te iabv of 3&titualitm,
EXAMINED IN ITS RELATION
TO THE
IIorbt of Sob,
TO THE
rtimititbe jurc1l,
TO THE
rurt4    of    ngIlanb,
AND TO THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL
furc1    in toe   Uniteb   &tate#
BY THE RT. REV.
JOHN HENRY HOPKINS D.D., LL.D.,
BISHOP OF VERMONT.
In necessariis unitas; in non necessariis libertas; in omnibus
caritas.
FOURTH THOUSAND.
NEW YORK:
PUBLISHED BY HURD AND HOUGHTON,
459 BROOME STREET.
1867.





Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by
JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, JR., M. A.,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.





To the RT. REV. THE BISHOP OF VERMONT, Presiding Bishop
of the Church in the United States.
RT. REV. FATHER:- As the question of Ritualism is extensively agitating the Church of England, and has already begun to
make itself felt in our own Church, it would give us, and many
others, pleasure to know your views of the subject in full: especially as to whether an increase of Ritualism would be advisable
among us, or whether the ordinary average of present parochial
practice would best carry forward the great work of the Church
in such a country as ours.
We are, Rt. Rev. Father,
Your obedient servants, and
Sons in the Church,
MORGAN DIX,
J. I. TUCKER,
J. FREEMAN YOUNG,
P. K. CADY,
WM. CROSWELL DOANE,
C. W. MORRILL,
McW. B. NOYES,
ROBT. B. MINTURN,
JOS. SANDS,
WILLIAM A. CONSTANT,
JOHN ABURTUS,
JOS. P. PIRSSON,
JOHN F. MILLER,
CHARLES CONGDON,
FRANCIS MANY.










Table of     Contents.                  ix
Rome retains them - This the Principle of the English Reformation - The Pope not Antichrist -'he Roman Church still a Part
of the Holy Catholic Church.....................Pp. 49-57
bemt# 4t0atetr.
7he Legal Position of Ritualism in the Church of England -  he
English Rubric concerning Ornaments - The Second Year of
Edward VI. - The Vestments used at the Consecration of Bishops
Hooper and Poynet - Mitre, Cope, and Pastoral Staff- Consecration of Archbishop Parker in Scarlet, with Silk Copes, and singing
the Litany - Queen Elizabeth favoring Ritual - Thomas Sampson's Letter to Peter Martyr about Candles, Crucifix, and Vestments--Puritanical Opposition to the,ueen--Surplice and
Cap - Bishop Andre'es's daily Furniture for the Altar - Bishop
Cosin's Notes on the Prayer-Book - His Opinion in favor of Vestments, Lights, Bowings and Crossings, Altars, Albs, Chasubles,
Copes -  Burleigh's Chapel - Cosin in favor of the Credence and
the,Mixed Chalice, but not the Anointing of the Sick with Oil7his Anointing approved of, in Obedience to St. James - Legatine
and  Provincial Constitutions still in force: i. The Mixed
Chalice ordered - 2. No price to be demanded for Chrism, Oil,
Baptism, Visiting or Anointing the Sick, Communion, or Burial--
List of Matters then in use - None of these Things forbidden -
Disused through the influence of Puritanism, but the Law   not
obsolete--Dr. Lushington declares it to be La'w still-Burn's
Ecclesiastical Law - No condemnation of Chrism, Extreme Unction, and Prayers for the Dead-Act of Uniformity - The Thirtieth Canon- Modern Dress of Bishops destitute of all Legal
authority, except as to the Rochet - No Legal Authority for the
Black Gown and Bands - Position of the English Ritualists
justifiable both in La'w and Reason - Ritual does not lead
to Popery, but the contrary--Personal preference for greater
Simplicity, but allegiance due to the Written Word of God -A
splendid Ritual cannot be hostile to a pure faith or to a true
Spirituality...................*..*............ Pp. 58-76





x


Table of    Contents.


eight      Captcr.
The State of the Question in our own Church - Preface to our
American Book - Mere Omission not equivalent to Condemnation
or Prohibition --The Common Law continued after the Revolution
- The same Principle applies to the Law Ecclesiastical --Positi've Law requisite to abrogate zwhat was Law before - Application of this Principle: i. Our Church free from the State, and our
altered Prayer-Book alone obligatory - 2. The Athanasian Creed
omitted, but not condemned - 3. Our Church has laid down n.
Law about Vestments; the English Law therefore still binding;
the Black Gown only tolerated, being Popish in its Origin; Custom of no Authority, unless running back beyond Memory - 4. Impossible to find out 'what our Ecclesiastical Vestments are, except
from  English Law; Bishops' Costume as now 'worn absolutely
destitute of Legal Warrant; change by adopting the Forms of Alb
and Surplice, and laying aside Bands and Black Gown; change
in Form and Colorprobable; not a Subject of indiference - 5. The
Choral Service not forbidden - 6. Cathedrals, Crosses, Credences,
Episcopal Chairs, Altar Cloths, Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons,
Metropolitans, Archbishops, not prohibited, therefore lawful among
us- 7. Altar-lights, Chrism, Incense, the Mixed Chalice, Pictured
Windows, all equally lawful............*........ Pp. 77-85
ihnt     C   ap ttcr.
Two classes in the Primitive Church, the Jews who "kept the
Lacw," and the Gentiles who were Free - Each respected the
other - Expediency justifies a similar Division of Parties as to
Ritual now - The Puritanical Element at work to prevent Unity
- Origin of it at Generva-- Better views of Luther, Melancthon.
and Calvin - The Continental Systems running to Rationalism -
This consequence not foreseen in the Sixteenth Century --Definition of High Church and Low   Church - The Writer no Partisan
of either - Christian Toleration - Puritanism not to be regnactea
- We must not condemn the Bible - The Ritual Experiment to be
fairly tried - No Legislation to infringe on present Liberty either
Way - Ritualism to be proved by Experience - Probable Growth
and Prevalence of Ritualism........*...........* Pp. 86-95





Table of     Contents.                  xi
conduiion.
Approval of Ritualism begins and ends with the Bible -" Glory
and Beauty " -A.,uestion of Order, but not essential to Acceptance
with Christ - A Living Faith -Ritualism    not hostile to it -
Quakers the straitest Formalists - They are disappearing - Personal Habits not likely to be changed- Ritualism may increase
the Gro-wth and Influence of the Church, if conducted in Union
with true spiritual Devotion.................... Pp. 96-98










3Jntrobuction+
Necessity of Form and Order in Public I'Vrship,
THEF subject on which several of my esteemed brethren
are pleased to ask my opinion, has been familiar to my
own mind for many years, although it is only of late that
it has begun to excite any general attention. Amongst a
large proportion of my fellow Christians, the ritual or
ceremonial part of divine worship is thought to be a matter of perfect indifference. For, since true religion is
acknowledged to be a spiritual life in the soul, granted to
the humble disciple of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ,
through FAITH, they have concluded that its outward form
has received no corresponding care from the Almighty.
God looks on the heart. And if that be right, the external ~expression of devotion is left free to all the varieties
of human taste and feeling.
This, in the judgment of many, seems to be a very satisfactory conclusion. Yet I cannot assent to it, for several
reasons. First, because it stands in opposition to the wisdom of the supreme Lawgiver, when He saw fit to dictate
the ritual of the Church established for His own chosen
people. Secondly, because it contradicts the analogy of
all His other works, where we see that while the life is one
thing and the form is another, yet both are ordained by the
Word of God. The life of religion is indeed a spiritual
principle, but that is no reason why the Lord should be
indifferent to its form. The soul is spiritual, and yet the
Creator has united it to a body, and that body is the work
I





2


Inlroduclion.


of His Almighty hand. Every thing which His wondrous
power has called into existence has its form and order.
And shall we believe that His most precious work - that
Church for which the blessed Redeemer was content to
die - that Church which is expressly called His body--
should have no established form and order? Is it not certain that He has provided for the form not only of the
human frame, but of every animal, bird, fish, reptile, and
insect, - nay, of every tree and plant and flower? And
is it possible that He cares nothing for the form in which
His own worship is conducted? To my mind, an hypothesis like this is so far from being reasonable, that it rather
wears the aspect of absurdity.
And there is yet a third reason which should have a conclusive influence on such a question, viz., that the current
notion of indifference to religious form and order is in
direct conflict with the love ofform and order implanted, by
the Deity Himself, in every mortal bosom. For what else
occupies the toils and stimulates the ambition of mankind,
but the activity of this very principle? If men were content with having life, careless about its order and its form,
what would become of the whole business of every community? The poorest laborer has life in his hovel, as
truly as the merchant prince in his palace. He eats, he
drinks, he sleeps, and has a shelter from the elements.
But he sees that his wealthy neighbor has all these things
in better form and order, and he uses his energies to rise
higher on the scale, or at least to qualify his children for
the race which they may run, perhaps successfully, until
they gain this coveted prize; the whole of which resolves
itself, not into life, for that they have already, and probably
with more of health and vigor than the sons of opulence
enjoy, but in the form and order of that life, which must
determine their place in the estimation of society.
To treat this matter of form and order in divine worship
- which comprehends what we mean by the term " Ritual




Introduction.


3


ism" - as if it were a vain and useless question of empty
ceremonial, seems to my mind a very serious mistake, notwithstanding so many pious and religious men have adopted
it. And it is worthy of remark that they cannot make
their own practice consistent with their theory. For every
Christian sect has found it necessary to have some form
and order - or, in other words, some Ritualism,--which they
will not suffer to be invaded. The controversy, therefore,
at last, resolves itself into the same inquiry, which meets
us in every thing else belonging to humanity, namely,
what is the best system of form and order?  And this,
where the worship of God is concerned, must surely bring
us to the standard of His own Word, the Bible. For if, in
that Sacred Volume, we find that the Almighty has provided
for His Church a Ritual possessing His own divine sanction, what shall justify us in His sight, if we pour contempt
on that only model dictated by His perfect mind, and fancy
that we can be more spiritual and more religious by preferring another form and order of our own devising?
In the Church of God, which is Christ's kingdom upon
earth, there must be not only the inward life, but the outward manifestation. My present subject concerns the latter
only. There is no question about the faith in the blessed
Redeemer, who died for our sins and rose again for our
justification; no question that by this faith we must be
saved through grace; no question that this precious grace
is not of ourselves, but is the free gift of God. All this
involves the inward life of each individual believer, for
which, of course, no outward form and order can be regarded as a substitute. Who would be so absurd as to
imagine that the form and order of the body could supply
the living energy of the soul?  And it would be just as
absurd to suppose that the outward form and order of the
Church can avail, where the spiritual grace of a loving faith
in Christ is wanting.
This is the essential, and the only strictly essential mat




4


Introduction.


ter for each individual believer. And hence, in the private
exercises of the closet, alone in our communion with the
Searcher of hearts, no form is laid down for the expression
of our feelings; although the Christian supplian.t may well
make our Lord's Prayer a stated part even of his most
secret devotions.
But when the Church meets together, as the visible body
of Christ, to unite in the sacrifice of praise and prayer, and
bear her public testimony to the majesty, the power, the
mercy and surpassing love of her glorious Redeemer, then
arises the important inquiry, How shall this sublime duty
be performed, in theform and order which He has approved,
and to which we have the best assurance that He will vouchsafe His blessing?
This, therefore, presents the subject embraced in the
term " Ritualism."  And in my treatment of it, I propose
to advance nothing which is not derived from the Bible -
the written Word of God. For I hold that inspired record
to be the divine standard of faith and practice. Our own
Reformed Church knows no other, while she adopts the
judgment of the primitive Christians as the best and safest
interpreter. In accordance with this established principle,
I shall first set forth the claims of the Ritual which the
Lord gave to Israel, as being the only model entitled to
our highest reverence.  Secondly, I shall examine the
common opinion that this Ritual has been entirely done
away; which I consider to be a very manifest error.
Thirdly, I shall show how the Gentile Church, though free
from the ceremonial law, yet took its whole system of
Ritualism from the Jewish pattern. Fourthly, the existing
law of our Mother Church of England will come under
discussion. And lastly, I shall state the merits of the question, as it affects the growth and prosperity of the Church
in the United States.
I am quite aware, that although my line of argument will
be entirely Scriptural, yet the same objection may be made
to my conclusions which has been so zealously urged against





Infroduction.


5


the English Ritualists, namely, that they are in danger
of drawing too near to the Church of Rome. To this I can
only reply, in advance, that our glorious Reformation was
directed, not against the Ritualism of Rome, so far as
it retained the sanction of the Bible and the Primitive
Church, but against those false and corrupt doctrines by
which she had so grossly innovated upon the pure Creed
of the Gospel. The main labors of my ministerial life have
been devoted to our controversy with Rome, to the defence
of our martyred Reformers, and to the vindication of our
own Scriptural, Apostolic, and really Catholic system.  I
have nothing to retract or to alter, in all my former publications on that subject; nor is there a sentence in the
present work which can justly be considered inconsistent
with the position which I have hitherto maintained, as the
uncompromising antagonist of Popery.  That there are
some features of Ritualism, in which the Church of Rome
and the Oriental Churches are in closer accordance with the
primitive practice than we are, may, indeed, be granted.
But it will be seen, in the following pages, that it was
otherwise at the time when our Refprmation was established under Edward VI., and that these matters do not
involve the slightest change in our Liturgy or Articles.
Nor do I mean to be understood as recommending any
alteration in our ordinary mode of worship.  To this,
neither my habits nor my advanced age would lead me to
incline. But my personal tastes and my life-long associations furnish no sufficient warrant for a judgment which
condemns any of my brethren, either here or elsewhere,
who seek for a closer accordance with what they regard as
a better standard, on the highest authority. On the ground
of law, I may be obliged to grant that their argument is
entitled to confidence. Yet it does not follow from this
that I should take any active part in their course, so long
as I feel doubtful of its expediency.
With these introductory remarks, I shall proceed to
discuss the claims of Ritualism, in the proposed order.





ffirot C! apter.
The Divine Model of Ritual in Tabernacle and 'Jiemple.
IN every thing connected with the Church of our Divine
Redeemer, our first recourse should be to the Bible - the
only unerring guide to the will of God. And therefore I
take that sure Word of inspired truth as the best standard
on the claims of Ritualism.
Once only, since the beginning of time, has the Almighty condescended to give His people a minute detail
of the rites and ceremonies which He required in His
public and authorized worship. The Church of the Jews
was in all respects a divine institution. Its regulations
were imperative, on the highest principle, that "Thus saith
the Lord." Disobedience was punished by immediate judgments, as in the case of Nadab and Abihu, and Korah,
Dathan and Abiram; and in many of its minor rules so
rigid was the law that the soul who transgressed was to be
"cut off from his people."
In that Church we have the first command to erect the
Tabernacle in the Wilderness, succeeded by the Temple of
Solomon; and both, in all their parts, were ordered by
specific direction from Heaven.
In that Church we see the first institution of a regular
priesthood, threefold in its order, - the High Priest, the
Priests and the Levites.
In that Church we see the complete system arranged for
the sacrifices, which were all fulfilled in the grand atoning





Rilualism    of the 7ewish Church.          7
death of Christ, "1The Lamb of God, who taketh away the
sins of the world."
In that Church we have the principle established which
admitted the infant of eight days to the Covenant of Grace
by the same rite of circumcision that was administered to
the adult proselyte.
In that Church we see the utmost display of rich magnificence, adapted to produce the strongest emotions of awe
and reverence and admiration in every beholder, - carving
overlaid with gold in every part, elaborate embroidery,
precious stones: the chief workmen, Bezaleel, in the Tabernacle,' inspired of God to perform his appointed functions,
and Hiram, in the erection of the Temple,2 "filled with
wisdom and understanding," to accomplish a result so far
exceeding, in its wealth of splendor, all that the world had
ever known.
And, passing over many other details, inl that Church we
see the altar of incense and the golden censers, the holy
anointing oil applied in the consecration of the priesthood,
and the seven-branched golden candlestick kept ever burning: while the Almighty orders, with the most minute precision, the holy garments of Aaron and his sons, in which
they should stand to minister before Him.  Here, again,
we have the same magnificence, - for Aaron, a mitre, and
a golden plate inscribed with "Holiness to the Lord;" a
breastplate of jewels, a coat of fine linen, a robe of blue, a
girdle of scarlet, gold, purple, &c., with other clothing as
well for him as for his sons, but all expressly said to be
"for glory and for beauty." '
Lastly, in that Church we see the largest provision for
the praise of God accompanied by all the instruments of
music, in the Psalms given by inspiration and chanted
morning and evening, every day, by trained and skillful
choristers, in which the royal David sometimes bore his
part. So that, on the w~hole, while the doctrine of the Lord
I Exod. xxxi. 27 3- 21 Kings vii. 13, 14. 3 Exod. xxviii. 2, 40,





8


The Law of Ritualism.


was secured by the constant reading of His Word, the
ritial and ceremonial order commanded were of the most
grand and imposing character.  And all this, be it well
remembered, was the Law prescribed expressly by the Supreme Lawgiver - by Him who changeth not, but is " the
same, yesterday, to-day, and forever."
Here, then, in the Church established by the condescending love of God for His own chosen people, we behold the
great and the only divine model of all ritual worship. I
need not remind the reader that it stood until the coming
of the glorious Redeemer; that He honored the Temple as
1" His Father's house;" that He made it His daily resort
when in Jerusalem; that He cast out, with the strong hand,
those buyers and sellers who profaned it; and that He came
" not to destroy the law, but to fulfill." But it is commonly
supposed that all this sublime display of the Jewish Church
had no application after the Saviour's earthly mission was
completed; and that the whole of the system, so often pronounced by the Lord to be "an ordinance forever," was
entirely done away by Apostolic authority, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, when the perfect doctrine of the
Gospel was proclaimed "to every creature" in the Church
of Christ. This common error must be next examined,
and, if I do not much deceive myself, it can be thoroughly
dispelled from every mind which is candid enough to be
open to conviction.





