitsim-Day, and Christ- mas, which correspond to Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. 3rd. — The use of the Psalter, the reading of Scripture, and recitation of a form of prayer, as ordered in both Churches. 4th. — The incense, chrism, and lights, already touched upon. 5th. — The garments of the Priesthood, of which at all events the white vestment still remains. 6th. — The chanting of Psalms to the accompaniment of musical instrument:^. 7th. — The magnificence of Church edifices, the table of consanguinity, the reference to Isaac and Rebekah in the marriage service, and the burial of the dead. Lastly. — The moral law, given confessedly to Jew and Gentile alike. We have followed the Bishop's order of arrangement, which is certainly not quite systematic. It is also hardly doing justice to the moral law, to place it last, and then to mix it up with questions of branches and flowers, and festal processions, which are a somewhat confused catalogue of ceremonial observances. The Bishop passes on to the negative side. He attempts, with some ingenuity, but by no means with entire success, to demonstrate the points of contrast between the Mosaic system and the modern peculiarities of Romanism. Thus 1st, that the Jews had no Sacerdotal person answer- ing to the Pope. This argument may be pleasing to Exeter Hall, but would be quite powerless to convert Romanists, and and world) pp. DO and 91, shews the curious parallel between the consti- tution of our Ancient Cathedrals and the divinely appointed service of the Jewish Temple. 28 can be of little weight with any one. We protest against Roman error, because it is contrary to Scripture and the teaching of the Primitive Church. Its mere dissimilarity with Judaism is of no moment. 2nd. Worship to men. We of course protest against the claim of the Pope to enrol men by his own authority in the calendar of Saints. It is, however, to be remembered that the general voice of the Church has given the title of Saint to certain holy men, members of the Christian Church. The Bishop is especially feeble in his paragraphs on celibacy and confession. He says that " the Divine code of the Jewish Church yields no encouragement to priestly or monas- tic celibacy. " But it must not be forgotten that marriage and procreation of children were objects of very special desire to the Jews. It was the earnest longing of every Jewish woman to form a link in the chain which would terminate in the Mes- siah. The disgrace which attached to barrenness in their eyes is familiar to us all, and was conspicuous even in Elizabeth, the mother of the Baptist, who is grateful that her reproach among men was about to be taken away. The crimes com- mitted on both sides by Lot and his daughters, and by Judah and his daughter-in-law Tamar, are only intelligible on this ground, and were evidently not dictated by mere sensuality. There were in consequence reasons of a peculiar nature, which in the case of the Jews, caused marriage to be the rule. We do not, as we might, lay stress upon the reason patent to all, why in the infancy of the world men should increase and multiply. Neither do we urge the abominable practices of surrounding nations which rendered marriage desirable. But when Christ had come, what was His teaching and His example ? He Himself led a life of virgin purity. All His Apostles, as far as we know, save one, St. Peter, were also unmarried. And though He sets forth the dignity of Christian marriage, and re-establishes it in its original purity, He distinctly intimates that celibacy was the higher I i n I 29 state to him who can receive it. St. Paul, although he shows how holy an estate is Christian matrimony, and how typical of Christ and the Church, yet, with most singular discretion commends* the lot of the unmarried as inviting less distraction to devotion and work. Such teaching, while it is no argument for the compulsory celibacy, which since the time of Gregory 7th has been the law of the Western Church, disposes of the Bishop's brief and illogical para- graph. We can only say, that if the Bishop of Vermont's ideas upon confession are those of the American Church at large, they are irreconcilable with the English Prayer Book. The abuse of private confession as undoubtedly practised in the Church of Rome, is no argument whatever against the discreet, modified, and restricted form of it taught in our modern Prayer Book. Confession, bitter and painful as it is, is sometimes needed, and our Church, under such circum- stances, enjoins it. We lament for the American Church, that her Prayer Book affords her Clergy no such wise sanction in some of the graver phases of their spiritual ministrations. The Bishop's paragraph on this point confounds public ex- communication and penance with private confession. The two things are not identical. The English Church in her Commination Service expresses a wiah that public discipline and open penance were restored. Of this there appears but slight prospect. Perhaps in early days it was more essential than at present. But it must not be confused with private confession. Our English Church is in this respect primitive, not because she has " swept away all that corruption," to use the Bishop's words, but because like the early fathers, she does not press, still less enforce private confession. We * Ist Cor. viii. We refer the reader to the Bishop of Ely's Treatise on the 39 Articles and also to Mr. Vaux's interesting and sensible essay on " Clerical Celi- bacy" in " the Church and the World.' 30 would refer our readers to Hooker, who in his 6th B. 4th chap, enters fully into the question of public and private confession. As early as Origen, private confession is alluded to. Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio in eos qui alios aeerbe judicant^ suggests and even urges it under certain circumstances.* Hooker says, " >V^re the Fathers then without use of private confession as long as public was in use ? I affirm no such thin< >> The Greek Church was the first to make private supersede public confession. This was about the third century. About two centuries later the Latins followed their example. We see the reason why, in one of Leo the Great's letters, Ep. 7. The instances where such a course was considered desirable, were cases when public confession was unsafe, and thus where many would be deterred from confession and penance for fear of the consequences. The Bishop's words do not therefore apply either to the early or to the Enghsh Church. f We quite agree with Bishop Hopkins in his condemnation of the liommi doctrine of Purgatory. It, and the erroneous tenets and practices which hang on to it, are unequivocally repudiated by the Church of England. The ideas of the Jews upon immortality and a future state, are not very defined. And though the holy Job gives us one of the most sublime expressions of faith in the Resurrection which we can find in Scripture, yet such clearness and precision are not of frequent occurrence in the Old Testament. This is only to be expected from the imperfect nature of the Jewish dispensa- tion. Though there is a hint or the germ of such an idea as * Sozomen and Socrates both allude to penitentiaries ordained in the Greek Church, to take confessions and appoint the penances of secret oflPenders, See Hooker, B. 6, chap. 9. I The form of absolution used in the English office for the Visitation of the Sick, is remarkably strong and decided. It is even stronger than the form in the Sarum office, on which it is based. See the " Prayer Book Interleaved," p, 207. 31 m Purgatory, in tho Stromata of Clement of Alexandria,* we believe the Pishop is right in his opinion, that it was not taught in the first four centuries. We presunie, however, that few would deny the possibility of some cleansing process, to which the soul may be subjected in the Intermediate State. The Bishop is severe upon Monasticism, and is very narrow in his prejudices on the subject. We have not all St. Je- rome's works to verify the Bishop's quotation. But St. Jerome was, at all events, not opposed to Monachism. He especially (ep. ad Paul, de Instit. Monach.) urges that Elias, the schools of the Prophets, and St. John the Baptist, were prototypes of Monks, and cites them as affording " Auctoritatem Scripturariun'' for the institution. St. Chry- sostom, in his Treatise " de Sacerdotio,"t alludes to it, and it had as its warmest supporters, Basil, Ephrem Syrus, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Augustine, Cassian, and the two Gregories. Monasticism in some shape seems to belong to most religions. Egypt, Assyria, Persia, India, had monks and ascetics before Christianity. | It seems to be naturally indigenous to the East, though as early as the fifth century it became prevalent in the West. The desire for a contem- plative life is no " censure upon the Almighty ;" but only one of the natural out-growths of religious feeling. Monasticism may not be necessary now, and like all human institutions, it has been injured by human error. But the Monks did good service to the Church and the poor in their day, as is gene- • 4th, 6th and 7th Books. t He speaks of that happy state, the life of Monks. t Egypt was probably the spot where it took its rise as a phase of Christian life, and persecution helped to bring it about. Paul of Thebes, in the third century, may be said to be its founder but its promoters were numerous and learned ; e. g. I'achomius, Hila- rion, Eustathius, and we believe, Athanasius. The Therapeuta; are men- tioned by Josephus. The Essenes, though Semi-Gnostics, were almost Jews in many points. See Riddle's Christian Antiquities, p. 775. 32 rously allowed by Professor J. J. Blunt, in his little Treatise on the Reformation, and Dr. Maitland in his " Dark Ages." We heartily go with our Author's Christian charity in refusing to recognize the Pope as Antichrist. Such language is not likely to make those who speak it better or more humble-minded. For though the Church of Rome is stained by many modern corruptions, she yet contains much that is good. We acknowledge her to be a branch of the Church Catholic, and we hold much in common with her. To iden- tify any one religious system with Antichrist is questionable' and probably premature. It would seem to be that power of evil, which, in all systems, is opposed to the truth and spirit of Christ. Time will shew. The Bishop's words, p. 54 and 66, are hardly consistent with the passage in p 51. He there speaks of the Pope as " seating himself on the Altar as an object of worship." In p. 54 he repudiates the conclusion which he had previously asserted as a fact. But Bishop Hopkins is too warm-hearted a man to take satisfaction in branding fellow Christians with the awful name of Antichrist. Those who do aflSx such an epithet to the Pope, may perhaps be benefitted if they read the two last pages of this 6th chapter of Bishop Hopkins' book. The 7 th chapter is a very excellent and condensed state- ment of what the Bishop conceives to be the Law of Ritual in the English Church. He believes that the " ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, must apply to those in use when the first Prayer Book of Edward VI, received Parliamentary sanction."* This was passed by the House of Lords, 15th January, 1548f or 1549. The an- '•I' t * It is a disputed point whether Edward's first Prayer Book received Synodical sanction or not. Mr. Massingberd in a letter to the " Guardian," July 17, asserts the aflBrmative. See the "Prayer Book interleaved," p. 23. t Mr. Perry, " Lawful Church Ornaments," considers it doubtful as to 33 lan. cicnt vestments, so rauch the cause of recent dispute, were worn at the consecration of Bisliops Hooper and Foynct in looO. Hooper had heen nominated to tlie See of Gloucester in li'A^. For a whole year he held out, objecting to the vestments, which he condemned in most unmeasured terms and in a most Puritanical spirit. It is worthy of notice that Bucer and Peter Martyr combined with Cranmer and Ridley in condenniing Hooper, who, for his contumacy, was sus- pended from preaching. At last ho gave way, but on the understanding, that he would only be obliged to wear the vestments when he preached before the King, or in his own Cathedral. He was consecrated March l;3r>0, and Poynet to the See of Rochester, June looO.* Tlic second Prayer J^ook of Edward VI., far inferior to the first, and much damaged by the influence of foreign Pro- testantism, was confirmed by Parliament in lo52, March Gth. This was of course a))olished by Queen Mary. Queen Elizabeth's accession revived the Reformation cause. The English Prayer Book, restored in looS, was more in nccord- ance with the second than the first Book of Edward. This result is of course attributable to the growing Protestantism in the country as well as to the constant pressure of foreign Protestants, more or less objectionable in their teaching. The Queen, however, was inclined by taste to ceremonial. Thus we read of a crucifix, of gorgeous vestments, and of candles used at the Holy Communion in her chapel. f So strongly did the opposite party feel on this question, that her ved," as to whether this Prayer Book was not of the third instead of the second year of Edward VI. See " iieasonable limits of lawful Ritualism," (Cliurch and World,) p. 470, and Keble's " Eiicharistical Adoration,'" on this point. * See Burnet's History of the Reformation, vol. 3, p. 200, 218. I See a letter from Thomas Sampson to Peter Martyr, l.'iOO. This is taken from Mr. Pfrry s learned and exhaustive work on " Lawful Cliurch Ornaments." This work is largely quoted by Bishop Hopkins. C 84 chapel was cited as the " pattern and precedent to the people of all superstition." These bold words occur in an address to the Parliament. The list of " daily furniture for the altar" in Bishop An- drewes' Chapel, in the next century, shews the use of wafer bread, the mixed chalice, incense, lighted candles, and copes.* Cosin, Bishop of Durham, In the reign of Charles II, in his " Notes on the Prayer Book," states that all the orna. ments of the Church were restored in Queen Elizabeth's reign, by the Act of Uniformity, and that the disuse of them sprang from the Calvinistic and Puritanical School. Much diversity and negligence seemed then to prevail. Bishop Cosin insists, however, upon the legality of these ornaments of the Church and Minister, and with regard to the lights on the altar, he speaks of them as being used in all Queen Elizabeth's chapels in her reign, in King Charles' chapel, and " in many Cathedral churches, besides the chapels of divers noblemen, Bishops, and Colleges."