ýDccounb T~aptcr.
The M~osaic System not Superseded, but Perfected.
THAT certain portions of the Church system prescribed
for ancient Israel were designed to pass away into a higher
and more extensive form of divine arrangement, when our
Lord had finished His marvellous work of obedience and
propitiation for our fallen and sinful race, is not to be
doubted for a moment. The Apostles were now commissioned to be the lawgivers to all mankind. "1As my Father
hath sent me," saith the Saviour, "even so send I you."
The Holy Ghost came down, on the day of Pentecost, to
qualify them for their sublime ministry. Thenceforth, they
spake "1as the Spirit gave them utterance." Christ Jesus
was to be acknowledged as the Great High Priest, exalted
to the right hand of the Father in Heaven, and the Apostles
were His commissioned vicegerents upon earth. Of course
the limitation of the priesthood to the posterity of Aaron
was to pass away into this larger and nobler priesthood,
intended no longer for a single nation, but for the whole
world. The animal sacrifices would also cease, because they
were only types of the great Sacrifice which the Cross of
Christ had fulfilled. And He had Himself instituted the
new memorial of His precious Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the holy Eucharist: while the other Sacrament
of Baptism in the narrie of the Trinity was also appointed,
after His resurrection.
But was the rest of the divine system to be abrogated?





IO0


The Law of Ritualism.


Our Lord, as all Christians admit, was THE GOD OF ANCIENT
ISRAEL.   As to His human nature, He was Himself
a Jew. All His Apostles were Jews, without exception.
And the first Christian Church, gathered together at Jerusalem, consisted of Jews only.  Being thus born and educated in the Church of their nation, which they justly held
to be the only Church ordained by the authority of Heaven,
could they possibly dream of forsaking it, without an express command of their Divine Master? Manifestly not.
They held, therefore, that the laws laid down for the
Church of Israel were still binding upon them, as Israelites,
with no other change than that which the fulfillment of the
sacrifices by the Cross of Christ and the enlarged form of
the threefold priesthood rendered imperative. Some time
elapsed before the question arose whether the Gentiles, or
the heathen nations around them, could be admitted to
share in the blessings of the Gospel. But there seems to
have been no doubt that, if admitted, they must be subject,
like the Jews, to the precepts of the Mosaic system.
We know from the sacred book of the Acts, how strongly
this conviction possessed the minds of the disciples, until it
pleased God to enlighten St. Peter by a heavenly vision,
and the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost granted to the
Gentile Cornelius 1 made it clear to the Apostle that the
Gentiles also should be taken into fellowship, without becoming proselytes to the law of Israel. But the difficulty was
not yet overcome; for we read that St. Paul, to whom the
same design of divine mercy had been revealed, found himself constantly opposed in his work among the Gentiles by
the Christian Jews who held the old opinion; till at length
he determined to go, with Barnabas and certain other
brethren, and submit the dispute to the whole Council of
the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem. The fifteenth chapter of the Acts relates that, when they came together to
consider the question, there was "much disputing.;" certain
1 Acts x.





Practice of the Apostles.


II


of the Pharisees, who believed the Gospel, insisting that the
converts among the Gentiles must be circumcised and
keep the law of Moses.1 The result, however, was in
accordance with the judgment of St. Peter and St. Paul,
and the decree was passed, as dictated by St. James, with
the approval of the Holy Ghost, which left the Gentiles
free to enter the Church of Christ, without submitting to
circumcision or any other rite of the ceremonial law, save
only in the abstinence from " meats offered to idols, and from
blood and from things strangled, and from fornication."
These things were called " necessary," because, if the Gentile converts failed to observe them, it would be impossible
to maintain any intercourse of hospitality with their Jewish
brethren.
But did this decree abolish the divine law which the
Lord had given to His chosen Israel? I answer, No, without the slightest hesitation. For in the next chapter we
read that St. Paul, on his journey to publish this very act
of the Apostolic Council, being desirous to have Timothy
accompany him, circumcised the young disciple; although
his mother only was an Israelite, while his father was a
Greek, so that he was not so much to be accounted a Jew
as a Gentile, by the Mosaic law. But we have a much
stronger proof in the twenty-first chapter, when, eight years
later according to the received chronology, viz., A. D. 60, St.
Paul came again to confer with the Apostles in Jerusalem.
And here I must ask my readers' especial attention to the
language of the sacred historian, as quite conclusive upon
this interesting question.
"The day following," saith St. Luke,2 " Paul went in with
us unto James; and all the elders were present. And
when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what
things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and
iaid unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands


1 Acts xv. 5.


2 Acts xxi. I8-26.





12


Thze Law of Ritualism.


there are of Jews which believe; and they are all zealous of
the law: and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest
all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses,
saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither
to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou
art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We
have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and
purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that
they may shave their heads: and all may know that those
things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are
nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have
written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save
only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols,
and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication."
The advice thus given to St. Paul was faithfully followed
on his part, though his compliance failed to satisfy the
prejudice which his enemies had so successfully raised
against him, on account of his supposed opposition to the
Mosaic system.
Here, then, we have a plain and indisputable demonstration that the Apostles, including St. Paul himself, did not
hold that the divine Church of Israel was abolished or
superseded, but rather perfected and enlarged, by the Gospel. It had pleased the Lord to establish that Church for
His chosen people, the posterity of Abraham; and although
it was now His gracious will to admit the Gentiles to Christian fellowship without requiring their adoption of the
ancient system in all things, yet this did not affect the
Jewish portion of the Church, nor could they consider that
their sacred law was done away, unless they had the same
express authority from the Supreme Lawgiver for its repeal, which they had for its establishment. And no man
can justly question the correctness of their position.  For
it is certain that the repeal of law demands the same power





7ewish Ritual not Abrogated.


I3


as its enactment, and its obligations must continue in force,
until the authority of the Legislator has done it away.
It is true, however, that a posterior law, which is plainly
inconsistent with a former one, works of necessity a repeal,
so far as the difference extends, and hence it is a wellknown maxim that Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. The High Priesthood, and the limitation to the posterity of Aaron and the tribe of Levi, passed away; for the
true High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ, was now revealed,
and had gone to the right hand of His Father in Heaven.
The Twelve Apostles were His vicegerents upon earth, with
special regard to the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and a thirteenth was added to be the Apostle of the Gentiles, no one
amongst them having a supremacy of government over the
rest, but all being servants of the same divine Lord, and
all guided by the same Holy Spirit. The animal sacrifices
were also done away, as they were types of the Sacrifice of
Christ, " the Lamb of God," and were now fulfilled. Instead of these, a new memorial of His death was ordained
by Himself, in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist; and
the other Sacrament of Baptism was established by the
same Supreme Authority to be an indispensable rite of
initiation into the Church of the Redeemer. But in all
things else, the ancient Church of Israel remained as
sacred in the eyes of the Jewish disciples as it was before.
The Apostles regarded it, not as being superseded, but advanced to its predicted consummation. Like the plant, in
which the flowers fall away, only to be succeeded by the
fruit, while the root, the stem, the branches, and the leaves
remain as before,'and it is still the same plant, only brought
to maturity: even so they regarded the Church as substantially the same, with no other change than that which was
essential to its spiritual perfection.
In this view of the question, it seems easy to account for
the course of the Apostles. Indeed, I am unable to conceive how they could have adopted any other, with due





14


The Law of Ritualism.


respect to the majesty of the divine Lawgiver. And hence
we see that St. Paul himself regards the Gentile Churches
as grafted on the stock of Israel. " Thou bearest not the
root," saith he to the Romans, "but the root thee." 1 The
Ahurch at Jerusalem, which thus marked its faithful observance of the ceremonial law, continued, as Eusebius informs
us, until the destruction of the city by the army of Vespasian, commanded by his son Titus, A. D. 70. And the
historian gives the names of the holy men who presided
over it, from the time of James the Just, who was its first
Bishop. After that event, there ceased to be any Church
of Israelites, to keep up the Apostolic reverence for the
Mosaic system. The Jewish Christians, who escaped the
awful siege, dispersed themselves among the Gentile
Churches; and these, who were free from the old ceremonial rules, have ever since had the government in their
own hands. But yet there has been no abrogation of the
ancient law given to Israel.  The Jews throughout the
world still obey it, so far as their circumstances allow.
And the time shall come, predicted by St. Paul and all the
prophets, when they shall be restored to their own land,
and acknowledge their true Messiah on the throne of His
father David, and embrace His Gospel of Salvation and
thus be "graffed in again."  Then the world shall behold,
as we may well believe, a manifestation of the Apostolic
reverence for the same substantial principles of the Church,
however modified, which the wisdom of God prescribed to
His chosen Israel.  That Church, remodelled in accord.
ance with His will, shall again be planted on Sion, and
shine, from the rising to the setting sun, under the promised
reign of the Prince of Peace, who liveth and abideth forever.
I am perfectly aware that this view of the subject is not
in accordance with the generally accepted notions of our
authors, who regard the language of St. Paul as quite conI RMU. xi. is.





Th e Common Notion Erroneous.            15
clusive to prove the abolition of the whole ceremonial law.
But I cannot reconcile this doctrine with the action of the
Apostles, just quoted; and as they were unanimous, and
all inspired, I consider myself bound to show that there is
no contradiction between their practical course and the
authoritative teaching of the great Master of the Gentiles,
when the subject is properly understood.





ZljiirbQJj aptcr.
The Ordinary View Examined.
IN examining the commonly accepted views of authors
on the subject before us, I cannot present them in a better
form than that which is adopted by Bishop Browne, in his
very excellent work on the XXXIX Articles.
"We know well," saith this enlightened theologian, "how
strongly St. Paul condemns those who adhered to the Jewish
ceremonial. Our Lord, indeed, had declared, that one
jot or tittle 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 in their great
Antitype, our Prophet, Priest, and King. The argument
of the whole Epistle to the Galatians is directed against
the observance of Jewish ceremonies.  The Epistle to the
Hebrews equally shows that the law had waxed old, and
was ready to vanish away, and that, its accomplishment
being perfected in Christ, there was no longer benefit to be
gained by adhering to it. 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." I
Now in all this, our learned author only declares the
common opinion, adopted by some of the Gentile fathers,
1 Exposition of the 7hirty-Nine drticles, (2d Lond. Ed.) p. 207.





Tke Law     not Necessary    to Salvation. 17
after the destruction of Jerusalem, when there was no
longer any Church of Jewish Christians upon earth to
maintain the contrary. And the same opinion is generally
followed to the present day. But I cannot assent to it,
because it condemns the blessed Apostles, and the manifest
position taken under their guidance by the Mother Church
in Jerusalem, as set forth in the quotation from the Book
of the Acts in the previous chapter.  I do not understand
by what authority we can presume to differ in judgment
from the inspired Messengers of the Lord Jesus Christ,
whom He called and qualified to plant His Church throughout the world. Nor can I see the propriety of an interpretation which sets St. Paul against the other Apostles, and
even against himself. For the better understanding of this
very serious question, however, let me proceed to consider
the statement of Bishop Browne, clause by clause, and test
its Scriptural consistency.
" We know well," saith our author, "how strongly St.
Paul condemns those who adhered to the Jewish Ceremonial Law." I answer that he nowhere condemns them,
save only when the observance of that law was assumed to
be necessary to salvation; a position manifestly at war with
the liberty allowed to the converts among the Gentiles, to
whom the law of Israel had not been given, and who were
therefore acknowledged to be free. That this was the form
of the Pharisees' doctrine is plain from the fifteenth chapter
of the Acts,1 where we read, that "certain men which came
down from Judaea taught the brethren" (sc. the Gentile
Christians at Antioch), "and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."  This
teaching, of course, was strongly censured by St. Paul,
whose favorite doctrine was that fundamental truth of the
Gospel, " By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
of yourselves: it is the gift of God."2  " In Jesus Christ
neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor unclrcumcision;
1 Verse I.                2 Ephes. ii. 8.
2





18 The Law of -Ritu~alism.
but faith which worketh by, love." 1 1"A man is justified byfaitk,
without the deeds of the law." 2 "1With the heart man believ-,
eth unto righteousness." a "1By the deeds of the law there
shall no flesh be justified."14 "They which are of faith, the
same are the children of Abraham." a These, and many
other passages, clearly state the spiritual principle of salvation, so that "1without faith, it is impossible to please
God."6"
But there were then, as there are now, a class of men
who trusted in their own works for salvation, and placed
their hope in their punctual observance of religious forms,
without any proper consciousness of their dependence on
the perfect righteousness and atoning sacrifice of the Son
of God, or their absolute need of the awakening and
sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. These men had
no true conviction that they were sinners by nature and by
practice; that they could only be pardoned by the free
grace of God, granted by the mediation of that Divine Redeemer who died for their sins and rose again for their justification; that humble repentance and faith in Him could
alone restore them to the Divine favor; and that no outward
act, and no religious ordinance, could be of any avail, where
genuine repentance and grateful faith and confidence in
Christ were wanting.
Against these self-righteous slaves of forms and ceremonies, St. Paul contended with zealous constancy. But
nowhere does he condemn circumcision amongst the Israelites, or blame his Jewish brethren for their adherence to
the Mosaic law. On the contrary, in answer to the question, "1What advantage hath the Jew, or what profit is there
in circumcision? " he replies, "1Much every way."7 And
to show the true spiritual character of that ordinance, he
saith, that "1he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither
1 Gal. v. 6.   2 Rom. iii. 28.    3 Rom. x. io.
4 Rom. iii. 20.  5 Gal. iii. 7.   6 Heb. xi. 6.
7 Rom. iii. x.





All not yet Fulfilled.


I9


is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he
is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of
the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise
is not of men, but of God."1 This language might be
applied with equal correctness to the ordinances of the
Church. He is not a Christian who is only one outwardly,
neither are those sacraments which are merely outward in
the flesh. But he is a Christian who is one inwardly, and
the sacrifice we offer must be that of the heart, in the spirit
and not in the letter only, whose praise is not of men but
of God.
But does this doctrine warrant any disregard of the outward form, as if it were incompatible with the spirit of inward devotion? It would be mere absurdity to think so.
And with respect to St. Paul himself, we know that he
could not have condemned circumcision when he administered it to his favorite Timothy, nor did he turn aside from
the Mosaic ceremonies, when he accepted the advice of his
Apostolic brethren at Jerusalem, and publicly showed his
willingness to 1" walk orderly and keep the law."
Our author's next statement is as follows: " Our Lord,"
saith he, " had indeed declared that one jot or one tittle
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 in their great
Antitype, our Prophet, Priest and King."
This statement seems to me strangely deficient in the
usual accuracy of the learned author. The Saviour saith,
that "one jot or one tittle should in nowise pass away till
all was fulfilled."  All what? Surely all that was predicted,
for the word 1" fulfill" plainly points to the prophecies. But
had not our Lord Himself foretold the end of the world
under the present dispensation, and His own second Advent? And are these sublime events fulfilled?  Had He
1 Rom. ii. 28-9.





20


The Law of Ritualism.


not said to the Apostles, "In the regeneration when the
Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also
shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the Twelve Tribes
of Israel."  Is that fulfilled?  The prophet Isaiah points
us to the time when the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and
the lion shall eat straw like the ox; when men shall beat
their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and learn war no more. Is that fulfilled? The
blessed Redeemer predicted the final resurrection, and
the general Judgment, when the angels should gather His
elect, and they should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. Is that fulfilled? But
it is needless to point out any more of those great events
which remain as yet in the distant future, but which shall
assuredly arrive in their aplpointed season, for the mouth
of the Lord hath spoken it. And if not one jot nor tittle
shall pass from the law until the whole be fulfilled, as the
Saviour Himself so expressly declared, what language can
be found to express a more enduring perpetuity?
The plain fact, therefore, seems to be that our learned
author's argument is based on a most unauthorized assumption. The first coming, and the wondrous works and yet
more wondrous *death, resurrection, and ascension of the
glorious Redeemer, only fulfilled a part, though an all-important part, of the sublime plan which His precious Gospel sets before us. The grand result is the prize to which
we are all exhorted to press forward, and there we have
the hope that is sure and steadfast, as an "anchor" to the
soul.
I proceed to the third clause of our author's statement,
where he saith that "the whole Epistle to the Galatians is
directed against the observance of Jewish ceremonies."
And a little lower down he adds the declaration of the
Apostle, "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 unto him, he is fallen from grace." But





The Law not Repealed.