! Upon the legality and existence of altars as opposed, we presume, to movable tables, upon credence tables, and the mixed chalice. Bishop Cosin speaks without hesitation. Chrism, though appointed in the 1st Book of Edward VI, was omitted in all the subsequent revisions. The same may be said of unction. This custom is of great antiquity accord- ing to some, and not earlier than the twelfth century accord- ing to others. It may be doubted as to whether what is called " extreme unction" bt derived from St. Mark vi. 13, and • There is no mcMtiori. of chrism. The custom of anointing after Baptism is as old as the time of Tertullian and Justin Martyr. In the Eastern Church it was a completion of Baptism. In the Western it is attached to Confirmation. The Apostolical Canons speak of two anoint- ings, one before and the other after Baptism. There was also in later times an unction at Ordination. t The Bishop himself wore a cope of while satin. 85 It to the cur in an shop An- of wafer les, and arles II, the orna. izabeth's of them . Much Bishop naments lights on 1 Queen chapel, apels of sed, we and the )itation. ^I, was may be accord- accord- called 3, and g after In the rn it is anoint- in later the u8aj:;o mentioned by St. James v. 14 and If). Bishop Cosin considers that the recovery therein mentioned is one of a b(»dily cliaractcr, hence miraculous, and that the custom of unction, attended with physical results of a superna- tural nature, necessarily ceased when miracles seem to have ceased, viz. .ibout the fourth or fifth century.* Bishop Hopkins (i')08 not believe that the anointing directed by St. James was miraculous, in the ordinary sense of the word. He understands from the Apostle, that tlie prayer of faith and not oil, would save the sick. He merely recommends the unction on the ground of its supposed antiquity and Divine warrant. The question seems to be rather, Avhether the re. covery may not be understood in a sjjintual sense, as a reco- very of the soul rather th.in a restoring of health to the body.f In that case tlie oil would be a type and symbol of the j>uri- fying and revivifying jiower of the Spirit. Oil, we all know, is in Scri})ture an image of the Spirit. Unction however, whatever may be its meaning, is apparently illegal at present in the Church of England.* The Bishoj) proceeds next to give grounds for his opinion, that the vestments, and usages claimed as legal are legal. He siiews that they were either commanded or not forbidden by the 1st Prayer Book of Edward VI, and those not expressly ordained in 1549, were in use-andhave the authority of ancient National Canon Law.;]: He quotes Burns' I]cclesiastical Law, Blackstone's Commentaries, and "Lawful Church Ornaments." Many of these ornaments may have been disused for a long time, but that fact does not invalidate by * Pseudo-Dionysius alludes to a custom of anointing a corpse before it was laid in the grave. t Archdeacon Wordsworth discusses the question at some length in his Commentary, and gives his reasons for agreeing with Cosiri's view. See also Hooker — Booli 1. 15; liook 3. ss. 10 and 11. I If in use at the time 154i), and not forbidden by the Prayer Houk, it was most likely contemplated that their use should continue. It is not unlikely that a minimum of ritual was enjoined in 1549. 36 one iota their legality. Dr. Lushington* himself, denies that the legal force of any statute is effected by non-usage. And though in the otli year of Edward VI, thanks to the Foreign Reformers, certain features of the 1st Prayer Book Averc changed, yet such changes are rendered quite nugatory from the fact, that the rubric which has been the battle-field, was inserted and confirmed at the subsequent revisions. We are then carried back to find what avc want in the 1st Prayer Book of Edward VI, and the usage at the time of the Reformation. Bishop Hopkins assails the present Episcopal habit. f It is certainly illegal with the exception of the Rochet, and the rest of the attire is as unecclesiastical and unbecoming as it is illegal. Bishop Hopkins, has we believe, modified his own. The black gown and bands fiill also under his censure, and with justice. The former he derives from the Preaching Friars, a terrible thought to those congregations whose Clergy use the preaching gown. The latter, he consi- siders, came into use when the Puritans were in power. Some however, consider that bands are a truncated and generally diminished form of thj amice, and it is to be remembered that they are in use among the Clergy of the Roman Church, though not worn at Divine Service. Their origin can hardly therefore, have been a Protestant or Genevan one. We give the Bishop's concluding words. Having said that personally from long habit, he likes a simple ceremonial ; he declares his belief " that a splendid and impressive ritual can neither be hostile to the doctrines of a pure faith, nor unfavorable to the exercise of a spiritual devotion." • Decision 1857. t The Alb seems to have been the oldest of all Church vestments. The Surplice, a loose sleeved Alb without a girdle, does not seem older than the lUh century. It is apparently peculiarly English. The Rochet is an Alb without sleeves, formerly worn by all engaged in Divine offices, now confined to the Episcopate — See '• Prayer Boole Interleaved," p 57. Also Wheatley on the Common Prayer, pp. 80 and 88. « f* r ', denies >n-iisage. ks to the rer Book nugatory ttle-field, QS. We t Prayer I of the bit.f It !het, and )ecommg modified nder his from the •egations he consi- )r. Some generally embered Church, n hardly Wc give srsonally !lares his iither be )le to the lents. The )lder than Rochet i3 ne offices, id,'' p 57. 37 The 8th chapter occupies itself with p discussion of tlie " Law of Ritual in the Church of America." At the outset we must observe, that we arc not disposed to go with Bishop Hopkins in his views on this part of the subject, though we desire to give them all impartial consideration. He first quotes the preface to the American Book of Common Prayer, thus, " This Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship ; or farther than local circumstances require." On this he remarks that his Church has not in any sense "departed from the Church of England but is in all respects substantially the same." p. 77. The question arises, can a member of the American Clnircli hold the points omitted in her teaching, but enjoined in tliat of the English Church ? In other words, does the omission of such points by the American Church, imply that she forbids them ? The Bishop denies that omission and prohibitioji are convert- ible terms. He is right no doubt, speaking widely and gen- erally. But the present question is beset with difficulties, and if the Bishop's ideas were carried out, he would find that a door would be opened to great diversity of teaching. Wc are also not prepared to admit that the Church of England and America are in all respects substantially the same, al though hap?)5i) their differences are not such as to preclude interomura; )u and brotherly spirit. But the Bishop shall lot! his own story. He says : " Every part of the Common " and Stitute Laws of England, in fuicc throughout the Col- " onii s, and adapted to their ciro .'- : nces before the war of " Ind'.'pendence, (with the single exception of what concerned " the rights of the Crown), continued to be the law of the " land, notwithstanding the Hevohition, and are still obliga- " tory, unless changed .ind done away by subse(|uent acts of " our own legislation.'^ This rule, the Bishop conceives, sup- piles the true legr.' touiidavijij of the American Church. Be- I fore the Revolution, Ui^ Cbu'ch of England was the Church 38 I of the American Colonies. The laws were the same in both, although there were no Bishops in the Colonial Church. As then, says the Bishop, there was no Revolution for the Church, the laws of the mother Church continued to be the laws of the daughter, save where they were superseded by actual legisla- tion on the part of the latter. When England had acknow- ledged the political independence of the United Statp?, an independent ecclesiastical organization was of necessity re- quired. A request was made that such independent organi- zation should be accorded. The answer to the request was the Act of Parliament passed for the consecration of the first three American Bishops. Thus the American Church is free from those parts of English law, wherein the civ» . i Jivern- ment is concerned, while the doctrines and discipline o? the Church remained the same, unless changed by special legisla- tion. The American Church by virtue of her independence, re-arranged her liturgy, and in some, and those not unimport- ant respects altered it. Thus the confession of faith called the Athanasian Creed, finds no place in it. At the time, strong objections were expressed by some to the so-called damnatory clauses. But though the Creed cannot be lawful- ly introduced into the Public Service, yet, says the Bishop, any clergyman can preach it ! This is an unhappy substitute, and to preach a Creed is an odd expression. But, Protestant- ized as the American Prayer Book is, and deficient in much that is Catholic and primitive, the wonder is that it is so good and sound, when we consider the time and circumstances of its compilation. It is also beyond measure comforting to note the progress and vigorous life so remarkably manifested dur- ing the last 20 or 80 years in the Church of the United States. No law has been passed by her upon the question of Vestments, but in practice the American Clergy have follow- ed tlie English in using the Surplice. This law the Bishop considers binding. Wo must beg to differ from him, and to believe that the American Church and Clergy are perfectly ^^ ;f - ''it 39 an ow- free from any compulsion on the subject. We believe that any American Clergyman may in Diviue Service wear this vestment if he likes, or none at all. We suspect that there is great difference of use in this matter. The black gown, of no legal authority in England, and therefare possessing if possible less than none in America, is, nevertheless, favored by the Protestant party. The Rochet is the only autho- rized vestment and is commanded in the American Ordinal to be worn by Bishops. They have also adopted the rest of the hideous and unmeaning garb worn by English Bishops. Next upon the question of the Psalms and Responses. Although these are only prescribed to be said, the Bishop considers that they may be lawfully smig because they are sung in some English Churches.* But in the English Prayer book, this latitude is expressly allowed. It is not so in the American Prayer book, and we cannot but think that the elasticity with which the Bishop interprets a rubric, is somewhat dangerous as a precedent.! He applies the same principle to other matters, as Avill be seen in extenso, p. 84. If the American Church authoritatively made certain changes, whether for the better or for the worse, it is surely unconsti- tutional until such alterations are repealed by legislation, for a Bishop to drive a coach and four through them, and practically if not directly, to set such changes aside. The duty of the American Clergy, is we think, not to be impatient, but to hope that their Church, by enactment and revision, may re- medy the obvious defects in her system. Maimed as is her liturgy in many grave points, she has yet shewn that God's Spirit is with her, and is blessing her ministrations. We can- not help faneyhig that good Bishop Hopkins can hardly him- * The Bishop perhaps is unaware that saying meant at the time of the Reformation, musical recitation. t Hishup Hopkins' position is scarcely consistent with the 34th Article^ which forbid.-; tlie violation by private judgment of the traditions of the American Church. 40 I self be thoroughly satisfied with his own arguments on this liead. Surely in cases where the mother Church has given directions, and the daughter Church has designedly and deliberately expunged such directions, no loyal son of hers has any right to evade the logical deduction from such omis- sion. In the 0th chapter, the Bishop proceeds to answer the inquiry of his Clergy, " Whether an increase of Ritualism would be advisable among us ; or whether the ordinary aver- age of present Parochial practice would not carry forward the great rk of the Church in such a country as ours." This chaptc-i - . ory pleasing one.* It advises mutual toleration. f It is generj' nnd Catholic in spirit, and does justice to both the great parties in the English and American Churches. But does the Bishop mean to assert that the Gentile Con- verts to Christianity were members of the Church of Israel ? Their not being circumcised is at once a negative, with- out the need of further arguments. He proceeds to shew by an examination of the work of Reformation in England and Germany, how needful for faith and stability is the institution of Episcopacy. His own Church is a most happy example of this vitally important truth. Notwithstanding her deficiexi* cies, she is letting her light of pure truth shine brightly be- fore men, while some Non-conformist bodies have during the last 80 years become less and less definite in their faith. And if we compare England with Germany, we can indeed be grateful to our Reformers for the wisdom by which they pre- * We Avigh that all the English Bishops manifested an equal largeness of view and scorn of unpopularity. t The Rev. T. T. Carter in an interesting letter addressed to the " Guar- dian," Dec. 19, 18G6, expresses gratitude to the English Bishops for their forbearance' in not pressing legislation. He advises ritualists, who as some believe are contending for the Church's rights and the recovery of a los** inheritance, to meet their Bishops, if possible, on common giound and to work with confidence under and with them. 41 served to us the essentials of a Church. All men, liowever do not think aliice, and if unity in essentials can be attained, nothing more can be expected ; variety in non-essentials may furnish a useful safety-valve. Thus the Bishop advocates toleration for Ritualists. He regards their position as logally defensible, and he is willing t'lat the experiment should be fairly tried. He claims liberty for them on the score of charity and expediency, but does not pronounce positively as to the