21


not a word is said about the peculiar circumstances of the
case, although it is absolutely necessary to understand these,
in order to relieve the character of the Apostle from the
grossest inconsistency.
The Galatians were a Church of heathen Gentiles, and,
of course, they had received the Gospel at the lips of St.
Paul, with perfect freedom from the Mosaic law, which
had only been ordained for Israel. But after they had
become thus established in the faith, they had been led
away by some of the same Pharisaic Jews, who doubtless
persuaded them, as in the case already cited, to adopt circumcision and all the rest of the Mosaic system, or they
could not be saved.
Of course, this, in their circumstances, was an open insult
to the authoritative truth of the Apostle's doctrine, which
was identical with the decree of the Council of Jerusalem,
and was in accordance with the mind of the Holy Spirit.
The Ceremonial Law was the special heritage of the Jewish
people, and as St. Paul had no right to impose it on the
Gentiles, they had no right to make it a law unto themselves, as being necessary to their salvation. Their doing
so, therefore, was an offense against the Holy Ghost.  It
placed their souls in peril, because it was a virtual denial
of the sufficiency of the faith in Christ, which was the cardinal doctrine of the Gospel. And thus it called for the
severe rebuke of the Apostle, since, through this fatal error,
they had " fallen from grace," and the Redeemer became
" of no effect to them."
Thus, rightly understood, it is surely manifest that the
case of the Galatians affords no proof whatever of the abrogation of the law with respect to Israel. We have already
seen that all the Apostles, including St. Paul himself, considered the Mosaic ritual to be still binding upon the Jewish
Church in Jerusalem. It belonged to them and not to the
Gentiles. No Church may presume to change the obligations of religious duty, which must rest solely on the author




22           The Law    of -Ritualism.
ity of Christ. The Galatians sinned, therefore, in acting
against His will concerning them. And the Jewish Church
would have been also open to rebuke, if they had laid aside
the divine law, so expressly prescribed to Israel, before it
had been repealed.
The remaining portion of our author's argument is in
these words, viz.: "1The Epistle to the Hebrews," saith he,
"equally shows that the law had waxed old, and was ready
to vanish away, and that, its accomplishment being perfected
in Christ, there was no longer benefit to be gained by adhering to it."
I do not acknowledge the correctness of this conclusion.
The Epistle to the Hebrews, when properly examined,
will be found limited to a few of the highest and most important doctrines, and does not conflict in any form with
the reverence of the Jewish Christians for circumcision, or
the general precepts of the Mosaic law. A brief analysis,
however, may be desirable, as this Epistle is the stronghold
of those who maintain the current hypothesis.





fourtl)j Qaapter.
The Ordinary View Further Examined.
THE first topic treated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is
the divine nature and majesty of Christ, which is proved
from the Psalms of David. Moses was faithful as a servant, but Christ Jesus as the Son of God. He is set forth,
next, as our Great High Priest, called after the order of
Melchizedek, who was greater than Abraham, because the
patriarch paid tithes to him and received his blessing.
And as our Lord was now exalted to the heavens, it was
evident that perfection could not be by the Levitical priesthood, which was only a type of the true High-priesthood of
Christ. "The priesthood therefore being changed," continues the Apostle, " there is made of necessity a change also
of the law." That is, of the law of the priesthood, for that
was the only topic to which he referred.
The argument of the eighth chapter sets forth the main
ground for the current opinion, where we read of the two
covenants, the one being the covenant of works, presented
by the principle of legal obedience, which the Israelites
were constantly breaking; and the other the covenant of
grace, through the merits and sacrifice of the Great High
Priest, who gave His own blood to atone for the sins of
His chosen people. " If that first covenant had been faultless," saith the Apostle, " then should no place have been
sought for the second. For, finding fault with them (i. e.,
the people of Israel), He saith, " Behold,.... I will make





24


The Law of Ritualism.


a new covenant with the house of Israel." And again: " This
is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their
mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them
a God, and they shall be to Me a people: and they shall
not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his
brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall'know Me,from
the least to the greatest.  For I will be merciful to their
unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I
remember no more. In that He saith, A new covenant,
He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and
waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." 1
The first question that presents itself in the interpretation
of this passage, is the time intended by the phrase, "After
those days."  The common opinion refers it to the period
of the Apostles. But how does that opinion consist with
the statement that this covenant should be made " with the
house of Israel," and should operate so effectually, that " all
should then know the Lord, from the least unto the greatest? "
The portion of the Jews who embraced the Gospel under
the Apostles was a very small fraction of the house of Israel.
And hence I should rather conclude that the inspired
writer here refers to the times of their restoration and conversion, when, as he elsewhere declares, " All Israel shall be
saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the
Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away
their sins." 2
To me it appears very plain that this is the true meaning
of the passage; and if so, the period to which St. Paul
alludes has not yet arrived, nor will it arrive until the Jews
shall be "graffed in again," upon their own olive-tree, at
the second Advent of their Divine Messiah.
And this agrees with the conclusion of the Apostle, "In
that He saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old.
1 Heb. viii. 8-13.         2 Rom. xi. 26, 27.





The Righteousness of Faith.


25


Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish
away." If St. Paul had here intended to warrant the common opinion adopted by Bishop Browne, he should have
said that the old covenant had already vanished away, for
this Epistle is set down to A. D. 64, and was therefore
written thirty-one years after the Ascension of the Saviour.
But in truth the old covenant, as the phrase is used in
this famous chapter, can with no propriety be applied to
the divine system of the Jewish worship. It should rather
be understood in accordance with St. Paul's doctrine on
the law and the Gospel, to which he so often refers. This
he sets forth very clearly in stating the cause why the Jews
had rejected the Redeemer. And I quote his language in
full, as the best comment on his meaning:--
" Brethren," saith the Apostle to the Romans, " my heart's
desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be
saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of
God, but not according to knowledge.  For they being
ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves
unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of
the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For
Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That
the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the
righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say
not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is,
to bring Christ down from above:) or, Who shall descend
into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the
dead.)  But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in
thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word offaith, which
we preach: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the
Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath.
raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the
heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation."1
1 Rom. x. i-ii.





26


The Law of Ritualism.


Still further to prove that the covenant of works, in
which the Jews thought they could be saved by their own
righteousness, is not to be restricted to the religious ritual
of the Church in ancient Israel, I refer to the Epistle to
the Galatians,' where we read as follows: -
"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not
hear the law?   For it is written, that Abraham had two
sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the
flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which
things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the
one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage,
which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia,
and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage
with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free,
which is the mother of us all.... Now we, brethren, as
Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he
that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born
after the Spirit, even so it is now.  Nevertheless what
saith the Scripture?  Cast out the bondwoman and her
son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with
the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not
children of the bondwoman, but of the free." 2
Here we have a sure key to the meaning of St. Paul,
where he speaks of the two covenants. The covenant of
works he calls rightly the covenant of bondage, and we
must specially note that he refers it to Mount Sinai where
God pronounced the Ten Commandments, clearly showing
that he was not alluding to religious rites and ceremonies,
but to that very moral law which our own, and every other
orthodox Church retains.3
This law he calls elsewhere "holy, just, and good."  By
1 Ch. iv. 2 1.
2 Gal. iv. 2 1- 3 1.
3 This word " covenant," is expressly applied to the Tables of
the Ten Commandments in the following texts: -





The Two Covenants.


27


it is the knowledge of sin, for as sin is rightly defined
by him to be " the transgression of the law," and " where
no law is, there is no transgression," it is manifest that
men could never learn that they were sinners, in absolute
need of the divine mercy and forgiveness through the
Saviour, until the standard of the Law was solemnly held
up before them, by which alone they could be taught the
fearful extent of their iniquity. And hence the Apostle
saith most truly that " the law was our schoolmaster to bring us
unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" in His perfect righteousness and atonement,1 since, without Him, we
must be forever in bondage to the condemnation which the
Word of God pronounces upon the sinner; declaring that
"cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them." From this curse,
which rests on all men (for all have sinned, and the whole
world is guilty), Christ Jesus alone can set us free. And
His precious Gospel is therefore the other covenant, the
Covenant of Grace, granted by the infinite love and free
mercy of the Most High, and accepted by the penitent
transgressor through faith - a heartfelt trust and confidence in the blessed Redeemer.
The Covenant of Works is called the Old Covenant, beExod. xxxiv. 28, " He wrote upon the tables the words of the
covenant."
Deut. ix. 9,' The tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant."
Deut. ix. 1, " The Lord gave me the two tables of stone, even
the tables of the covenant."
Deut. ix. 15, " The two tables of the covenant were in my two
hands."
The term is often used with a larger application, but the allusion
to Mount Sinai shows the Apostle's meaning clearly, for no other
words were there uttered by the Almighty, in the hearing of all
Israel. The other communications of the Deity, which were of a
legal character, were to Moses alone.
1 Gal. iii. 24.





28


The Law of Ritualism.


cause it was given to Adam in Paradise, and his happiness
was made to depend on his obedience to the law. The
Covenant of Grace was instituted after the fall, and sacrifices were directed as types of the atonement which the
promised Seed of the woman - our Lord and Saviour -
should accomplish in the appointed time, as the Lamb of
God, ordained to take away the sins of the world, and
destroy the dominion of the serpent, Satan, by whose
temptation our first parents were led astray.  In that
covenant Abel believed, and the Apostle commemorates
his faith and that of the old patriarchs and saints of Israel,
near the close of his Epistle to the Hebrews. And it was
with reference to the same covenant that the whole religion of the Mosaic system was arranged, "the shadow of
good things to come," not that the blood of bulls and goats
could take away sins by their inherent efficacy, nor that
any outward ordinance, of itself, could purify the soul; but
because the wisdom and the love of God condescended to
direct it as the best mode to secure the faith and holiness
of His chosen people, until the time when the typical portion of it should be fulfilled by the actual coming of the
divine Redeemer, and all the rest of the sublime system
should be matured and fully developed, for the salvation
of mankind.
We have seen the reason which rendered it necessary to
republish the covenant of the law from Mount Sinai, viz.,
to teach the knowledge of sin, and thus to bring men, in
repentance and faith, to the promised Saviour. Moses had
declared that the "first and great commandment" was to
love the Lord our God with all our heart and mind and
strength, and our neighbor (or fellow being) as ourselves.
This we may well suppose to be the original law of angels
and all intelligent creatures throughout the universe. And
we may rightly conceive that in this form it was given to
Adam and Eve. The Saviour saith that on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Hence it





The Covenant of Works.


29


is easy to perceive that when it was republished on Mount
Sinai, it was the same law essentially, for "love is the fulfilling of the law,"- only, it was then drawn out into detail,
for the better understanding of the people.
But the pride and folly of the human heart led to the
fearful abuse that the Jews fancied themselves able to keep
the commandments of God by outwardly abstaining from
gross transgressions, and leading what they regarded as a
moral life, totally forgetting that those commandments
were founded on the heavenly law of love, and reducing
their religion to mere forms and ceremonies. Thus they
bound themselves to the covenant of works in a blind
confidence of their own sufficiency, without any real consciousness of sin, without humility, repentance, or any true
sense of their utter dependence on the divine grace and
mercy, satisfied with their own miserable acts of stated
observance, and rejecting, in their self-righteous complacency, the whole celestial plan which could alone save
them from destruction, and qualify them for the kingdom
of heaven.
This was the terrible misapplication of the covenant of
works against which our Lord and His zealous Apostle
inveighed so sharply, for it had become the received system of the Pharisees, and of the great mass of the whole
Jewish people. Nor was it confined to them, for it is the
vice of human nature; and even amongst those who formin
the majority of Christian nations, this same covenant of
works, this same proud self-righteousness, this same blind
confidence in themselves, is seen, alas, to govern many
within the Church, while there are multitudes beyond her
pale who do not care to cover the rebellion of their hearts
by even an outward compliance with the forms of religion.
In my humble judgment, this view of the two covenants
seems altogether more consistent with the whole of St.
Paul's doctrine than that which is commonly accepted. It
presents the real antagonism which turned the Jews away





30           The Law     of Ritualism.
from the faith of the Gospel. It saves the character of
the Apostles, himself included, from the charge of gross
error, in teaching the Jewish Christians to practice circumcision, and walk orderly, and keep the ceremonial law. It
accounts for the adoption of so large a portion of the Mosaic ritual amongst the Gentile Churches, as I shall show
in a subsequent chapter; and it is in perfect harmony with
the seventh Article of our own Church. For that Article
must be understood to refer to Gentile believers, who were
pronounced free by the Council of the Apostles; since it is,
certain that there was no Church of Christian Jews on the
face of the earth, after the destruction of Jerusalem.
But if, in the providence of God, a Church should again
arise consisting of converted Jews, or if individual Jews
should be added, from time to time, as members of a
Church which belongs to Gentiles, I do not see by what
warrant we could forbid those Jews to imitate the course
of the Apostles, or count it an error in them to circumcise
their children, and "1walk orderly, and keep the law." For
no man can prove that the ritual of Moses was considered
as wholly abrogated by those inspired men, so far as it concerned the natural posterity of Israel; and it would seem
to be a perilous presumption to assume the authority of
that divine Lawgiver who is alone "1able to save and to
destroy." The command of the Lord gave the law to His
own peculiar people, and no human power has the right to
take it away.
Nevertheless, it would by no means be a just inference
that, even to the Jew believing in Christ, circumcision was
or can be "1necessary to salvation." The true aspect of the
matter was expressed by the Apostles when St. Paul was
advised by them to conform publicly to the Mosaic ritual:
"1that all men may see," said they, "1that thou thyself also
walkest orderly, and keepest the law." It seems clear, from
this language, that they regarded their ritual as a matter of
divine order, and not as a principle of saving faith. For





Honor done to the Temple.


31


in Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth any thing nor
uncircumcision; but "faith which worketh by love."  This
is the doctrine of our eleventh Article, that we are justified
by faith only. The same terms might be applied even to the
outward sacraments of the Church. Our Lord Himself
declares that, " Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." He instituted the solemn form of Baptism in the name of the
Trinity, and the blessed Eucharistic feast which He consecrated as the symbols of His Body and His Blood, in the
strongest terms of obligation. Yet the Church teaches no
more than that these sacraments are generally necessary to
salvation. True, indeed, it is, that the visible Church of
Christ cannot exist without a certain amount of divine
order. It is the Body of Christ, and, like every other body,
must have its appointed form, which no one can wilfully
violate or disfigure without sin. But faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ is the living element which gives value to the
form. Without this faith, the form becomes dead, like the
human frame when the soul has departed. And therefore,
while I should utterly condemn the error of those who
would destroy the divine form which the Lord has seen fit
to give to His Body, the Church, yet I would not deny that
even the most extreme opponent of form - the Friend or
Quaker - though he belongs not to the Church on earth,
may possess the spiritual grace of faith, and thus, through
the mercy of Christ, may attain salvation.
I shall only add, before I dismiss this branch of my subject, that if the common hypothesis, sustained by Bishop
Browne, namely, that the ancient Church of Israel had
passed entirely away, were really in accordance with the
judgment of the Apostles, it would seem to have been a
matter of course that they should avoid the Temple at
Jerusalem, and the worship of the Synagogue. But instead
of this, the Book of the Acts informs us that they fre1 Gal. v. 6.





32           The Law     of Ritualism.
quented the Temple, were daily in the Temple, preached
and worked miracles in the Temple. And in the travels
of St. Paul, at Antioch, Iconium, Thessalonica, Berea,
Athens, and Corinth, it is expressly recorded that he went
first to the Jewish synagogue; proclaimed his celestial
message first to the literal descendants of Abraham; and
always marked the distinction between the Jew and the
Gentile as still subsisting, though the wall of partition was
so far broken down by the Gospel that they might live as
brethren in the faith of Christ, the Lord of all. And in
this there was no incongruity. We all know how, in after
ages, the orders of monks had a different rule of life from
the rest of the laity, while the rule of faith and the communion of the Church were the same. And the Jews were
authorized to keep up their distinction, on a far higher
ground, because it was the law prescribed to them by the
God of Israel.





li   p   cpaptcr.
Points of Conformity between the Mosaic Ritual and the
Church.
ENOUGH has been said, I trust, to vindicate the course
of the Apostles and the mother Church in Jerusalem, in
their firm adherence to circumcision and the ceremonial
law, as being themselves the literal Israelites, to whom the
Mosaic ritual was given; though the Gentiles, to whom it
was not given, were declared to be free. I have next to
point out the various matters in which those free Gentiles
conformed to the "order" of the Mosaic law; and these
will be found much more numerous than is commonly apprehended.
1. Commencing with the sacred edifices of the primitive
Christians, we find that they were built facing towards the
east, like the Temple at Jerusalem; the chancel, with the
altar, being at the west, while the general form was borrowed from the same sacred type; the nave corresponding
to the holy place, where the faithful or the communicants
were stationed; and the chancel railed off from it for the
Bishop and the priests, containing the altar, in memorial of.the sanctum sanctorum, and for this reason called the sanctuary.1
To this position of the sacred edifices, however, there
were frequent exceptions, especially after the heathen temples, in which there was little attention to the points of the
1 See Baronius, dnnal.,,Tom. x, p. 524-525, and again, p. 533.
3





34


The Law of Ritualism.


compass, were converted into churches. But the better
rule was that already stated, and hence it was followed in
the modern cathedral of Rome, the famed St. Peter's,
where the entrance is toward the east, and the great altar
toward the west, in true accordance with the model in
ancient Israel.
Our learned antiquarian, Bingham, to whom I shall frequently refer as a standard authority, states that the early
Christians had churches, built during the intervals of persecution.1 "The proofs of this," saith he, "are abundant in
the third century." 2 But he concludes that the chancels
were towards the east, though not always, as some of the
finest structures had the altars at the west end, and the
doors at the east, like Solomon's Temple.3 It is to be
specially noted, however, that the altars were never placed
at the back wall. That was the position occupied by the
Bishop's chair, the seats of the presbyters or priests being
on either side of the apse, and the Holy Table or Altar
standing lower down, between the Bishop and the congregation.4 This is made perfectly plain in the diagram
given by Bingham, which shows the ground plans of five
churches, the oldest of which we have any precise information. Our author admits that they were built "with some
regard to the Jewish Temple."5   He might have said
much more, with perfect truth, as will be abundantly manifest from other parts of his description.
Thus, in the atrium, or open square before the church,
there was commonly a fountain or cistern of water for the
people to wash, before they entered.6  This was in accordance with the brazen laver before the Tabernacle.'
The holy gates and veils, still used in the Oriental
a See Bingbham's Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 370.
2 Ibid. p. 379, &c,.                3 Ibid. p. 399 -4 1bid. pp. 403, 417, 429, 44I.     5 Ibid. p. 400.
Ibid. p. 403.                     7 Exod. xxx. 18





The Altar of Incense.


35


Churches, in plain allusion to the Jewish Sanctuary, are
also mentioned by Bingham.1
The men and women occupied separate places, as in the
Jewish Synagogue.2
Texts of Scripture were written on the walls, and the
Mosaic law speaks of a similar practice.
The Holy Tables were also called Altars, the terms being
used indifferently to mean the same thing.8
They were made of wood at first, but afterwards of
stone.4 For it is certain that this latter material was in
use even before the time of Gregory Nyssen,5 because he
speaks of the stone altar, in his discourse on baptism.  And
the first decree of the Church in relation to the matter was
passed in A. D. 509, at the Council of Epone, directing
that "no altar should be consecrated but such as were
made of stone only." The form of an altar rather than
that of a table became then common. And thus the matter remained to the present day.
Here, by the way, I may remark the mistake made by
many good Christian men, who confine their notion of an
altar to the rite of animal sacrifice. Whereas we read expressly of "the altar of gold for the incense before the Ark." 6
And again we see that "the children of Reuben and the
children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there
an altar by Jordan," 7 " not for burnt offering, nor for sacrifice: but that it may be a witness" between them and
their brethren.8 And they "'called the altar Ed: for it
shall be a witness between us," said they, " that the Lord is
God." 9
Manifestly, +therefore, there is no warrant in the Old
Testament for limiting the " altar" to the offering of animal sacrifices. And when we come to the New Testa1 Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 435.    2 Ibid. pp. 419-421.
3 Ibid. p. 442.                   4 Ibid. p. 446.
5 A. D. 372.                      6 Exod. xl. 5.
7 Josh. xxii. io.  8 Ibid. verse 26, 27. 9 Ibid. verse 34.





36


The Law of Ritualism.


ment, we see the statement of St. Paul, " We have an altar,
whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." 1 In the Book of Revelation we read of the souls
of the martyrs, " under the altar." 2 Again, St. John saith,
that " another angel came and stood at the altar, having a
golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints
upon the golden altar which was before the throne."3 And
again, saith the same Apostle, "I heard a voice from the
four horns of the golden altar which is before God." 4 None
of these passages can be regarded as favoring the strange
notion that the application of the word " altar " to the
Communion Table in our Institution Office is unscriptural;
but on the contrary, they all prove that the term is eminently entitled to our regard, since there is an altar of incense belonging to the worship of Heaven, and St. Paul
himself uses the word with a clear reference to the Church
on earth.
As to the other branch of the hypothesis, viz., that the
Communion Table must be of wood, " an honest table with
legs to it," although there are some very respectable names
quoted in its favor, yet I must confess my surprise that any
importance should be attached to such a restriction. For
it is surely plain to the slightest reflection, that the word
table refers properly to the upper surface, and not to the
legs. The chair, the sofa, and the bedstead all have legs,
as well as the table. Thus, too, it is common to say table
rock, and table land, meaning simply that they have aflat
surface, like a table. And as to the material, there may be
tables of gold and silver, and marble and iron, as well as
of wood. Custom has indeed attached the term " altar " to
the form in common use after stone was ordered to be
employed in the construction. But whether it was called
by the one name or the other, the religious meaning of the
Holy Table or the Altar was precisely the same.
1 Heb. xiii. o10. 2 Rev. vi. 9. 3 Ibid. viii. 3. 4 Ibid. ix. 13.





Altar Lights.


37


The result, as it seems to me, is very plain, that the
liberty of the Church is not to be troubled by any censure
in this matter. The Holy Table may be constructed lawfully either of wood or of stone, with any kind of support
that may be preferred, in the form of an altar or otherwise.
And it may be called the Altar or the Holy Table, indifferently, as it was by the old Fathers, without the slightest
real warrant for blame or censure.
But to return from this digression, I proceed to some
other customs of the Church, which remind us of the
Mosaic Ritual.
That candlesticks or lamps were used universally, is
stated by Bingham,l and these were of gold at Rome, in
the time of St. Laurence. Our author, on the authority of
St. Jerome, allows that they were lighted by day as well as
night. He regards this, however, as an innovation, because
the first and primitive use of them was a matter of necessity, when Christians were forced to meet in nocturnal
assemblies for fear of persecution. But Jerome says, that
though there was no order of the Church to favor the
lighting of candles by day, yet the custom was tolerated in
some places, and it was quite free from any suspicion of
idolatry.2
Our author, nevertheless, thinks that it was positively
forbidden, and quotes the Council of Eliberis saying, " Let
no one presume to set up lights in the daytime in any
cemetery or church, for the spirits of the saints are not to be
molested;" " from whence," saith he, "it is evident that
the contrary custom must be new, though prevailing both in
the East and in the West, in the time of Paulinus and St.
Jerome." 3
Here, as it seems to my humble judgment, the learned
1ingham reasons very badly. The Council of Eliberis was
not of sufficient importance to represent the Church at
large, and in the Canon to which Bingham refers, the
1 Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 461.  2 Ibid. p. 462.  3 Ibid.





38


The Law of Rilualism.


reason assigned is so preposterous that it stultifies itself.
For who, in his sober senses, believes that the lighting of
candles, either by day or by night, could "molest the spirits
of the saints? "  Such a canon could have no possible effect
against the fact which our author himself states so plainly,
viz.: that this custom was "prevailing both in the East and in
the West, in the time of Paulinus and St. Jerome." It is notorious that both in the Roman and the Oriental Churches
it is universal, and has been so, in the Eastern Churches at
least, from the earliest antiquity.
This point of primitive practice, then, may be fairly
claimed as an imitation of the Mosaic Ritual, with reference
to the seven-branched candlestick in the Temple at Jerusalem, which was kept ever burning. It has been thought
by some, that the holy place was dark, and hence the constant light of this sacred candlestick was necessary.  But
this is a mistake, for it is expressly stated that "for the
house" (i. e. the Temple) Solomon " made windows of narrow lights." 1 Therefore it was not dark by day; and the
candlestick, like all things else belonging to the sacred
edifice, must be understood to have borne a mystical or
symbolic meaning, probably with regard to the sevenfold
spiritual illumination of the Holy Ghost, stated by the
prophet Isaiah 2 in words which, are still preserved by our
Church in the prayer before Confirmation.
Our author, Bingham, next passes on to the use of incense, to which he is strongly opposed, although the authorities which he quotes are, on the whole, against him. He
says, very truly, that there are " no footsteps of censers or
incense in the first three ages of the Church."    But
these were ages when the Christians sustained, from time
to time, many heavy and cruel persecutions, during which
their worship was chiefly by night; and the burning of
incense would then be dangerous, because its odbr might
have betrayed -them.  But he acknowledges that " the
I x Kings vi. 4.               2 Isaiah xi. 2.





Primitive use of Incense.


39


Apostolic Canons mention incense in the time of the oblation: "1 only, he objects to their antiquity, as their date is
still uncertain. He also quotes Hippolytus Portuensis in
the second century, saying that the Church shall mourn
with a very great mourning, because her oblation and
incense are not duly performed;" and especially he cites St.
Ambrose, who, speaking of the angel's appearing unto
Zacharias, standing on the right side of the altar of incense,
says, "I wish the angel may stand by us when we incense
the altar, and offer our sacrifice; yea, doubtless, the angel
stands by us, at the time that Christ stands there and is
offered upon the altar."  " Here," saith Bingham, " I take
it, the sacrificing of Christ and the incensing of the altar
are both of the same nature, that is, spiritual and mystical,
and therefore, hence, nothing can be concluded for the use
of incense and censers in the Christian Church."
Now this appears to me a very strange specimen of logic.
St. Ambrose was speaking of a real angel, and a real altar.
Why is not the incensing of that altar equally real?  Because the sacrificing of Christ, once for all completed on
the Cross, could only be symbolical and commemorative, must the incense, which was a constant part of divine
worship in the ancient Church, be therefore any more
mystical than the altar at which it was offered? Plainly
such reasoning has neither force nor fairness to recommend it.   Our author admits that Evagrius, who wrote
his Church history in the sixth century, mentions golden
crosses and golden censers, given by Chosroes to the Church
in Constantinople. " By which we may guess," saith he,
"that crosses and censers were the product of the same
age, and came into the Church together."     But does
Evagrius speak of them as a novelty? Does he not rather
mention them as a proof of the monarch's piety and zeal?
And with what justice can our author " guess " that they were
then introduced for the first time, when he is obliged to
1 Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 462.    2 Ibid. p. 464.





40


The Law of Ritualism.


acknowledge that they were referred to so plainly, in the
Apostolic Canons, and by Hippolytus and St. Ambrose,
more than two hundred years before?
For myself, I can only say that I have no doubt on the
subject.  Nor can I see any reason why the Church of the
Gentiles should not have followed the divine law of the
Mosaic system in the use of incense, for it seems to have
been used as an expressive symbol of the prayers of the
saints, and is equally appropriate to Jew and Gentile.
But the strongest proof to my mind is the declaration of
the Almighty by the prophet Malachi, " From the rising of
the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall
be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense
shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my
name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of
Hosts."1 Here we have express mention of incense which
should be offered in every place by those who had been
heathen Gentiles. And we have already seen that St. John
saw the angel offering incense, with the prayers of the
saints, in the court of Heaven. On what ground, then,
should it be unlawful to offer it in the Church on earth?
What could be more Scriptural, more natural, nay, more
a matter of course, than its early introduction, with the
fullest presumed sanction of those Apostles who knew the
Jewish Ritual to be divine?
I pass next to the custom of -bowing toward the altar, so
universal amongst the Oriental and Roman Churches. This
is considered by Bingham as a doubtful matter.  But he
quotes, with seeming approbation, the learned Joseph Mede,
who thought that although there was no plain demonstration of it in the ancient writers, yet there was some probability of such a custom in the early Church. 1" The Jews,"
saith this writer, " used to bow themselves down towards
the mercy-seat. The Christians after them, in the Greek
and Oriental Churches, have, time out of mind, and without
1 Mal. i. ii.





Chrism.


41


any known beginning thereof, used to bow in like manner,
toward the Altar or Holy Table, saying,' God be merciful to
me a sinner,' as appears by the Liturgies of St. Chrysostom
and St. Basil, and as they are still known to do at this day.
Which custom of theirs, not being found in the decrees or
canons of any Council, and being so agreeable to the use
of God's people in the Old Testament, may therefore seem
to have been derived to them from very remote and ancient
tradition." 1
A much more important matter, viz., the use of oil or
chrism in Confirmation, next demands attention. This,
as Bingham   admits, is plainly stated by Tertullian to
have been the established practice about the year 200.2
And our author says that " it was this unction at the completion of baptism, to which they ascribed the power of
making every Christian, in some sense, partaker of a royal
priesthood, which is not only said by Origen, but by Pope
Leo, St. Jerome, and many others." The author of the
Constitutions states it to be, on man's part, the confirmation of the confessions and compacts made with God in
baptism; and ori God's part, the collation of the Holy
Spirit, represented by this ceremony of anointing." 3  It
was the opinion of Bishop Pearson that the use of
chrism in Confirmation came into the Church shortly after
the time of the Apostles.  It was consecrated by the
Bishop,4 and is used by the Greek and Oriental Churches,
as well as by the Church of Rome, to this day.
Here, again, we are reminded of the holy anointing oil
commanded by the Mosaic Ritual.5 And this furnishes
another strong feature of the correspondence between the
Gentile Church and that divinely ordered system.
We come now to the matter of the garments adopted by
the Primitive Ministry. Baronius quotes from the Fathers
1 Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 557. 2 Ibid. 4. p. 28. 3 Ibid. p. 29.
4 Ibid. 3, p. 573.       5 Exod. xxx. 22-34.





42


The Law of Ritualism.


some proofs that St. James the Just, first Bishop of Jerusalem, and also St. John (who presided, in the latter part
of his life, over the Churches of Asia Minor, having Bishops under him), wore the golden ornament which was prescribed for the mitre of the High Priest in the Mosaic
Ritual.'
He also states, on the same authority, that the primitive
Christians wore the pallium after the manner of the Jews,
and not the Roman toga.2
Bingham says, that " in the beginning of the fourth age,
when the Church was quietly composed by Constantine and
settled in peace, we are sure a distinction was made in the
habits and -esttnents of divine service. For Constantine
himself is said to have given a rich vestment, embroidered
with gold, to Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, to be worn
by him " in the celebration of the sacred offices. Athanasius
raised a fund for the linen vestments of the Church. " This
is mentioned both by Athanasius and by Sozomen, the one
calling them linen sticharia, and the other linen tunicles,
which are the same thing." St. Jerome often mentions
this distinction of habits as generally observed in his time.
In his book against Pelagius he asks, " What harm is it, if
a Bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the ecclesiastical order, come forth in a white vestment when they
administer the sacraments? " St. Chrysostom also intimates
that the deacons wore a peculiar habit, when he says, " their
honor, crown, and glory did not consist so much in their
walking about the Church in a white and shining garment,
as in their power to repel unworthy communicants from
the Lord's table."  And Severianus, Bishop of Gabala,
contemporary with Chrysostom, speaking of those deacons,
saith, " They resembled the wings of angels, with their veils
or tippets on their left shoulders, going about the Church
and crying out, 'Let none of the Catechumens be present
1 Baronius Ann., Tom. i, p. 269.  2 Ibid. p. 521.





Primitive Vestments.


43


at the mysteries.' These white habits were the surplices
used in divine service." 1
" The Council of Laodicea," continues our author, " has
two canons concerning the orarium, which was a 'scarf or
tippet,' to be worn on the shoulders by Bishops, priests, and
deacons, all below these being expressly debarred the use of
it by that council. The Fourth Council of Carthage speaks
of the alba, or albe. The First Council of Braga speaks of
the tunica (tunicle or surplice), and the orarium, as belonging
to deacons, and the Third Council of Braga orders priests
to wear the orarium on both shoulders. By which we
learn," says Bingham, " that the tunica or surplice was common to all the clergy, the orarium on the left shoulder
proper to deacons, and on both shoulders the distinguishing
badge of priests." 2
The Fourth Council of Toledo is more particular, specifying, for a Bishop, the orarium, ring, and staff; for a presbyter, the orarium and planeta; for a deacon the orarium and
alba, or albe - the orarium being on his left shoulder
only.8 The author of the " Questions on the Old and New
Testament," under the name of St. Austin, speaks also of
the dalmatica.4
Our author gives no more information on the subject of
garments. So far, however, as this account extends, it
agrees in the main with the same principle so often stated,
viz.: that the Mosaic Ritual was the guide of the Gentile
Church. For there we know that the Lord commanded
His priests to have sacred garments "for glory and for
beauty," and that white linen was the material to be employed; while those directed for the High Priest were exceedingly splendid, consisting of white linen, with gold,
purple, blue, and crimson. But we see the entire exclusion
of black, which is the symbol of sin and mourning; and
1 Antiquities, Vol. 4, p. 321-324.  2 Ibid.
S Ibid. p. 325.                4 Ibid. p. 326.





44


The Law of Ritualism.


we may reverently believe that white was adopted as the
true outward symbol of purity and joy.
The same symbolism appears in the Book of Revelation,
where the Church in glory is represented. "The marriage
of the Lamb is come," saith the voice of the great multitude, " and His wife hath made herself ready. And to her
was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean
and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."
Nor is this without support from various other parts of
Scripture. Thus the prophet Daniel saw the " Ancient of
days," " whose garment was white as snow." 2 In the transfiguration of our Lord, His raiment appeared white as the
light.3 Thus, too, the angels always showed themselves
clothed in white. Speaking of the saints, the Redeemer
saith, "They shall walk with me in white: for they are
worthy."4 And again," He that overcometh, the same shall
be clothed in white raiment." 5 To the souls of the martyrs
were given white robes. And the saints are said to have
" washed their robes, and made them white in the blood
of the Lamb."6
But all this bears reference to Christ, who is the "end
of the law for righteousness."  For every thing in His
Church should have a meaning, appropriate to HIis work
of mercy to our fallen and perishing world. And hence
the official garments of His ministers should remind the
beholder of His purity and love, and express, as far as they
can express, their relation to their divine Master. They
are ambassadors from the King of Heaven; and as the
ambassadors of every earthly sovereign are expected to
appear officially, on public occasions, in the insignia of
their respective governments, much more should the representatives of Christ bear some plain mark of their distinctive "character.  Thus the garments of the High Priest


1 Rev. xix. 7, 8.
4 Rev. iii. 4.


2 Dan. vii. 9.
5 Ibid. iii. 5, &c.


3 St. Mat. xvii. 2.
6 Ibid. vii. 14.





No Reformation against Vestments- 45
were all symbolical of Christ.  The breastplate, containing the C/rim and Thummim, was a symbol of His divine
judgment and omniscience; the purple- and gold, of His
royalty; the crimson, of His atoning blood; the blue, of His
heavenly kingdom; and the white, of His perfect righteousness, extended to His faithful people. And this last, which
presented the principle to be most constantly followed by
the Church, whose union to Christ is the only ground of
salvation, was therefore the chief mark in the garments of
the sacred priesthood among the Jews, and passed from
them, as we have seen, to the Gentiles, on the strongest
ground of Scriptural consistency.
There are many good and respectable Christians in our
day, who regard this matter of distinctive ministerial garments with contempt, and sometimes even with positive
aversion, because they look upon it as one of the corruptions of Romanism. But the ancient Church of God is not
to be regarded with contempt by any man who professes to
believe the Bible. That sacred institution was divine, and
was given by the Almighty Himself, to His own chosen
and peculiar people. None but a fool would say that the
Church of the Jews had any connection with the system of
Popery. Nor will any sensible man pretend that the
Reformation of the sixteenth century was occasioned by
the dress or ecclesiastical order of the Church of Rome,
which are in no respect more splendid or imposing than
the usages of the Oriental Churches of Greece and Russia.
It would have been mere madness to plunge the religion
of Europe into confusion for a cau~e of no more consequence than this. It was not ministerial dress, but corruption in doctrine, and government and morals, which called
for Reformation. The despotic tyranny of the Pope, sustained by bloody wars of persecution; the worship of the
Virgin and the saints; the adoration of the consecrated
wafer and images and relics; the irresponsible dominion of
the priests in auricular confession; the usurpation of tradi




46


The Law of Ritualism.


tion over the Word of God; the moral abuses of sacerdotal
and monastic celibacy; the exaction of property through
the false delusions of purgatory and indulgences; the
marvellous presumption which undertook to add twelve
articles to the Creed of the Apostles: these terrible invasions of divine truth and pure faith, were the real evils
against which the Reformation was directed.  And the
mind that fancies it to have made its assault against the
priestly dress, or other harmless matters of outward ceremonial, had need to go to school, and learn the plainest
lessons in ecclesiastical history.
In the view of reason, however, this contempt of ministerial garments has no justification. Most certain, indeed,
it is, that God looks on the heart, and that faith, in the
heart changed and sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit,
must be the animating principle of all acceptable worship.
But does this interfere with a due correspondence in outward
forms? Did the Lord of heaven and earth make a mistake,
when He ordered Aaron and his sons to make priestly garments " for glory and for beauty?" Can He be supposed
indifferent to these things in His earthly sanctuary, when
He has been pleased to spread " glory and beauty" through
all His works?  The sun, traveling in light; the moon,
walking in brightness; the clouds of crimson and gold;
the rich and varied vegetation; the gorgeous plumage of
the birds; the shining splendor even of the insects; the
brilliant hues of the flowers and the incense of their sweet
perfume: all prove that the Creator not only rejoices to
spread abroad His works of " glory and of beauty," but
that man, who was made in the image of God, and placed
in the dominion over this wondrous world, should delight
in the display of so much divine benevolence. For to this
end, the love of " glory and of beauty" was planted in our
nature; and we are forced to admire them in every thing
else, however a blind and absurd prejudice may have perverted our common sense, by persuading us to exclude
them from the duty of religion.





Black /otally Unwarranted.