beneficial results of Ritualism. However, he does not at all desire any legislation at present, which would either favor or oppose those who desire to increase the ceremonial of the Church, and to restore practices that had fallen into desuetude. In his opinion there need be no diminution of fraternal spirit between Ritualists and their opponents, and that time alone can decide whether a general increase of Ritualism is desirable. His own idea is, that the movement will increase both in England and America, and that the suspicions enter- tained of unfaithfulness in doctrine will gradually subside. If all the American Bishops were to suffer such of their Clergy as were inclined to try the experiment of Ritualism, a satisfac- tory test would be soon furnished. And such a concession would, at all events make such ceremonies optional. But we cannot admit that they are strictly legal in the Church of America at present, and shall hope to make this assertion more clear later in this paper. The concluding chapter in the Bishop's little book reca- pitulates his general sentiments upon this ((uestion. We tender our thanks to its venerable and right reverend author. While we differ from some of his premises, and do not admit the logical force of some arguments, we quite concur with his desire, that Ritualism should every where have a fair field. It has much Scriptural author- ity, antiquity, and common sense to recommend it, which in the end are likely to diffuse it. The breadth of vision which characterizes Bishop Hopkins is just that compre- 42 hensive quality which ought to characterize a ruler in the Church, and we wish it were more conspicuous in Anglican Bis- hops. Several of them have given their authoritative opinions on the subject in charges addressed to their Clergy. Those whose remarks have deservedly excited the most at- tention are the Bishops of Oxford, London and St. David's. We have only seen extracts from Bishop Thirlwall's pamph- let. His views are well known and they seem to have been expressed with his usual ability. He has no love for Ritualism and despises its defenders. The Bishop of Oxford to a certain degree sympathises with Ritualism. He believes that there is a craving for symbolism existing, which is most likely a reaction from the slovenly, cold and apathetic neglect of former fl'S, and which he holds that the rulers of the Church would be wise to gratify in a reasonable measure. He believes that the right principle and object of all true Ritualism, id to lead worshippers to God, and not to interpose between them. All would admit this. But would all agree with the Bishop's opinion, that the Ritualism under discus- sion has done the latter? This however, he conceives, and so far objects to it. He somewhat unjustly attributes to its leaders and promoters a suddenness of action calculated to breed suspicion, and arouse antagonism. He charges them also with disinclination to obey their ecclesiastical superiors, and to surrender at the godly admonitions of the Ordinary, questions which are after all non-essential. We hardly think that this charge is a fair one. And even if some Ritualists have proved at times recalcitrant, it is in a great degree because while they have been bespattered by public abuse, and exposed to episcopal suspicion, those clergy guilty at times of flagrant breaches of the Church's law have been left in peace, and per- haps even honored. Bishop Wilberforce evidently thinks that Ritualism has no necessary growth from, or connexion with the great Church movement, but that it will pass away while the movement will go steadily on. He illustrates this conception 43 by a rather ornate passage, which may perhaps ho remember- ed when the charge itself will have been forgotten. Ritualism is, he thinks, " like a brilliant and fantastic coruscation which has cast itself from the surface of a weltering mass of molten metal, which, unafiFected by such an exhalation flows on in a full stream to its appointed mould." The Bishop speaks however, in a kindly spirit of the Ritualists, and accpiits them of a desire to introduce Roman Catholic customs. With per- haps necessary caution, he declines to give an opinion as to the legality of certain practises. His opinion evidently is, that legal settlements will not meet the case, and he deprecates legislation, Ist, because the time is not propitious for it, smce such enactments might be premature, possibly intemperate, and would breed schism ; 'ind, because to drag questions of reli- gious doctrine and worship before courts of law might provoke authoritative and important alterations, alien to primitive Christ- ianity, and likely to destroy reasonable liberty. We entirely agree with him. He strongly urges discretion in the intro- duction of any ritualistic change, lest it should prove a shock and a stumbling block, and so defeat its object. He advises the Clergy in doubt on such points to confer with their Bish- ops. Excellent advice this and likely to be productive of the utmost confidence and the happiest results, if only all Bishops were as large minded as the Bishops of Oxford and Vermont. But unfortunately, in many cases, for Clergy to consult their Bishops on such points, would be to lose all hope of carrying out with any grace what they desire. The Bishop of Ox- ford is, as is well known, intensely anti-Roman, and believes that the Ritual of the Church before, and we suppose at the time of the Reformation, was strongly imbued with Papal corruption. The charge of the Bishop of London is very able, and covers a very wide surface of Theology. But it is less generous in its tone than that of Bishop Wilbcrforce. It is perhaps rather to be expected that the old Presbyterian influence 44 m should bias his Lordship's jiid I 62 disposes at once of the newspaper mode of controversy en the Ritual qnestion. The second class of ohjectors should be dealt with more respectfully. They are often men of charity, equity, and thought. But they fear that Ritualists are unsound in their Theology. They conceive that it is impossible to wear vestments, to burn incense, to light candles, to use richly em- broidered altar cloths, and not to have a lurking sympathy with Rome. If this be logical, then some of the Lutlicran and Scandinavian Communities, must be very Romanizing. They have perpetually used most of the ceremonial obser- vances, which are the subjects of present controversy. Every one knows how strong is the anti[)athy, and how wide the separation between these bodies and Rome. The spirit of Luther still lives, and is likely to live. Moreover where in Scripture arc wc to look for hints as to Christian worship, but in the Apocalypse ? The worship of the Church triumphant is therein sot forth with a splendour of syml)olisra which proves that Ritual is Scriptural, and in itself cannot be displeasing to God. These descriptions in the Apocalypse are surely more applicable to us than the Ordinances in the Mosaic Law. There is not a syllable in Scripture, to warrant the common Protestant idea, that a very simple ceremonial is pleasing to God and consonant with the character of Christianity. Few facts are more strange than that so ftilse a statement should be trumpeted forth and greedily accepted. No more