47


Reason itself, therefore, must approve the rule laid down
in the Mosaic system, as the only rule which is consistent
with the majesty of God. Nay, it is the only rule consistent with the laws of human nature.   For men are not,
and cannot be made, indifferent, to the outward dress.
Take away the official dress from the army, and how would
the "glory" of war disappear?    Take away the dress
which taste requires in civilized society, and what substitute could make it attractive? We all know that the dress
is not the man or the woman, yet what man or woman can
be insensible to its power? The ritual given to Israel,
therefore, in this matter, is in perfect harmony with reason;
and if, in the Church of Rome, we find the principle associated with superstition and dangerous error, it is none the
less our duty to take all that the Scriptures and the reason
of the case can justify, and thus preserve the good, while
we cast the evil away. " Glory and beauty" were ordained
by the Almighty for the sanctuary, and for the garments
of His chosen priesthood. And "glory and beauty" ought
still to be their characteristics in His Church on earth, as
they will be, in a far more sublime sense, when the Bride
of the Lamb, in her white linen garments, becomes the
sharer of His felicity in the Church of heaven.
For myself, I must honestly confess that I regret the retention of any black whatever, in the dress of the Ministry.
The white is Scriptural and of divine authority, having a
clear symbolical reference to the Saviour and the righteousness of the saints.  The use of black came in, at first,
through the monks, and it was the authority of the Pope
which introduced it into the Churches of Europe, when he
gave his sanction to the Black Friars (Fratres Predicatores),
and made them the preachers everywhere, long before the
Reformation.  This was the real origin of the custom
which led the people throughout the whole Continent to
look upon black as the proper color for the preacher. But
it is totally unwarranted by Scripture and the Primitive





48           The Law    of Ritualism.
Church. And it is equally unwarranted by right reason.
For the ambassadors of Christ are the heralds of the Gospel, - " good tidings of great joy to all people." And their
garments should be the emblems of purity and joy, and not
those of sin and mourning.





Further Points of Conformity and Contrast.
I SHALL now proceed to present my readers with a summary of the matters in which the Gentile Church conformed to the Jewish system. And this agreement will be
found, substantially in the following particulars: -
1st. In the threefold order of the Ministry, the old
Fathers regarding the Bishop, the priests, and the deacons,
as corresponding to the High Priest, the priests, and the
Levites. To the Jewish Hierarchy were committed the
charge over the Sanctuary, the duty of instructing the
people in the Word of God, the order of divine worship
in praise and prayer, and the administration of the sacred
ordinances, all of which were placed under their entire
control. And the Hierarchy of the Gentile Church occupied the same relative position, with which, in' both cases,
no other powers had the right to interfere.
2d. In the three great festivals of the year; for the
Easter service corresponded to the Jewish Passover, Whitsun-day to the Jewish Pentecost, and Christmas to the Jewish feast of Tabernacles.
3d. In worship, the Psalms of the Jewish ritual were
continued in the Gentile Church; the Scriptures were read
according to a settled order, as in the Synagogue; while the
prayers were offered in the same form of a fixed Liturgy.
And all these arrangements are still found in the Jewish
system of the present day.
4th. In the use of incense, chrism and lights, the whole
4





50


The Law of Ritualism.


Gentile Church, for centuries before the great schism between the East and the West, followed the Jewish model
laid down for the Temple service. The Church of Rome
and the Churches of Greece and Russia continue the
ancient course. And it will be seen, in the ensuing chapters, that our own branch of the Church followed the same
rule in the early years of the Reformation, and that the law
of the English Prayer-Book remains unchanged.
5th. In the garments of the priesthood, the whole Gentile Church took the Jewish ritual for her pattern, and we
retain the cardinal feature of that system without any
essential variation. Modern practice Las indeed laid aside
some portions of its ancient splendor, but the main distinction of the " white linen " continues the same.
6th. In the music of the Gentile Churches, the chanting
of the Psalms has been adopted from the custom of ancient
Israel, and their use of instruments to aid the voice justifies
our organs, on the same principle.
7th. The magnificence of Church edifices, the altars, the
branches and the flowers, the festal processions, the ceremony of consecration, the table of consanguinity and affinity which regulates marriage, the reference to Isaac and
Rebecca in the ceremony itself, as also the mode of burying
the dead, are all derived from the Jewish original. And
the great code of the moral law, given from Mount Sinai, is
confessedly the same to Jew and Gentile.
For the whole of these particulars it is easy to account,
when we remember that the Jewish system was DIVINE,
and really dictated by the same Son of God, whom we
acknowledge as the incarnate Deity --the Lord and
Saviour of the world; that the Apostles of Christ were all
Jews, and brought up in that very system; that the Holy
Spirit, by whom they were enlightened and fitted for their
wondrous work, could not be supposed to depart from the
previous plan of celestial wisdom without reason; and
therefore that every part of that plan, which was as suitable





i The 7ewis/z Chsrck not Pops.          5
to the Gentiles as to the Jews, would of course be retained.
For if there be a maxim in religious truth which must be
universally admitted, it is surely this: that we dare not,
without His own expres's warrant, impute change to that
glorious Creator, who declares that He "1changeth not,"
but is "1the same, yesterday, and to day, and forever! "
But now, to show, on the negative side, the harmony of
the principle which I advocate, it may be well to add a
brief statement of those points in which the Mosaic system
directly conflicts with Romianism, or Popery.
11. There was no sacerdotal personage in the Jewish
Church claiming to be the sole Vicar of Cod, asserting the
right to dethrone kings and princes, dooming heretics to
the flames, undertaking to deliver every departed soul from
purgatory, canonizing those whom he chose to call the
saints, and seating himself on the Altar as an object of worship. In a word, there was no Pope in Israel. Their system was a pure Theocracy. God was the Head of their
Church, and He appointed no priestly viceroy. They had,
indeed, a High Priest, possessed of a certain authority;
but his powers and duties were specifically defined, and
the responses given by the Urim and Thummirn placed in
the breastplate, were accepted as the answers vouchsafed
by the God of Israel, and not as the dictates of the High
Priest's official infallibility. We find, moreover, that the
Urim and Thummim, signifying lights and perfections, disappeared after a season, through the unfaithfulness of Judah,
while the office of the High Priest remained. And in the
time of our Lord, we see that He was brought to trial before the Council; and it was the voice of the Council, rather
than the authority of the High Priest, by which he was pronounced to be "1worthy of death." Thus, in the office of
the High Priest, there is not the slightest warrant for the
despotic sovereignty of the papal prerogative, to say
nothing of the difference between the moderate authority
vested in him as the chief priest of a single nation, and the





52


5The Law of Rilualism.


monstrous assumption of the Pope, who calls himself the
spiritual monarch of the whole world!
2. We discover, secondly, in the Jewish Church, no
trace of worship paid to men, however eminent.     No
prayers were offered to Abel, Enoch, Noah, nor even to
Abraham, though he was called "the friend of God, and
the father of the faithful."  No act of canonization was
allowed in favor of Moses, Aaron, David, Elijah, Elisha,
and the other prophets, notwithstanding the fact that they
were the special instruments of the Lord, and, in many
cases, the workers of stupendous miracles. This perilous
species of idolatry, carried to such an awful extent in the
worship of the Virgin Mary and the Saints in the Church
of Rome, is utterly condemned by the whole character of
the system given to Israel.
3. I may next remark that the divine code of the Jewish
Church yields no encouragement whatever to priestly or
monastic celibacy. Marriage, on the contrary, was the
rule, and celibacy was only the permitted and occasional
exception.
4. Neither do we find, in the Mosaic system, the least
approach to auricular confession, or private absolution,
which forms so large a part of the priestly domination
exercised by the Church of Rome. The confession of sin
was indeed the duty of every Israelite, but only to God, the
Searcher of hearts, and not to the priest, much less to any
of the saints departed. And the absolution of sins was
believed to be the prerogative of God alone. True, the
Roman priest claims his warrant from the promise of
Christ to the Apostles, saying, "Whosesoever sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye
retain, they are retained." But he ignores the important
characteristics of this divine authority, 1st, That the Apostles were "filled with the Holy Ghost," inspired as no priest
nor pope can pretend to be. 2d, That even the Apostles
s't no example of private confession and absolution. but





Points of Contrast.


53


exercised their powers in connection with the sacraments,
remitting sins in baptism, excommunicating the unworthy
from the Eucharist and the Church, and readmitting them
on satisfactory repentance. 3d, That all this waspublic, and
never buried in the secrecy of a confessional. And 4th,
That St. Paul expressly commands Timothy, the first Bishop
of Ephesus, to avoid privacy in this whole matter, saying,
" Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear."
The discipline thus exercised did not differ, in principle,
from the system of Israel. The keys of the Church indeed
were now transferred from   the Jewish priests to the
Apostles and their successors, by the supreme authority of
Christ; but the mode in which they were applied was substantially the same. For the Jews had long practised a
baptism, which they held to symbolize a cleansing from sin,
when they circumcised a proselyte.  They excommunicated the unworthy member from the Synagogue, and if
repentant admitted him again. And therefore, while we
may well maintain that a far higher spiritual grace attended
the administration of the sacraments under the perfect
Gospel, yet there was a true accordance in the general
administration of Church discipline, to Jew and Gentile.
Nor is this strange when we remember the doctrine of our
Seventh Article, which declares that " the Old Testament is
not contrary to the New, for both in the Old and New
Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ,
who is the only Mediator between God and man." If then,
the Faith is really the same, there is surely the best possible
reason to expect that the Ritualism should be, substantially,
similar. And I need only add that the Primitive Church,
as all the Fathers testify, observed the administration of
ecclesiastical discipline precisely as I have stated it. Nor
was it until after the lapse of many centuries that it became so sadly perverted by the priestly despotism of Rome.
All that corruption, also, was swept away from our Church
by the Reformation, and we have retained nothing but





54


The Law of Ritualism.


what is in true accordance with the original divine and
Apostolic system.
5. The Romish invention of Purgatory, with all the
superstition that followed in its train, has not the slightest
color of authority from the divine code of the chosen
people. Nor was there any trace of it during the first four
centuries in the Gentile Churches.
6. The formation of societies, bound together under a
perpetual vow of poverty, celibacy, and obedience to a
human superior, as in the Romish system of monks and
nuns, has quite as little warrant from the Jewish law. And
St. Jerome testifies, in the fourth century, that it was then
entirely unknown in the Church of Rome. Its principle,
indeed, is clearly liable to the gravest objection, because it
professes to set up a more perfect plan of human duty than
the divine wisdom has required; and thus, indirectly at
least, seems to cast a censure on the Almighty, who had
not established the best and highest rule of holiness in
His earthly kingdom.
7. And lastly, the divine code of the Jews expressly forbids the presumption of Popery, in daring, by such unwarrantable dictation, to prescribe its laws, as if it wielded the
sceptre of celestial authority. For thus saith the legislator
of Israel, " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye
may keep the commandments of the Lord your God."1 It
is by this awful assumption that the Pope has acquired
among Protestants the name of Antichrist,6 "who opposeth
and exalteth himself above all that is- called God, or that
is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of
God, showing himself that he is God." 2 For my own part,
however, I cannot adopt this opinion. I acknowledge the
Church of Rome to be a true Church, so far as she has preserved the essential faith of the Gospel, committed to us in
the Scriptures, and summed up in the ancient pure and
1 Deut. iv. 2.               2 2 Thes. ii. 4.





Rome a True Church.


55


Catholic Creeds.   And I hold her to have become a
false and corrupted Church, by reason of the unlawful power
she has assumed, in adding her traditions to those Holy
Scriptures, and new Articles to those Creeds, acting as the
sole Dictator to Christendom, and claiming the infallible
and divine authority which belongs to the Lord alone,
while she fulminates her anathemas against all who deny
that " obedience to the Pope is necessary to salvation."'
Towards my Roman brethren, personally, I cherish no
feelings but those of affection and respect, and I have
known many of them, in whose integrity, piety and worth
I should be willing to place the highest confidence. But
the peculiar dogmas of their Church, so different from the
Word of God and the doctrine of the Primitive Christians,
cannot for a moment be tolerated by any intelligent mind
which rests its faith on the Bible. Those dogmas, with all
their attendant corruptions, I repudiate with all my heart.
Nevertheless, there  would  be no justice   in  rejecting
what is good, because, in the case of Rome, it may be
linked with what is evil. It is no argument against the
Holy Scriptures, that they are retained in their inspired
character by the Church of Rome. It is no argument
against the Apostolic government, that there are Bishops in
the Church of Rome. It is no argument against a form of
1 This statement, to some minds, may seem to be contradictory,
for how can the same Church be true and false at the same time?
Yet the explanation is perfectly simple when we remember that the
Church of Rome has never formally renounced the Scriptures, the
ancient pure Creeds, or any part of the original Apostolic doctrine,
government, and discipline. Thus far, she is a true Church, because thus far she maintains the truth.  But she has added to all
this a monstrous mass of new doctrines, new government-and new
discipline, tyrannical, superstitious, idolatrous, perilous to the soul,
and entirely unknown to the first pure ages of Christianity. In
these she is false and corrupted. And therefore she exhibits a compound of saving truth and dangerous error.  A true Church with
reference to the one. A false Church with respect to the other.





56          The Law     of Ritualism.
prayer that there is a Liturgy in the Church of Rome.
And just as little argument can I see against the garments,
the lights, the incense, and the chrism used in the ancient
Gentile Rituals, because these also may be found in the
Church of Rome. The true question should be, Did the
divine Redeemer, the true Head of the Church of Israel,
appoint them? Are they authorized by the supreme
authority of God? If so, shall the Church of Rome deprive us of their proper use? Must we give up any portion of the "glory and beauty" established by the Lord
Himself for his earthly worship, because the Church of
Rome may have associated them with superstition? The
answer seems to me too plain for hesitation. And it is in
full accordance with the principles pursued, in the main,
by our martyred Reformers, that nothing which was right in
itself should be abandoned, through hatred to Romanism;
that the Bible was the standard of all religious truth;
and that the Primitive Church, which followed the Jewish
model, should be taken as furnishing, on the whole, the
best Rule of Ritualism.
But, as I should be sorry to do injustice, even to the
Papal Church, though she holds me for a heretic, I must
add the reason why I do not subscribe to the prejudice so
common among my Protestant brethren, in calling the
Pope the great Antichrist of Scripture. The Apostle John
expressly saith, " He is Antichrist, that denieth the Father
and the Son."1  Now the Pope has never uttered any
such denial. St. Paul describes Antichrist as he "who
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God,
or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the
temple of God, showing himself that he is God."2  But
surely we cannot fairly apply this language to the Pope,
who has never claimed any title higher than that of the
sole Vicar of Christ, and has always rested his supposed
rights on the interpretation which he gives to our Lord's
1 I  Jo. ii. 22.             2 2 Thes. ii. 4.





The Pope is not Antickrist.


57


own words, addressed to St. Peter. That this assumption
is a monstrous error, and totally indefensible on every
ground of Scripture and primitive authority, I hold most
firmly. But so long as the Church of Rome maintains the
Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds, and acknowledges the
truth of the Bible, I must refuse to call the Pope Antichrist,
in the sense for which so many learned writers have ingeniously contended. Notwithstanding the corrupt inventions which she has added to her Creed, her persecutions,
her idolatry of the Virgin and the Saints, and her priestly
despotism, she is still a part of the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH,
by reason of the original and universal truth which she
retains, and in which we and all other Orthodox Churches
agree with her. It was only her false and uncatholic additions which the Reformation was intended to sweep away.
Would to God that she could have her eyes opened to her
real position, and return to the pure and undefiled faith of
her first love, when the WRITTEN WORD was her standard
of belief, and none but her heathen enemies had aught to
say against her!





The Law of Ritual in the Church of England.
HAVING now, as I trust, sufficiently explained the principles of Ritualism, on the sure ground of the Sacred
Scriptures, and in accordance with that authority which is
alone divine, I proceed to consider the specific questions
presented in the request of my respected brethren, viz.,
first, What is the legal position of the advocates of Ritualism in our Mother Church of England? and, secondly,
Would the increase of Ritualism be advisable amongst
ourselves?
On the first of these questions there is no doubt about
the rule laid down in the English Prayer-Book, viz., "1that
such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof,
at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be
in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority
of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward
the Sixth."
Now the reign of this admirable young sovereign commenced on the 28th day of January, 1547.    The first
Prayer-Book, as Bishop Burnet states, was agreed to in
the following Parliament, but not passed by the House of
Lords before the 15th of January, 1548.'
The second Prayer-Book was confirmed by Parliament,
in 1552, on the 6th of April.2 Four years, therefore,
appear to have elapsed, between the first and the second
1 History of Ref. iii. 112.     2 Ibid. 2,48.





Hooper's Obstinacy.


59


Books in this reign. And hence I must agree with the
Rev. Mr. Palmer in the opinion, that the usage in the
second year of Edward VI., must be referred to the practice
of the Church when the first Book received the authority
of Parliament. For his reign began January 28th, 1547.
The first Book passed the House of Lords on the 15th of
January, 1548. - It was voted for the third time in the
House of Commons on the 21st of January, and if the
Royal assent was given only one week afterwards (a very
short interval to allow for it), we shall have reached the
commencement of the second year of King Edward's
reign. This, therefore, appears to me the better view of
the matter. And it concurs with the statement of Bishops
Cosin and Andrewes in their notes to Nichols, which is
certainly high authority.1
The best proof that at this time, and long after it, the
vestments of the ministry continued unchanged, is furnished
by the fact they that were used in the consecration of two
Bishops, Hooper and Poynet, in the year 1550.
Hooper had been nominated for the diocese of Gloucester in 1549. But being strongly inclined to the extreme
views of the Continental Reformers, he " refused to be consecrated in the Episcopal garments. He held that they
were human inventions not suitable to the simplicity of the
Christian religion; that all such ceremonies were condemned by St. Paul as beggarly elements;2 that these vestments had been invented chiefly for celebrating the Mass
1 Perry's Lawful Ornaments, p. 7.
2 This word, beggarly, is not authorized by the original Greek,
which is 7rruoX, signifying poor, and Parkhurst, referring to the
very verse, defines it truly, "Poor, unable to confer spiritual
riches." (Gal. iv. 9.) But beggarly is an expression of contempt,
which we cannot suppose the Apostle felt toward the divine law,
however wrong it might be for the Gentiles to assume it as needful to their salvation, after the Holy Spirit had pronounced them
free.