valuable weapon could be put into the hands of a Romanist, than to say, that Ritual of necessity leads the way to Rome. If so, Scripture leads to Rome. The Divinely appointed Ritual in the Old Testament, and the Ritual apparently suggested fo' our present imitation in the Apocalypse, and pointin;.'' ' v^or- ship hereafter, were, in that case, to lead the w >> Rome. But it may bo objected, that Ritualists teach Roman ilocti-iiie. This is an accusation which has yet to be substantiated. The English Church wisely permits latitude in external worship, as she also admits breadth of statement in the enunciation of ii a ea doctrine* There arc always two sides to every truth, or to speak more correctly, every great truth contains two truths. It is possible for an earnest man to lay too much stress on either side. The neglect of a comprehensive grasp of truth has been the prolific generator of heresy. One who takes a strongly subjective view of Sacramental truth, may think he detects Romanism in another, who simply insists on the ])lain teaching of the English Church Catechism. Nothing is more vague than the charge of Romanizing. It is as grave as it is difficult to deal with. Every great human movement has a certain amount of excess inseparable from it, because it is human. This ebullition of excess proves nothing as to the legitimate goal and end of a movement. No clear sighted intelligence would be so deceived as to conclude, that certain exceptionable cases revealed the real set of the current of human thought. The tract movement of 1831) has, under Providence, proved the salvation of the Church of England. Unhappily, some of its revered leaders left us. Men, whose genius was high, whose logic was keen, whose piety was al- most angelic, became bewildered. They saw difficulties in our own system, and they fled from them to a system, which seemed to solve their difficulties in an easy and captivatnig •way. Deeply as we venerate them living or dead, their de parturc only proves that even such men as they can make serious mistakes. The Church of England must ever be to a * The advice given by the Rev. J. J. Blunt, in his " Duties of a Parish Priest," pp. 312 iuid 313, might be followed advantageously by both par- ties. He says, speaking of Anti-Ritualists, " they are not to bo judges of other men's consciences but to obc}' their own ; and they havo no right to call scrupulous brethren in the ministry hard names, if their worst offence is only an injudicious adherenc<', (for we will put it so) to anti- quated commands of their own Refurmed Church." The " scrupulous ' in question were those who wore vestments and used lights on the altar. The work fiom which this extract has been made was published in 1856. its author was a sound and learned but moderate Churchman, and his opinion on this account is of considerable value. 64 .< certain degree a " via wedia.^^ While she abjures the errors of Popery and Puritanism, she still specially upholds the doctrine of the Cross, as said good Bishop Ken on his death bed. The Oxford movement roused Churchmen from a heavy and pro- tracted torpor. It led them a few steps nearer Rome, but really fixed them in their true position. It has been the means of saving men from Rome. True Church of England principles are the best safe guards against the excessive ultra- montane modern peculiarities, so conspicuous in Dr. Faber's and Dr. Manning's recent works, as they are also most use- ful against the lame and impotent defects of a debased Cal- vinism, a dwarfed unsystematic theory of schismatical dis- sent, or the wild flights of neology. The Church has never, since the Reformation, been more vigorous than now. She is beginning to gain a real hold of her people. She is display- ing earnest work, impressive services, and real spiritual life. This is, under God, the result of the veiy movement which has naturally led the way to the present cause of controversy. The great dissemination of pure faith and recognition of prim- mitive Church Authority, which, though it had never died out, yet in 1833 began to be more widely received, occupied itself with the fundamentals of Christian truth. These were of paramount importance. Many professing English Church- men were in benighted ignorance as to doctrines clearly taught in the Prayer book. People had by long tradition been accus- tomed to a certain interpretation of the Prayer book, that to fancy the incorrectness of this interpretation to be possible, was quite a shock. The English are almost the most con- servative people in the world, and nothing disturbs their equanimity more than the thought that they have to quit the grooves in which they have worked long and easily. The name of Protestant had become so familiar, that it was sup- posed to designate the Church of England, and many were ignorant that the name does not occur in our formularies. A few old ladies and some editors of Provincial newspapers, were 65 under a strong conviction, that an Ecclesiastical Armada was in readiness to make a descent upon the English shores, and to land, if not the Pope, at all events, the Cardinals, in order to fraternize with the Tractarian Clergy. It was supposed that not only our religion, but even our lives and property would not be safe, if Romanism obtained any foothold. The high and precious name of n" Catholic," which belongs to England, as much as it does to Rome, was conceded wholly to the latter, as if it had been so polluted by her touch as to have become worth- less. Thus the very honour that the Romanists claimed, and the very admission on our parts which they desired, were yielded to them without a struggle. This concession puts us in the wrong, for if they alone be the Catholics, our duty is to join them. Church principles had to fight their way through this mass of quiet and self satisfied ignorance. Sometimes they seemed checked, if not overcome for the time. But the opposition really helped them on. We owe the firm and thorough be- lief in Baptismal Regeneration to the Gorham controversy. That great truth is stated in our Formularies with singular and most definite precision. Yet, strange to say, it was either partially held, or explained away, or actually denied by a considerable portion even of Clergymen. The solid learning of the Bishop of Exeter was not only conspicuous in itself, but contrasted prodigiously with the confused ignorance of the opposite side. The other Sacrament was in its turn assailed, and though the truth is more subtle, and has been more the subject of controversy than any other Christian doctrine, yet again good has been brought out of evil. Dangerous clouds have rolled away, and the ancient Catholic belief has been asserted and clung to without let or hindrance in many a parish throughout English Christendom. The dignity of this Holy Mystery has been asserted, and its due place vindicated. Many a sorrowing heart has been comforted, and many a dy- ing pillow smoothed by an increased api)rcciation of the bless- ings of the Holy Communion. In course of time, as might E 66 i be expected, opposition was oflfered to other doctrines stated in the Prajer book, but more or less ignored, owing to the worldly apathy, the laziness and the com- fortable do-nothing condition which