6o


The Law of Ritualism.


with much pomp, and had been consecrated for that effect.
Therefore he desired to be excused from the use of them.
" Cranmer and Ridley, on the other hand, alleged that
traditions in matters of faith were justly rejected; but in
matters of rites and ceremonies, custom was often a good
argument for the continuance of that which had been long
used. Those places of St. Paul did only relate to the
observance of the Jewish ceremonies, which some, in the
Apostles' times, pleaded were still to be retained, upon the
authority of their first institution by Moses: so this implying that the Messias was not yet come, in whom all these
had their accomplishment, the Apostles did condemn the
use of them on any such account: though when the bare
observing them, without the opinion of any such necessity in
them, was likely to gain the Jews, they both used circumcision, and purified themselves in the Temple.  And the
abuse that had been formerly was no better reason to take
away the use of these vestments, than it was to throw
down churches and take away the bells, because the one
had been consecrated and the other baptized, with many
superstitious ceremonies. Therefore they required Hooper
to conform himself to the law."
I have transcribed the above in full from Burnet,1 because it is the first plain exhibition of the puritanical element which gave such serious trouble to the Church of
England at the commencement of the Reformation, and
still remains to the present day. But it is worthy of note
that Bucer and Peter Martyr approved the doctrine of
Cranmer and Ridley, and condemned the course of
Hooper.2 As for him, he was suspended from preaching,
in punishment of his contumacy. At last, however, he
gave up his opposition, and in March, 1550, he was consecrated in the Romish vestments, with the understanding
that he must wear them when he preached before the King,
or in his Cathedral. At other times he was permitted to
do as he pleased.3
1 History of Ref. vol. 3, p. 200.  2 Ibid.  3 Ibid. p. 218.





Episcopal Vestments Retained.


61


In the month of June following, John Poynet, D. D.,
was consecrated Bishop of Rochester, and Strype relates
that the occasion was marked 1" with all the usual ceremonies and habits, probably for this reason, to give as little
occasion to Papists as might be, and to keep close to the
old usages, avoiding superstition." The mitre of the Archbishop, the cope, and the pastoral staff, are all specified, in
his account of this consecration; and thus we have another
proof of the course pursued by the first Reformers in this
matter of Ritualism, two years before the second Book of
Edward brought in a change.1
The accession of Queen Mary drove the Church back
again to Popery. And the progress of the Reformation
seemed hopeless, until Elizabeth came to the throne, in
November, A. D. 1558, to the general joy of the nation.
The Prayer-Book, with some few changes, was restored in
accordance with the second Book of Edward, and all things
were put, for the most part, in the form which they still
retain, yet with some difference in Ritualism. Fo'r we see
this plainly from the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in
the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which is thus described by
Strype: 1" He wore a long scarlet gown and a hood, with
four torches carried before him; Bishop Barlow had a silk
cope, being to administer the Sacrament; four archdeacons
who attended him wearing silk copes also. The Bishop
elect of Chichester sung the Litany, the choir answering
him."   But the historian says nothing about the pastoral
staff being delivered to the Archbishop, nor does it appear
that any mitres were worn, and Miles Coverdale (formerly
Bishop of Exeter), had no garment "but a long cloth
gown." 2
Here we perceive the result of Queen Mary's reign, the
cruelties of which naturally intensified the hatred towards
Popery, while the residence of many of the reformers on
the Continent, where they had fled to avoid the dangers of
1 Perry, p. 63.                 2 Ibid. 154.





62


The Law of Ritualism.


the time, inclined them, after their return, to conform, in
some degree, to the Calvinistic pattern. But the Ritual
still retained much of its former state, and the Queen stood
opposed to many of her Bishops, in her attachment to the
ancient ceremonial.
In proof of this, it may suffice to quote a single specimen
out of many documents, viz., the letter written by Thomas
Sampson, one of the Puritanical Protestants in England,
to Peter Martyr, January, 1560:" 0 my father," saith the writer, " what can I hope for,
when the ministry of Christ is banished from Court, while
the image of the crucifix is allowed, with lights burning
before it?  The altars indeed are removed, and images
also throughout the kingdom: the crucifix and candles are
retained at Court alone, and the-wretched multitude are
not only rejoicing at this, but will imitate it of their own
accord. What can I hope, when three of our lately appointed bishops are to officiate at the table of the; Lord,
one as priest, another as a deacon, and a third as subdeacon, before the image of the crucifix, or at least not far
from it, with candles, and habited in the golden vestments of
the Papacy, and are thus to celebrate the Lord's Supper,
without any sermon?   What hope is there of any good,
when our friends are disposed to look for religion in those
dumb remnants of idolatry, and not in the preaching of the
lively Word of God."1
Such was the general strain of Puritanical lamentation.
But the judgment of the Queen was of another sort, and is
thus stated by Collier:" She was not," saith the historian,
"without a regard for the ancient appearance of religion;
she thought ornament and representation no unserviceable
circumstances; she was of opinion that the service of God
in her brother's reign" (referring, I presume, to the latter
part of it), " wanted something of beauty and magnificence
to recommend it. In short, her aim was to settle both
1 Perry, x59.





Chapel of Bishop Andrewes.


63


ceremonies and doctrine upon a temper, that there might
be a due latitude for general approbation and belief. This
she apprehended to be the best expedient to unite the
nation, and preserve a great part of her subjects from
going off to the Church of Rome."1
The spirit of the Puritans had now become so active in
the Church of England, that it was impossible for the best
disposed among the Bishops to secure any uniformity in the
performance of divine worship. The variety of practice is
stated by Strype,2 but neither the "dissatisfaction of the
Queen, nor the efforts of Archbishop Parker, could prevent
it."  The surplice and the cap next fell under Puritan censure, and the Lutherans were said to be little better than
the Papists themselves! " The Queen, however, continued
in the same mind, though the reverence even for her did
not prevent the malcontents from addressing to the Parliament what they called "An Admonition," in which they
charge the Royal Chapel with being "the pattern and precedent to the people of all superstition." 5
The views of this subject entertained by Bishop Andrewes who occupied the See of Winchester in the subsequent reigns of James and Charles the First, may here be
considered, as well worthy of attention. The list of matters
established in his own chapel, among the " daily furniture
for the altar," contains the following, viz: -
1. " Two candlesticks with tapers.
2. The silver and gilt canister for the wafers.
3. A linen napkin to cover the chalice, embroidered with
colored silks.
4. A round ball with a screw cover, whereout issued
three pipes for the water of mixture.
5. A side table, on which the elements stand before
communion, with two napkins.
1 Perry, p. 157.             2 Perry, p. 20o.
3 Ibid. p. 207.              4 Ibid.
5 Strype's Annals, quoted by Perry, p. 207.





64


The Law of Ritualism.


6. A basin and ewer, to wash before consecration.
7. A triquertral censer, wherein the clerk putteth incense
at the reading of the first lesson.
8. The navicula, out of which the frankincense is poured.
9. Five copes." 1
We have here a close conformity with the old Ritual,
though nothing appears about the chrism, which was certainly the usage of the Church in Tertullian's time, namely,
the close of the second century, and probably held its place in
the second year of Edward VI. and three years after.
The elaborate work of the Rev. T. W. Perry, on "Lawful
Church Ornaments," quoted so frequently, gives some very
interesting extracts from the learned Bishop Cosin's Notes
on the Prayer-Book, which furnish many valuable statements on the subject. And I insert them here in full, as
the work itself is rare among our clergy. That eminent
prelate was the Dean of Peterborough, when the Puritans
deprived him of his preferments, and even went so far as
to impeach him on a charge of being inclined to Popery.
This induced him to retire to France, where he remained
until the restoration of Charles the Second.  On his
return, the King raised him to the Bishopric of Durham,
and he retained his office until his death, in A. D. 1672.
Speaking of Bucer's censure upon the first Prayer-Book
of King Edward, Bishop Cosin saith: - " He likewise
finds fault there with those ministers that still used vestments and lights in the Church, with the gestures of bowing and crossing; with making clean the chalice; taking
the bread and wine into the priest's hand when he repeats
the words of institution over them; setting the table in the
same place where the altar stood; and with showing the
bread and the cup (though they did not elevate) to old
doting and superstitious persons, who were ready to adore
them. All which he wished to have altered.  And so it
was, in the fifth of Edward VI."
I Perry, pp. 351, 352.





BikpCos in's NoAs76
"But in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth, all the ornaments of the Church were restored again, by the Act of
Uniformity; and the posture of the table where the altar
stood, was specially appointed, by the Queen's injunction."
So too, in commenting on the words "1 as were in use,"
in the Rubric of Elizabeth's Book, Bishop Cosin saith,
"1There were in use, not a surplice and hood, as we now
use, but a plain white alb, with a vestment or cope over it:
and therefore, according to this rubric, we are all still
bound to wear albs and vestments, as they have been so
long time worn in the Church of God, howsoever it is neglected. For the disuse of these ornaments, we may thank
them that came from Geneva, and in the beginning of
Queen Elizabeth's reign, being set in places of government, suffered every negligent priest to do what him listed,
so he would but profess a difference and opposition in all
things (though never so lawful otherwise) against the
Church of Rome, and the ceremonies therein used."
Again, speaking of the abolition of ornaments in
Edward's second Book, Bishop Cosin remarks, that "1by
the Act of Uniformity (of Elizabeth) the Parliament
thought fit not to continue this last order, but to restore
the first again; which since that tim-e was never altered by
any other law, and therefore it is still in force at this day."
With regard to the two lights upon the altar, the Bishop
writes as follows, viz.: -
"1Among other ornaments of the Church also in use
in the second year of Edward VI. there were two lights
appointed by his injunctions (which the Parliament had
authorized him to make, and whereof they otherwhiles
make mention as acknowledging them to be binding), to
be set upon the high altar, as a significant ceremony of
the light which Christ's Gospel brought into the world;
and this at the same time when all other lights and tapers,
superstitiously set before images, were by the same injunctions, with many other absurd ceremonies and superfluities,





66


The Law of Ritualism.


taken away. These lights were (by virtue of this present
rubric of Elizabeth, referring to what was in use in the
second year of Edward), afterwards continued in all the
Queen's chapels during her whole reign, and so are they in
the King's, and in many Cathedral churches, besides the
chapels of divers noblemen, Bishops, and colleges, to this
day."
"It was well known that the Lord Treasurer, Burleigh
(who was no friend to superstition or Popery), used them
constantly in his chapel, with other ornaments of fronts,
palls, and books, upon his altar. The like did Bishop Andrewes, who was a man that knew well what he did, and as
free from Popish superstition as any in the kingdom besides."
With respect to altars, Bishop Cosin saith, "It will be
worthy of noting that no Cathedral church had any pulling
down, removing, or changing the altar into a table, no
more than in the Court, but in such places only where
deans and bishops and prebends were preferred, that
suffered themselves more to be led by the fashions which
they had seen at Strasburg in Germany, and Geneva in
France, and Zurich in Switzerland, than by the orders of
the Church of England established and continued in her
Majesty's family, the likeliest to understand the meaning
of the Church and State. Therefore they that will not
either endure that we should have, or they that will not
believe we have, any Altar allowed and continued in our
Church (howsoever as it is here, and as it is in most of the
Fathers sometimes, called a table), let them go to the King's
Court, and to most of our Cathedral churches, and inquire
how long they have stood there, and kept that name only,
as being indeed the most eminent and the most usual among
Christians."
That Bishop Cosin allowed a Credence Table, or Prothesis, is plain by his quoting with approval the following
passage from Bishop Andrewes: "1 Into his hands the priest,
from a by-standing table on the south side, reacheth first





Anointing the Sick.


67


the wafer bread, in a canister close covered, and lined with
linen.  Secondly, the wine in a barrel on a cradle with
four feet.  These the bishop offereth in the name of the
whole congregation, upon the altar."
Moreover this learned prelate did not consider the mixed
chalice to be contrary to the law of the Church of England,
for, after quoting some of the Fathers on the necessity of
using wine, he proceeds to say," This were enough to free
our Church from any heinous offence, though it uses not
commonly to mix water with wine, as the Church of Rome
doth, and yet we must confess the custom is very ancient,
consonant to the figures of the Old Testament, which St.
Cyprian reckons up, and of the New, where water and
blood issued out of Christ's side; and agreeable (as there
is great probability) to Christ's own practice, when He did
first institute this Holy Sacrament. Our Church forbids it
not, for aught I know; and they that think fit may use it,
as some most eminent among us do at this day."
With respect to anointing the sick, Bishop Cosin saith,
"If we anoint not now with the oil, it is because we doubt
whether it be lawful to continue that extraordinary and
miraculous custom, that was well used in St. James's
time."
These copious extracts I have taken from the book of
the Rev. Mr. Perry, pages 454-457. But I confess that I
cannot understand the last paragraph, which does not appear to me consistent with the language of Scripture. For
the anointing directed by St. James was not miraculous.
The healing of the sick is not attributed by the Apostle to
the oil, but to the " prayer of faith," and that prayer is still
used by the Church, for. the same purpose. The learned
Bishop says nothing of the chrism, or holy oil used by the
Primitive Christians so early as the second century. But
the same argument which justifies any other religious rite
would apply to this: namely, that it had the warrant of
divine command in the Church of Israel, and was plainly





68


The Law of Ritualism.


adopted by the Gentile Church, in the purest period of her
history.
The next important point, urged by our English brethren, who contend for the restoration of the Ritual as it
stood in the second year of Edward VI., is derived from the
Statute 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, ~ 2. And they quote the
following passages from the high authority of Burn's Ecclesiastical Law.'
"Besides the foreign Canon Law, we have our legatine
and provincial Constitutions."
" Concerning this whole body of the Canon Law, it is
enacted by the Statute 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, as followeth:
- ' That such canons, constitutions, ordinances, and synodals
provincial, being already made, which be not contrariant or
repugnant to the laws, statutes, and customs of this realm,
nor to the damage or hurt of the king's prerogative royal,
shall now still be used and executed as they were before
the making of this act, till such time as they be viewed,
searched or otherwise ordered and determined by the said
two and thirty men (who were to be appointed to revise
them), according to the tenor, form, and effect of this
present act.' "2
The legal force of this is clearly set forth in Blackstone's
Commentaries.  For thus saith that learned Judge:--
" There is also a kind of National Canon Law, composed
of legatine and provincial Constitutions, and adapted only
to the exigencies of this Church and kingdom. The legatine Constitutions were ecclesiastical laws, enacted in national synods, held under the Cardinals Otho and Othobon, about the years 1220 and 1268.   The provincial
Constitutions are principally the decrees of provincial
synods, held under divers Archbishops of Canterbury, from
Stephen Langton in the reign of Henry III., to Henry
Chichele in the reign of Henry V., and adopted also by
the province of York, in the reign of Henry VI. At the
1 Vol. I., Preface, p. xxiii., Phillimore's Ed. 1842.  2 Ibid.





Legaline and Provincial Consti/u/ions. 69
dawn of the Reformation, in the reign of Henry VIII., it
was enacted in Parliament that a review should be had of
the Canon Law, and till such review should be made, all
canons, constitutions, ordinances and synodals provincial,
being then already made, and not repugnant to the law of
the land or the king's prerogative, should still be used and
executed. And as no such review has yet been perfected,
upon this statute now depends the authority of the Canon
Law in England." 1
It becomes important, therefore, to ascertain whether
this law enjoins those portions of the old ritual which are
now sought to be revived, having undergone no change
from subsequent legislation. The legatine and provincial
Constitutions were translated by the learned Johnston, and
froni them I extract the following, viz. -
1. The priest is expressly directed "always to mingle
water with the wine. For the wine betokeneth our redemption through Christ's blood, and the water betokeneth
the people for whom He suffered." 2
2. "That no price be demanded for chrism, oil, baptism,
visiting or anointing the sick, for the communion of the
body of Christ, or for burial." 8
And again, "We ordain and charge that the Sacraments
of the Church, as also the holy oil and chrism, be purely
and devoutly administered by the ministers of the Church,
without any spice of covetousness." 4
In the list of matters stated as then in established use,
we have these items, viz. -
1. Processional Cross.
2. Two Lights on the Altar.
3. A Censer and Incense.
4. Altar Cross and Chancel-screen Cross.
5. Surplice.
6. Alb.
1 Commentaries, Vol. I. p. 83.
2 Perry, 475.   3 Ibid. 485.    4 Ibid. 486.





70


The Law of Ritualism.


7. Girdle.
8. Stole.
9. Dalmatic.
10. Tunicle.
11. Chasuble or Vestment.
12. Cope.
13. Amice.
14. Cape or Tippet.
15. Maniple.
16. Hood.
17. Cassock.
The question, therefore, resolves itself into this simple
form: - Did the first Book of Edward VI., which was in
force in the second year of his reign, and for three years
after,.forbid the use of those things? Surely not; for that
Book nowhere pronounces any condemnation of the ceremonial or Ritual, as it previously existed in the days of
Henry VIII.: and we have already seen, from the consecrations of Bishops Hooper and Poynet; from the complaints
of the Puritans against the retention of the crucifix, the
lights and the vestments by Queen Elizabeth in the Royal
Chapel; from the scarlet robe, the torches and the copes
used at the consecration of Archbishop Parker; from the
lights, the incense, and the garments retained by Bishop
Andrewes, and from the testimony of Bishop Cosin; how
the judgment of the best and most learned minds in our
Mother Church regarded the strictly legal aspect of the old
ecclesiastical order.
True, indeed, it is, that these ritual observances have
disappeared for many generations, and it is only of late
years that any effort has been made to revive them.  True
it is, that the increasing influence of Puritanism and Calvinism induced the Church of England to lay aside much
of her " glory and beauty," in the vain hope of making an
acceptable compromise with the spirit of dissent. And
therefore it may plausibly be said that the order of these





Burn's Statement of the Law.


71


matters in the second year of Edward VI. has become
obsolete, and that the rule of law has virtually passed
away.
But this notion is without any authority.  Dr. Lushington himself utterly repudiates it. 1"I wholly deny," saith
he, "that the Statute of Edward the Sixth, passed in the
second year of his reign, or the Statute of Uniformity, can
be affected by non-usage.  By the law of England, no
statute can fall into desuetude. It is true that a statute
may become obsolete in one sense; that is, not enforced.
It is true that no call may be made on the judges of the
land to enforce it; that by common consent a statute may
lie dormant. But if once a court is called upon to carry it
into execution, it must do so." 1
And the Prayer-Book of England furnishes a standing
evidence that the law is unchanged, because the Rubric is
still there, requiring, in express words, that " such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, at all
times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use,
as were in this Church of England, by the authority of
Parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward the
Sixth."
I shall only add, from the Eighth Edition of Burn's
Ecclesiastical Law, corrected and enlarged by Tyrwhitt,
and published in 1824, a few paragraphs, to close this
chapter. It is hardly necessary to remind my readers that
this work stands in the rank of the highest authority.
The writer states expressly that the first Book of Edward
VI. belongs to the second year of his reign, which is in
accordance with my own opinion as already given.2
" Thus stood the Liturgy," saith our author, " until the
fifth year of Edward VI.  But because some things were
contained in that Liturgy which showed a compliance with
the superstition of those times, and some exceptions were
taken to it by some learned men at home, and by Calvin
1 Perry, p. 533.           2 Ib. p. 237.





72


The Law of Ritualism.


abroad, therefore it was reviewed, in which Martin Bucer
was consulted, and some alterations were made in it, which
consisted in adding the General Confession and Absolution, and the Communion to begin with the Ten Commandments. The use of oil in Confirmation and Extreme Unction
was left out, and also prayers for souls departed." 1
But here I would observe that although these were left
out, yet there has been no condemnation of them. The
case is much the same as that of Lay Baptism. The
Church recognized its validity in the first Book of Edward
VI., and directions were laid down for its performance
when a priest could not be called in time. These directions were left out afterwards, but no prohibition was put
forth, nor has any well-informed Churchman ever doubted
that a layman may lawfully baptize, in the hour of extremity, just as before.
This second Book of Edward was abolished by Queen
Mary, and it was enacted that the service should stand as
it was most commonly used in the last year of Henry
VIII.2 Of course the old Sarum   Liturgy was thus restored.
Queen Elizabeth brought back the second Prayer-Book
of Edward, and it was ratified, with a few alterations, by
Parliament. But the clause was then inserted that " such
ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof
should be retained and used, as was in this Church of
England in the second year of Edward," and such is the
law at the present day."
The last Act of Uniformity is that which was passed in
the reign of Charles II., when the same clause was
retained. Some slight changes and additions were also
adopted, and the whole result was made obligatory.
But the Rubric referring to the second year of Edward
VI., "makes it necessary," saith our author, " to recur to
the Prayer-Book, as then established." And here he sets
1 Perry, p. 239.   2 Ib. p. 240.   3 Ib. p. 244.





The Second Year of Edward            VL.     73
forth the following extracts, as the law prescribed therein: -
"In the saying or singing of Matins and Even-songe, baptizing and burying, the minister in parishe churches and
chapels annexed to the same, shall use a surples. And
in all Cathedral churches and colledges, the archdeacons,
deanes, provostes, maisters, prebendaries and fellows, being
graduates, may use in the quire, beside their surplesses,
such hoodes as pertaineth to their several degrees which
they have taken in any universitie within this realm. But
in all other places, every minister shall be at libertie to use
any surples or no." 1
On this, the author observes, "that in marrying, churching of women and other offices not here specified, it
seemeth that a surplice is not necessary. And the reason
why it is not enjoined for the Holy Communion in particular, is, because other vestments are appointed for that
ministration, which are as followeth: Upon the day, and at
the time appointed for ministration of the Holy Communion, the priest that shall execute the Holy Ministry
shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say, a white albe plain, with a vestment, or
cope. And where there be many priests or deacons, there
so many shall be ready to help the priest in the ministration, as shall be requisite, and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to
say, albes with tunicles." 2
" Note, the alb differs from the surplice, in being closesleeved." a
" And whensoever the Bishop shall celebrate the Holy
Communion in the Church, or execute any other public
ministration, he shall have upon him, besides his rochet, a
surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his
chaplain." 4
1 Perry, p. 265.   2 Ibid.    3 Ibid.    4 Ibid.





74


The Law of Ritualism.


Such seems to be the clear law of the Church of Eng.
land concerning vestments, at this day, although it has
been so long and so generally disregarded. Yet one cannot but observe how plainly the thirtieth Canon of that
Church lays down the true principle, namely, that it was
not "the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and
reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or
any such like Churches," excepting "in those particular
points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in
their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolic Churches
which were their first founders."
This was, undoubtedly, the original design of the Reformation.  Ihdeed, it was the only ground on which reformation could be justified. And hence I confess myself
unable to perceive the wisdom or the justice of any needless
alteration. For why should we object to those solemn and
impressive features in the worship of God which had their
origin in the divine system given to Israel, - which were
adopted by the early Christian Gentiles, - which were in
general use throughout the whole East and West before
the sixteenth century, - which remained in the Reformed
Church of England during the first five years of Edward
VI., and were then believed, by her best divines, to need
no change?
It would require a very laborious examination to decide,
with certainty, upon every distinct point of ritual order
which our English brethren seem bent on reviving. But
it cannot be denied that there is abundant room for improvement. The modern dress of the Bishops is destitute
of all legal authority, save only as it respects the rocket,
nor can I find when or by whom the present fashion was
introduced. It is equally certain that the garment worn in
the administration of the Eucharist is not according to law,
for that prescribes the cope, which has been so long discontinued, that few know any thing about its proper form. As
to the black gown, worn by the preacher so generally,





Position of the Ritualists legal.


75


there is not a particle of English legislation to warrant it.
And quite as little can be said in favor of that formal trifle,
the bands.  This queer invention, as Burn plainly declares, " forms no part of the canonical habit; being not so
ancient as any Canon of the Church."  But it " came in
with the Puritans and other sectaries, upon the downfall
of Episcopacy," and afterwards became the common habit
of men of all denominations and professions, which giving
way in its turn, was yet retained by the gentlemen of the
long robe (both ecclesiastical and temporal), only because
they would not follow every caprice of fashion."1
We have just seen the express law of our Mother Church,
directing the pastoral staff in the ministration of the Bishop.
And it is stated by Strype that the mitre was worn by
Cranmer and his colleagues, at the consecration of Bishops
Hooper and Poynet. Both of these have disappeared, in
spite of law, and are now found only in effigy, upon Episcopal chairs and seals - as a sort of fossilized memorial of
what was once an expressive reality.  Thank God, we still
have the Bible, the Prayer-Book, the two great Sacraments,
Confirmation, and the Surplice derived from the linen garment of the priests 2 in ancient Israel! And doubtless the
Church can live and grow with these, and fulfill the objects
of her mission, although she has unhappily been led to put
aside so much of her own prescribed order, and lost a large
portion of the " glory and beauty " designed for the service
of the Sanctuary by the wisdom and love of her divine
Lord and Master!
To my mind, therefore, the legal position of our English
brethren, in this matter of Ritualism, is justifiable with
respect to its main design, and stands on a far higher
ground of Scripture, law, and reason, than that of their
adversaries. So long as the great doctrines of the Refor1 Burn's Ecc. Law, Vol. III. pp. 207, 208.
2 The general color of the ephod was white: though the " robe
of the ephod," a separate garment, was blue. See Exod. xxviii. 31.





76


The Law of Ritualism.


mation are faithfully preached by the clergy, I can see no
danger that a solemn, rich, and attractive ritual will ever
lead any one to Popery.  Is it not more reasonable to
believe that the restoration of the old ceremonial, which
existed in the second year of Edward the Sixth, would give
our Church the advantage which now forms the most alluring characteristic of Rome? For what but her superior
claim of outward grandeur and impressiveness, operates so
powerfully to keep her own votaries steadfast in their allegiance, and to draw so many others into the snare of error?
Has not truth as good a right as falsehood, to be adorned
with beauty? And is it to be questioned that religion
should favorably affect the senses, in order that it may better reach the soul?
I say not this because I feel the slightest inclination
toward the old Ritual, which was certainly the established
rule in the second year of King Edward VI. Personally, I
prefer the more simple ceremonial to which I have been
accustomed all my life, and men can hardly be expected to
adopt new tastes and habits at the age of seventy-five.
But I cannot condemn the ordinances which the wisdom of
God appointed for His chosen people. I cannot argue
against the Gentile Churches for taking the Church of
Israel for their model, because that was the only model
which was in truth divine.  Whatever my individual taste
and habits may be, I owe all my religious allegiance, in
this and every other subject connected with the Gospel, to
the WRITTEN WORD OF GOD. And when I see that the
Rubric of the English Prayer-Book is in accordance with
that Word, substantially enjoining the same principles of
"glory and beauty " in the outward ceremonial of the Sanctuary, my reverence for the Bible compels me to acknowledge 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.





The Law of Ritual in the Church of America.
HAVING thus endeavored to prove, at least with candid
impartiality, that the advocates for the old Ritualism in the
Church of England have the Scriptures, the Primitive
Church, and their own law upon their side, I come next to
the important question, How far are we, an independent
branch of the Holy Catholic Church, bound by the same
principles?
And here I would first direct the reader to the language
of the Preface to our American Book of Common Prayer,
where we read that "1this 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."
Whether this word "1essential " be understood to mean,
essential to the attainment of salvation, or essential to the
existence of the Church, or essential to the succession of
her ministry, the purity of her faith, the administration of
her sacraments, the exercise of her discipline, and the
established form of her worship, there can be no question
that in any and all of these senses our Church has not
departed from the Church of England, but is, in all respects, substantially the same.
But now the important inquiry is presented, namely: - Is
the omnission of certain other matters in the English system
to be understood as a departure from it, in such a sense,
that we are no longer at liberty to maintain any thing in





78


The Law of Ritualism.


doctrine, discipline, or worship, which, though fully estab.
lished by law in the Church of England, is not specifically
ordered in our own?
Here, undoubtedly, is a question to be settled. For it is
certain that our Church does not enjoin or require many
things which are enjoined and required in our Mother
Church.   Are we to suppose that those things, with us,
are therefore to be held unlawful? Or, in other words, do
omission and prohibition bear the same meaning?
To maintain that these terms are synonymous, and that
omission and prohibition are precisely equivalent, is an
absurdity so gross, that I cannot suppose any reasonable
man would deliberately adopt such a preposterous proposition. Yet there are many in our Church whose attention
has never been directed to the subject; and hence their
notions are unavoidably confused and indistinct, needing a
plain explanation. In the hope of aiding them to form a
clear and just conclusion on this important point, I ask
their consideration of the following statements:It is a well-settled rule, in all our courts of justice, that
every part of the Common and Statute Laws of England,
which were in force throughout the Colonies, and adapted
to their circumstances before the war of Independence
(with the single exception of what concerned the rights of
the Crown), continued to be the laws of the land, notwithstanding the Revolution, and are still obligatory, unless
changed and done away by subsequent acts of our own
legislation,  Of that proposition, there is, and can be, no
doubt whatever.
This well-known principle supplies the true legal foundation, on which our American Church can rest securely
without danger of mistake.
Before the Revolution, the English Prayer-Book was the
Prayer-Book of the Colonies, and the Rubric directing the
ornaments of the Church and her Ministers to be in
accordance with the usage of the second year of Edward





Colonial Law continued.


79


VI., was as binding in America as it was in England,
though, in both, that Rubric had long been practically disregarded. All the other rules of the Church of England
belonged also to the Colonies, because the Church was the
same Church, having the same doctrines, the same forms,
the same discipline in every respect, notwithstanding the
fact that the Colonial Churches, under the force of circumstances, were not enabled to carry them into full execution,
having no Bishops, nor organized dioceses, nor Cathedral
services. Nevertheless the law was there, and so far as
law was concerned, there was no difference.
If, then, the laws of England (with the single exception
stated), continued to be the laws of the United States after
the Revolution, save only so far as they were changed or
superseded by actual legislation, much more does the principle apply to the Church of Christ, whose " kingdom is
not of this world." For in the Church, there was no Revolution. The Church in the Colonies did not seek to
separate her ministers or members from their Mother; nor
claim her independence by any revolt against the spiritual
authority from which she derived her very being. And
therefore when she asked for an independent ecclesiastical
organization, she did it on the ground of necessity, after
England had acknowledged the political independence of
the United States, and a treaty of peace had been ratified
between their respective governments. The request thus
dutifully made was received most graciously. Our Mother
Church not only admitted the validity of the plea, but
cheerfully granted the application. The Parliament passed
a law for the special purpose of consecrating our first three
American Bishops; and thus, with magnanimous kindness
and true Christian sympathy, they enabled us to commence
our new career.
Having now become an independent Church, we acquired, of course, the power to legislate for ourselves, as
completely as the United States possessed authority to





8o


The Law of Ritualism.


make their laws, and alter them at pleasure. And as the
law of England before the Revolution continued to be the
law of the United States after the Revolution, until it was
done away by the exercise of this independent power, even
so the law of the Church of England continues to be our
law to this day, so far as it has not been superseded by
positive ecclesiastical legislation.
For, as we have seen in the quotation from Dr. Lushington himself,1 " No statute can be affected by non-usage."
It needs the authority of the legislature itself to alter what
the legislature has established. No other power but that
which creates, can destroy the law. The omission to legislate cannot alter the law.  The neglect to obey it cannot
alter the law. The creation of a prejudice against it cannot alter the law. In a word, no law can be deprived of its
binding obligation, until some other law is passed which,
of necessity, does it away.
All this is so manifest to the slightest reflection, that I
should be ashamed to set it forth in such detail, if the very
common misconceptions of many amongst my most highly
esteemed brethren did not seem to render the explanation
necessary.
The application of the principle to our actual position,
however, may help to clear the truth of the case from the
possibility of misconception.
1. Our Church in the United States, by virtue of the
Act of Parliament which authorized the consecration of our
first three Bishops without the acknowledgment of any relation
to the civil power, is perfectly free from all those parts of
the English law wherein the secular government was directly
concerned; while all that belonged to the doctrines, discipline, and worship of the Church herself considered as a
spiritual society, remained in force, until a change should
be made by our own independent legislation. This is the
fundamental legal principle. And in accordance with it,
1 Perry, p. 78.





Omission is not Prohibition.


8i


we have re-arranged our Liturgy, our Offices, and Articles, agreeing in the main with the standard Book of
our Mother Church; in all of which, of course, our own
law is alone obligatory.
2. We have omitted the Athanasian Creed from its place
in our former English Liturgy, because some persons objected to the damnatory clause, which saith, that this is the
Catholic Faith, " which Faith, except every one do keep
whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." But our Church has nowhere prohibited the
doctrine, nor passed any censure on our Mother Church
for maintaining it. While it is true, therefore, that this
Creed cannot be lawfully introduced into the public Liturgy, which is fixed by our legislative authority, yet it is no
less true that every clergyman is at liberty to preach it,
precisely as it stands in the English book, if he thinks it
advisable. And were he inclined to enforce the damnatory
clause itself from  the pulpit, although very few, even
amongst our English brethren, would praise his discretion,
still it is most certain that our Church has set forth nothing
that would justify any formal sentence of rebuke or condemnation.
3. Our American standards have laid down no law for
the vestments of the deacon or the priest, but our Church
has simply continued her practice under the law of our
venerated Mother which expressly enjoins the use of the
surplice. This law we have never changed, and therefore
it is still, and doubtless ever will be, binding: for it has
its derivation from the Primitive Church, which adopted it
from the divine law of Israel.
The Church of England has never given any legal
authority to the black gown, as the proper habit of the
preacher. But she has suffered it, ever since the Pope of
Rome brought in the fashion by authorizing the Black
Friars (Fratres Predicatores) to preach wherever they
pleased, throughout Europe.  This sufferance was con6





82


The Law of Ritualism.


tinued, and our Church received the practice from her
venerable Mother, both remaining in the same position to
the present day, while very few, in either of the Churches,
seem to remember that this dress, - supposed to be especially
evangelical, because it was favored by our Lutheran and
Presbyterian brethren, - had its real origin from  the
Monks, and from the Papacy, long before the Reformation.
There are many, however, who plead in its behalf the
authority of custom; not being aware, I presume, that no
custom has the force of law, unless it be so old, that, in
accordance with the legal phraseology, "the memory of
man runneth not to the contrary."'1 Strictly speaking,
therefore, this matter has no right to be called custom, in
the sense of legality. For we know its beginning from the
Monks and the Pope, and hence this common apology has
no true foundation.
4. Our Church has set forth no rule for the vestments
of her Bishops, save that the Ordinal mentions the rochet.
The..only law which includes the whole is the law of our
Mother Church, referring to the second year of Edward
VI., and that law is as binding on us as it is on them, until
we think fit to make another. The present fashion, in
both the Churches, is the same, but it is absolutely destitute of any legal warrant. It cannot claim authority from
custom, for the reason already assigned. We know, from
the historical account of Archbishop Parker's consecration,
that this fashion was not introduced in the reign of Elizabeth.   When it came in, or by whose agency, I doubt
whether any man can tell. Most probably it was brought
about by the influence of Puritanism, in the dangerous
spirit of compromise with those zealous antagonists of the
Church system; who, however, as experience has fully
proved, were never conciliated, but still continue to declaim
against our supposed leaning towards Popery, as persistently as ever.
I Blackstone, Vol. I. p. 67.





Th e Choral Service legal.           83
Many years ago, I took the liberty to improve my own
vestments by adopting the forms of the aib and the surplice,
which are appointed by the law of the Church; as also by
laying aside the bands, and the black gown, in the service
of the Sanctuary. This, however, so far as I know, was
attributed, not to any reverence for ecclesiastical consistency, but rather to an affectation of singularity. But the
time may come when the question will demand attention;
and, then, if I am not much mistaken, a far more extensive
change will be adopted by my respected brethren, not only
in form, but in color also. Men may endeavor to make
light of these matters, as being things of indifference. But
nothing should be esteemed of indifference which stands
connected with religious worship. And no Christian who
reveres the Bible will undervalue the subject of ministerial
costume, when he remembers that it was thought worthy
of being specially regulated by the God of Israel.
5. Another instance where the law of our Mother
Church is followed, presents itself in the chanting of the
Psalms, the Responses, &c., although our Prayer-Book
does not express the alternative "1said or sung " as in the
Church of England, but only prescribes that they shall be
"1said; " the words "1or sung " being omitted. Yet this does
not prevent our chanting them, n~or does it hinder us from
singing them as anthems, according to the established practice in the English Cathedrals. For our Church has used
no terms of prohibition. She directs that they shall be
" said,"9 and the words may certainly be said, i. e., pronounced audibly, whether with music or without it. But
she has never decreed that they shall not be sung. And
therefore singingr them is no violation of the law; thus
proving again that omission. and prohibition are matters
which are perfectly distinct, and never to be confounded
with each other.
6. It may next be observed that nothing is said, in our





84


The Law of Ritualism.