had prevailed long and extensively. And as errors have a tendency to run in cycles, and to recur periodically, so we have lately seen attacks, some even from within the Church, on first principles. The Inspiration of Scripture, the Divinity of Christ, the authority and truth of the Old Testament, the personal existence of the Evil one, the eternity of future punishments, and even the question of a future at all, have been and are attacked. But such trials operate bene- ficially. They supply the place of early persecutions, and they preclude the easy repetition of verbal common-places from occupying the place of a thorough appreciation of divine truth. As a natural consequence, truer and more fervent faith has brought about greater reverence. No one, who believed in Baptismal regeneration, and the gifts of the living Spirit, could tolerate a porcelain basin for a font, which, when not required, might be concealed in the vestry. No one, who in his heart, held the real objective presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, could bear to see a common table covered by a tattered and discolored cloth. Reverence and taste were alike offended. At the same time education and travel induced a desire for a purer and better style of church architecture, and for more correct ecclesiastical designs. Thus Ritual has had two Parents. 1st. It was the natural fruit of a stronger faith in God's presence, and His means of grace. This was partly the result of the Oxford movement, and partly a protest against unbelief. 2nd. It sprang from a more refined and educated taste, and a desire to make the service of God beautiful, attractive, and solemnly impressive. There was nothing Roman in this ; nothing sudden or unna- tural. That the early giants of the Church movement should not have thought much of Ritual, was because they were fight- ing for very life. They were contending for the truths of 67 which Ritual is but the exponent. But now that the truths are secured, and it remains to make them objectively plain, and bring them home to the educated and uneducated, we find the veteran Dr. Pusey in the foremost place, and showing >> the mingled courage and conciUatory wisdom so conspicuous in him. We would refer our readers to two letters recently written by Dr Pusey ; one to the Editor of the " Literary Churchman, the other to the President of the English Church Union, also to a speech made at a recent meeting of that society. We have been considering the legal position of Ritualism, and the cause of its growth. We have examined the opinions of some of the leading Ecclesiastics in England and America, and glanced at the present state of public opinion on the point. It only remains for us to see what principles should guide those who are desirous of retaining the legitimate acces- sories of Divine worship together with some degree of dignity and magnificence. It would be right to examine once more on this head Mr. Perry's Essay on the " Church and the World." He considers that the following would probably be guiding principles Avith those who may desire Ritualistic revivals. Ist.'i^ The Ritual should be instructive to the worshippers. This is almost sclf-evident.f Anything which is not subservi- ent to this end, would, to say the least, be superfluous. 2nd. The Ritual should add dignity to the service. On this point Mr. Perry very truly remarks, that the mode of conducting Divine Service should be such as to render it simple, yet grand and harmonious. It should be reverent, and yet not too formal. Great elaboration and complication would we think be distasteful to the English mind, and tend ♦Page 489. fPeople whether educated or uoeducated are taught through the eyo. One great reason why English midsions have proved comparative failures is because the promoters have iguored Horace's maxim, " Seguius irritant animos demissa per auves, quam qua; suut oculis subjecla tidelibus." i^i •Jt 68 to substitute the Ritual for the object worshipped, viz., God Himself. 3rd. That it should sustain objective worship. There is no doubt that this important principle has been very much kept out of sight. The edification of the worshipper has been much more thought of, than an offering of praise and prayer to the glorious presence of the Almighty. A true and per- fect act of worship, perfect as far as is attainable, should provide for both of these ends. Frequent and reverent celebrations of the Holy Eucharist would help to bring back a complete recognition of and devotion towards an objective Divine Presence.* 4th. It should be national, j" We should not be servilely imitative of all Catholic customs, but in some points retain the independence which has always characterized the Church of England. The Sarum use should therefore be consulted, and also the customs in the East and West, where there has been a continuous system of Ritual tradition. 5th. That all these revivals should help to promote Catholic intercommunion. A return to those earlier uses would remove blemishes in some of the leading features of the Church of England's worship, would dispose other portions of the Church to look on her more favourably, and perhaps lead to her recogni- tion. There can be no real union in Christendom without recc":- nition on the part of Rome and Greece, of the independent Catholic existence of England's Church. Union cannot be absorption into Rome, or submission to all that she may impose. England must not surrender the charter of her free- dom and independence. But anything, which, without com- ♦ See Theory of Divine Worsliip, by Rev. T. Chamberlain. t The ecclesiastical colors, the shape of the Eucharistic vestments, the position of the celebrant, and the use of incense, have in former days varied somewhat from the uses in continental churches. See Mr. Perry's Essay and also correspondence in the " Church Times" during February, 1867. L'*»* 69 promise of her principles, serves to stamp her in the eyes of all, as a branch of the Catholic Church, and to remove the erroneous idea that she is one with all the Protestant denomi- nations under the sun, is useful and to be supported. On this point it must not be forgotten that the Reforma- tion turned on doctrines, and not on vestments. Mr. Cutts, in an Essay in the Art Journal for December 1866, throws out hints on the matter of Ritual. He is in favour of a change on aesthetic grounds, and considers that the or- dinary vestments worn by our Clergy, are unsuited to the improved taste in church building and ecclesiastical arrange- ment. But he considers that everything should be arranged before the tribunal of taste and artistic design, and that antiquity and Catholicity should be kept in the background. He believes (what is probably true of all the vestments,) that the Chasuble was a garment retained by the Clergy, after it had been abandoned as old-fashioned by the Laity. He prefers to examine the whole question for himself, and gives a gentle snub to the claims set up by the " Directorium Anglica- num." We cannot mention this work without expressing most unfeigned regret that it should ever have seen the light. It has provoked ridicule deservedly, and all high Churchmen have been supposed to approve it. It offends agamst common sense, and merits the slashing treatment it met with in the London Quarterly Review for January 1867. This very article is a clever advocacy of Anti-Ritualism. It detects weak points, but in matter of argument, it is not worth much. If the Chasuble be worn, Mr. Cutts makes the objectionable suggestion, that it should be made of fine white linen or cambric so that people should mistake it for a Surplice. For his own part he believes that a better and more beautiful vestment could be found, and viewing the subject from the vantage ground of taste, he objects to the maniple and biretta. He also throws out a suggestion, that Bishops should discard their pre- sent awkward ungainly attire, and adopt generally that which they wear on State occasions. The Cope and Surplice, with mmmm 70 lM\ I the Mitre and Crozier would certainly be impressive and dignified.* For our own part, we are inclined to think, that even on lesthetic grounds the ancient vestments could hardly be improved on, and that when their beauty and convenience is strengthened by their antiquity and universality, their position is impregnable, supposing a change is desirable and expedient. This is our last point, and a very important one it is. The greatest discretion should be used by those who revive what has been disused. Weak brethren may take alarm. Suspicion may become rife. The confidence between Pastors and people may bo clouded over, if not destroyed. The first duty of the Clergyman is to save souls, and if he impairs his usefulness by making a persistent stand for vest- ments, he is not only incurring a risk but committing a sin. We have Scriptural authority for saying that non-essential matters must yield to the cause of edification, to the building up of beUevers in Christ. This is not always an easy matter, and the opportunity of influence once lost, may never be regained. Moreover, Ritual to be at all valuable, must be a visible setting of the doctrine held and taught. Otherwise it is quite unmeaning, and perhaps even dangerous. A Clergy- man must first gradually train up his people in the belief in and appreciation of high Sacramental doctrine. When that is once attained, they will look for Ritual. It will be to them natural and legitimate. There will be nothing artificial or over strained, but it will be the outlet of their religious convictions, the unspoken language of their hearts. The congregation are then more likely to suggest it to their Pastor, than he to urge it on them ; and at all events, they will work together in the cause without disunion, bickerings, or estrangement. Ritual too must not only be a proof, but also a teacher of religion. Some minds require Ritual. It is not only good, as some suppose, for the upper and educated ♦ Mr. Curzoa found the vestments in Armenia, and speaks strongly aa to their almost universal use. — " Curzon's Armenia," quoted by Mr. Cutts. 71 classes, but it attracts the lower. A simple but deep faith may exist in a very dull mind. Without a certain amount of Ritual, no unlettered Christian will realise that his Pastor apprehejids God's presence and believes in Sacramen- tal truth. Then as Ritual ought to be the exponent of Sacramental doctrine, so it ought to be accompanied, by a high standard of personal devotion and religious prac- tice. Nothing can be more offensive than an elaborate ceremonial which is gone through as a show, with little reverence on the part of those who assist in it, whetlier Clergy or Laity. Almost equally objectionable, and almost equally injurious, is the combination of this advocacy of ex- ternals in worship, with a flippant and slang style of talk, and a narrow minded and bitter condemnation of others. Let the Clergy, by the quiet reverence of their devotion, by their loving, zealous, and selfdenying ministrations, gain the confidence of their flock. Let them show that they arc not hasty revolutionists in externals. Let them also train up their people to understand and believe what Ritual ought to mean. Then the Ritual will follow as the leaf follows from the bud. Let nothing be done in haste. Let the Clergy, as far as possible, defer to their Bishop. In cases where mutual confidence and respect prevail, the Clergyman would generally find, that he carried his Bishop with him. This would especially be the case, when, as it ought always to be, the Priests and people are united upon such a question. For the moral weight of such a fact would be well nigh irresistible in the eyes of any wise and judicious person, however high his position. We believe that the greater portion, if not all of the usages claimed as legal, are really sanctioned by the Law. Indeed, the conduct of many of the Record faction helps to substantiate this. Otherwise, why should they bo so desirous to have the obnoxious Rubric removed ? Adverse legislation may befall the Church of England. We earnest- ly pray that it may be averted. We feel that if once the Prayer book is tampered with, questions of faith as well as of 72 1 9 i ccrcmonialVill be affected. If Ritualists are true to them- selves, we think that the clanger will pass away. The last twenty years have witnessed many startling changes, and we arc inclined to believe that the English mind will in a few years become accustomed to these usages, provided only sound sense and discreet prudence be manifested by those who up- hold them, and who direct the movement. What may be lawful may not be always expedient. There ought to be a reasonable liberty on all such points. Some are of opinion and to some extent justly, that the ceremonial suited to an educated and highly taught congregation, would not be always equally suitable to a poorer and less intelligent class. At the same time, we think that a higher order of Ritual would be in course of time advisable and acceptable everywhere in England, provided only it be introduced with care and caution. For we do believe that Ritual will spread. We believe it to be natural, legitimate, and right. We believe that it is not unac- ceptable to God when it is the fruit of devotion to Him. Only let those who desire it, wait patiently, and not prejudice other and more important results. We would fain also give one hint to Ritualistic Clergy — we apologize for affixing a seem- ingly party name. Let them avoid mannerism. Let them guard against giving any one a handle against them as mere dilettanti in religious points. Let them be careful to avoid the charge of gabbling over the Service and slurring over the Lessons, a charge not unfrequently, and sometimes not un- justly made. Let them shew that a desire for a grand and imposing ceremonial in God's house is not incompatible with undeviating loyalty to the spirit of England's Church, and with the protest against those errors, which made her assert her national independence and restore the purity of faith which marked the early ages of Christianity. May God guide the movement aright to His glory and honour, and to the establishment of His Church in the hearts of men. thcm- e last nd we years sound ho up- nay be be a )pimon [ to an [lot be ilUgent rdcr of eptable 3d with it to be )t unac- 1. Only ;e other ;ive one a seem- et them as mere to avoid over the not un- and and ible with irch, and er assert of faith j-lory and tie hearts