American standards, to authorize Cathedrals, crosses, credences, episcopal chairs, altar cloths, &c.  Neither have
we set forth any declaration approving Deans and Chapters,
Archdeacons, Metropolitans or Archbishops. But on the
other hand, nothing is said against them. They are all
found in the records of the Primitive Church. They are
all found in the Mother Church of England. And we have
proclaimed to the whole Christian world, in the Preface to
our Book of Common Prayer, that our Church did not
intend "to depart from the Church of England any farther
than local circumstances require."  Whenever, therefore,
local circumstances do not require any departure from the
established laws of the Church of England, have we not
here virtually pledged ourselves to comply with them?
And as we have enacted no laws of our own in any of these
matters, how can we be charged with a violation of law if
we choose to introduce them?
7. The same liberty exists with regard to lights upon or
behind the Altar, the use of chrism and incense, the mixing
of water with the wine of the Holy Eucharist, and the representation of figures and emblems in stained glass windows;
for all of these were established by usage in the second
year of Edward VI., and our Church has uttered no prohibition concerning any of them, but has merely omitted to
notice them, directly or indirectly, in her whole legislation.
It is certain that none of these things interfere with our
Liturgy, because they may be used without deviating, in
the slightest degree, from our prescribed forms. And
the plain result would seem to be that their introduction,
whether expedient or not, can never be justly considered
unlawful.
Such, in my humble opinion, is the fair view which ought
to be received, on the legal aspect of the question. The last
point to be considered is the very serious inquiry presented
by my respected brethren, namely, "Whether an increase





Ex.pediency.                  85
of Ritualism would be advisable among us; or whether the
ordinary average of present parochial practice would best
carry forward the great work of the Church in such a
country as ours." And to this I shall devote my next and
concluding chapter.





Expediency of Mutual Toleration.
I HAVE stated, at large, my reasons for believing that the
divine law, which it pleased the Lord to bind upon His
favored chosen people, has never been repealed: though
the sacrifices ceased, being types of the Atonement accomplished by the death of our glorious Redeemer, and the
priesthood passed from Aaron's sons to the Apostles, and
baptism in the sacred name of the Trinity and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucbarist were instituted by our Great
High Priest; all of which were not to be understood as an
abrogation of the law, but rather as a further development
of the sublime plan for its designed perfection, in accordance with the declaration of the Saviour Himself, that He
"came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill."
I have also shown that while the Gentile portion of the
Church was pronounced to be free from the ceremonial law
of Israel, by the Council of the Apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit at Jerusalem, yet they adopted, as
the only divine model, the principal features of the Mosaic
system in their external order: the great principle of FAITH
IN CHRIST, with all its attendant graces, being of course, in
both branches of the Church, precisely the same.
This being understood, we see, under the administration
of the inspired Apostles, two classes in the one undivided
Church - the Jewish converts, who practised circumcision.
and "1walked orderly, and kept the ceremonial law;" and
the Gentile converts, who were free, and only borrowed





Two Parties in the Church.


87


from  that law such parts as they deemed to be best
adapted to edification. In the essential principles of saving faith these two classes were perfectly united. They
worshiped together.  They lived together as friends and
brethren, in mutual love and harmony, each respecting the
distinctive position of the other with regard to the Mosaic
system, while all maintained that the only requisites essential
to salvation consisted in "repentance toward God, and faith
in our Lord Jesus Christ."
Here, therefore, as it seems to me, we have a plain guide
in the question of expediency, with regard to the present
controversy about Ritualism.  For it proves that there
may be, with the approval of the Holy Spirit, different
classes in the same Church of Christ; even as there were
in the far less comprehensive Church of Israel. That it
must be so, to some extent, seems, indeed, inevitable. Our
own Church has had, since the era of the Reformation, two
parties, more distinct in feeling, and sometimes, unhappily,
more bitter in hostility, than the Jews and the Gentiles in
Jerusalem and Antioch. The Church of England suffered
grievously from their dissensions, in the time of Elizabeth.
Their opposite partialities were in exercise even in the
days of Edward VI., when that good man, Hooper, chose to
be suspended from preaching for nine months, before he
would consent to be consecrated, as Bishop, with the vestments used in the Church of Rome. The Puritanical
element reached its height in the reign of the unfortunate
Charles I., when Archbishop Laud and the King himself
were doomed to the scaffold, and the Liturgy and the Episcopate seemed to be banished from the land. And although, in the good providence of God, the Church retained the love both of her priests and her people, and was
restored to honor under Charles II., yet the leaven has remained, which is always at work to prevent her perfect
unity, and she continues to be more or less divided by partyspirit, to this day.





88          The Law     of Ritualism.
The origin of this difference is well known to all who are
familiar with the history of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. That great movement began in Germany,
under the celebrated Luther, in A. D., 1517, and he was
quickly followed by Calvin and Zuinglius, while Henry
VIII. was still a zealous partisan of Popery. All of these
reformers were compelled, by necessity, to proceed without
the Apostolic system of Episcopal government, because
they had no Bishops in their party. Deprived of that restraining authority, they went to the extremes which usually
attend a popular revolution, and discarded every thing
which they saw in the Church of Rome, as a mark of Antichrist. Happily, however, they retained their reverence
for the Bible, although they could not see why the precepts, which God Himself had laid down for the Church of
Israel, should be accepted as a pattern for the Church of
Christ. Yet their doctrines concerning the faith were, for
the most part, thoroughly agreeable to the Scriptures.
Their writings were admirable for their piety and learning,
and were spread abroad in England, with great success.
And the whole work of the Reformation, notwithstanding
the quarrel between Henry and the Pope, remained in
their hands, until the accession of Edward VI., in 1547;full thirty years having thus elapsed from the beginning of
Luther's labors, before the real commencement of the
English Reformation.  Calvin, at Geneva, was then at the
zenith of -is fame; and his great work, the " Institutes of
the Christian Religion," was the favorite text-book with the
vast majority of those who longed for a deliverance from
the tyranny and corruption of the Papal system. And that
majority mere naturally led to take his society at Geneva
as the best pattern of what the Church of Christ should be,
and to submit, with entire confidence, to his dictation.
But the leading English Reformers were men of a dif.
ferent stamp, and performed their arduous task with a
wiser and more discriminating spirit. Cranmer and Ridley





Evils from    the Want of Bishops.         89
were Bishops, under no temptation to set aside the principles of Apostolic law and order. Their marvellous young
king had too much respect for his father's memory to rush
into extremes, and his counsellors had -no desire to differ
from the Church of Rome, except in those grave points of
doctrine, government and worship wherein she differed
from the Primitive Church, and from the Bible. While
they felt all due regard for the work of Luther and Calvin, they cherished a deeper reverence for the voice of
Christian antiquity; and therefore, in the Word of God,
interpreted by the Fathers, they sought and found that true
system, which they might have looked for at Geneva in
vain.
It would be unjust, however, to Luther and Melanethon,
and even to Calvin himself, if we were to charge them with
any positive hostility to Episcopal Government, or to a
Scriptural and pure Liturgy. On the contrary, they would
willingly have retained them, if they could. Their error
consisted ia omitting to state their convictions on those
points in their public confessions, with such clearness as
should have established a standing rule for their respective
adherents. The plea of necessity might well have been
admitted under their peculiar circumstances; but it should
have been plainly expressed, and accompanied with a distinct proviso that the want of Episcopal Government
should he supplied as soon as Providence might put it
in their power; and their Liturgy should have been made
obligatory on their ministers instead of leaving the use of it
to every man's discretion. Unhappily, however, they chose
to present their respective systems as sufficiently complete;
and the consequence was what might have been expected.
Their followers were led to believe that Church Government might be lawfully put into any form which human
expediency chose to dictate, so that it was clear of Popery;
that Episcopacy was neither obligatory nor desirable; and
that the extemporaneous mode of worship was prefer




90


The Law of Ritualism.


able to a Liturgy, through its encouragement to zeal, and
its freedom from formality. And the result has been that
the faith of the Gospel lost all its ancient guards against
innovation.  The irruption of heresy, schism, neology,
rationalism, pantheism, and infidelity, has devastated the
heritage of Luther and Calvin to a fearful extent; while
the Church of England has preserved her integrity and
orthodoxy without any serious inroad to the present day,
and now exerts a more extended and salutary influence
than ever.
These consequences were not foreseen in the sixteenth
century. If they had been, the German, Swiss, and French
Reformers would doubtless have taken better care of the
principles so essential to conservatism. But the two classes
of English theologians who were then found to differ so
widely in their ecclesiastical views, have come down to our
own times; and still continue to differ, under the modern
phrases of High Church and Low Church, the first being
strongly attached to the primitive forms of government
and worship, and the second being disposed to favor the
license adopted by the Calvinistic school.  These two
parties, as is well known, sometimes talk very hardly of
each other. But the Church embraces them both; for,
after all their occasional strifes and contentions, they are
held together by the strong bonds of Apostolic system,
agreeing, substantially, in the great doctrines of saving
faith, and maintaining the authority of the Prayer-Book;
while men of unquestionable zeal, learning, and piety may
be found on either side, equally conscientious and sincere,
and quite convinced that their views are in perfect accordance with the Bible.
As an humble member and office-bearer in the House
of God, I have avoided the names of party, content with
being a consistent Churchman, disposed to regard my
brethren, whether High or Low, with true fraternal cordiality, but always ready to defend what I believed to be the





Tze Spirit of Puritanism.


91


truth, without fear, favor or affection, whether popular or
unpopular, so that I had the testimony of my own conscience, and the warrant of the unerring guide in the Word
of my Divine Master.
For I hold it to be impossible, under the inevitable conditions of human infirmity, that all men should think alike,
even in the best and purest Church existing. True, indeed, it is, that the great Apostle of the Gentiles condemned divisions. "I beseech you, brethren," saith he to
the Corinthians,1 "by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no
divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together
in the same mind and in the same judgment." And yet he
saith to the Romans,2 " Him that is weak in the faith
receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.  For one
believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak,
eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that
eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that
eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that
judgest another man's servant? To his own master he
standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is
able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day
above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.... Let
us, therefore, follow after the things that make for peace,
and things wherewith one may edify another."
Here we have, from St. Paul himself, the true principle
of Christian toleration in lesser things, so long as the essential faith of the Gospel, and the established laws of Church
order, are not invaded. If indulgence in minor differences
were thus allowed, even under the rule of an inspired
Apostle, how much more must they be allowed in these
days of religious'diversity? Do we not all condemn the
Puritan spirit which quarreled with our Mother Church
about caps and surplices, and altars and crosses, as bearing,
I x Cor. i. io.             2 Rom. xiv. x-5, 19.





92


ThIe Law of Ritualism.


in their opinion, too close an affinity with Popery? And
shall we imitate their course by quarreling with our brethren about their vestments, or their lights, or their incense,
or their music, or their reverential bowings at the altar,
merely for the same Puritanical reason, namely, that they
have too close a resemblance to the Church of Rome?
Above all, shall we presume to condemn any thing belonging to the worship of God, which He commanded in the
Church of Israel, and which the Primitive Church of the
Gentiles retained? Must we quarrel with our Bible, censure the wisdom of the Almighty, and blame the very
martyrs who died for the faith, because the Church of
Rome and the Oriental Churches conduct some parts of
their ceremonial worship on the same principle?
Surely, then, if ever there was a case of difference in
lesser things which called for kindly toleration, the claim of
liberty for our brethren who desire to restore the ancient
Ritual would seem to have the strongest right of allowance.
And this is the extent to which 'I should be willing to go, on
the point of expediency. I have shown, at large, my reasons
for believing, as I certainly do believe, that they have the
law of the Church on their side. But if I had the power, I
would not seek to enforce that law, after it has been so
long disused, - disused, indeed, until neither our ministers
nor our people, for the most part, have any knowledge of its
history or meaning. I regard the object of the Ritualists as
legally defensible, and have sustained it accordingly. At
this day, however, it must be considered an experiment,
which I am quite willing to have fairly tried, but on whose
beneficial results, upon the whole, I do not feel qualified to
pronounce any positive judgment.
If our Church consisted of Christian Israelites, I have
already shown my reasons for maintaining that the old
ceremonial law was still in force, and therefore, as Israelites, we should be bound by it, as we know that the Holy
Apostles and the first Church in Jerusalem considered
themselves to be.





Th Ie Rilualisis legally rig/il.       93
'But we are a Church of Gentiles, and the same Apostles,
guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that the Gentiles were
free. We acknowledge ourselves bound, therefore, only by
what those Apostles instituted. We take the testimony of
the old Fathers, who lived nearest to their time, as the best
evidence next after the Scriptures, of what those inspired
master-builders of the Church approved. Yet it may be
reasonably said that this evidence, on the details of' Ritualism, is not always sufficiently precise; and that much
of it is not sufficienly early to supply the lack of proof in
the New Testament, so as to remove all doubt, and reduce
the question to absolute certainty. And therefore, although
I deem that the testimony of the Fathers is a fair warrant
f'or a verdict in favor of the Ritualists, and that the rubric
referring to the second year of Edward VJ. is yet more
authoritative in its character, I could not recommend any
legislation which should infringre on the liberty which our
Church has so long enjoyed; nor would I disturb the peace
of those who might be alarmed, and perhaps alienated, by
any Conventional act that would appear to them, however
erroneously, to favor Romanlism.
Yet, on the other hand, I should not advocate any
authoritative interference with those who desired to conform, in this matter of Ritualism, to the ancient standard.
They do not propose to add or -diminish, with respect to the
doctrines or the Liturgy of the Church. They only desire
to present her solemn service in the manner that prevailed
in the early years of the Reformation; and this, in my
opinion, they have a legal right to do. In Engrland, they
have found that many congregations have zealously sustained them. Nor can I doubt that many will sustain them
amongst ourselves. It would probably become, therefore,
only a more marked distinction between parties which already exist; and as the Church has included these parties
from the beginning of her history, I do not perceive that
any -dangrer would be incurred by allowing them to am




94


The Law of Ritualism.


appear in a more decided form. Unity in the same faith,
the same government, and the same Liturgy, need not, and,
as it seems to me could not, be unfavorably affected by a
richer ministerial dress, by two lights burning on the altar,
by burning a little frankincense, or by a greater manifestation of outward reverence. And if these things are found
to be attractive to many, and operate beneficially in bringing them to the House of God, and enabling them to take
a pleasure in the forms of religion, why should not the
Church most willingly allow instead of trying to repress
them?
Time will decide, and nothing but time can decide, the
question, " whether an increase of Ritualism is advisable, or
whether the present average of parochial practice is best
fitted to carry on the work of the Church, in such a country
as ours." I doubt whether any man can estimate, with
sufficient accuracy, the various elements which belong to
such a subject, so as to form anything like a positive opinion. Success, after all, must be the ultimate standard.
And that can only be determined by time, after a fair
trial.
I am willing, however, to state my impressions, and the
reader may take them for what they may be worth, according to his own judgment. I incline, then, to regard it as
most probable that this Ritualism will grow into favor, by
degrees, until it becomes the prevailing system. The old,
the fixed, and the fearful will resist it. But the young, the
ardent, and the impressible will follow it more and more.
The spirit of the age will favor it, because it is an age of
excitement and sensation. The lovers of~" glory and of
beauty" will favor it, because it appeals with far more
effect to the natural tastes and feelings of humanity. The
rising generation of the clergy will favor it, because it adds
so much to the solemn character of their Office, and the
interest of their service in the House of God. And the
opposition arising from its resemblance to Romanism will





Ritualism   is not PopAery.          95
die a-way, as men learn to understand that Popery does not
consist in the Ritualism which it pleased the Lord to order
for His own chosen people; but in Papal and priestly despotism, in false doctrine, in the worship of the Virgin and
the Saints, in Purgatory and Indulgences, in Transubstantiation and pretended miracles, in persecution and intolerance,
and in all the other perilous corruptions which are in direct
conflict with the unerring Word of God. These, and not
matters of mere Ritual, are properly Romanism. And
these, and only these, called for the work of Reformation.





conclugion.
Probable Increase of Ritualism.
IN conclusion, I would only say, that my approval of
Ritualism begins and ends with the Bible. There I find
the celestial guidance which, rightly interpreted, can lead
no man astray. And when I read the system of divine
worship prescribed by the Lord Himself for His chosen
people, and see that He commanded the incense, and the
holy anointing oil, and the seven-branched light, and the
ministerial garments of " glory and beauty," for His ministers, how shall I doubt that these things must always be
acceptable in His sight, when they stand connected with
that pure faith which is the only animating spirit of devotion?
I reverence the Apostles, when I read that they held the
law of the Almighty to be not abrogated, but fulfilled, extended, and still binding upon those to whom it was given
- the chosen Israel. I reverence the decree of the Holy
Spirit, which, with kind indulgence, left the Gentiles free.
I reverence the Primitive Church of those Gentiles, who,
being free, piously and justly took their pattern from the
divine system of the Old Testament. I reverence my
Mother Church, when I behold her law preserving the main
features of the original model, and directing her blessed
Reformation solely against those gross corr.uptions which
needed to be reformed. But all this reverence refers to
the only sure foundation of Christian faith and practice -
the Word of God, which "maketh wise unto salvation."





Anti-Ritualism   is Quakerism.


97


And I venerate our Church above all the Churches of the
world, precisely because she is, so strongly and preeminently, the Church of the Bible, and is grafted surely upon
the stock of Israel.
Yet, while on strictly Scriptural grounds I approve this
Ritualism, I do it as a matter of external order, in nowise
essential to our acceptance with Christ. " By grace ye are
saved through FAITH," said the Apostle, " and that not of
yourselves, it is the gift of God." If the ceremonial law
were essential to salvation, the Gentiles could not have
been declared free. The heart must be changed and sanctififd by the Holy Spirit, or outward forms can profit us
nothing. For forms are but the BODY of religion. The
living, loving, animating Faith in the glorious Redeemer is
its SOUL.
I have no fear, however, that the advocates of Ritualism
are in any danger of forgetting this fundamental principle
of the Gospel. Nor can I comprehend the notion that the
use of solemn, beautiful and impressive forms must be hostile to the spirit of Christian devotion.
This Puritanical discovery was brought to full-blown
perfection by George Fox, the favorite apostle of the
Friends, or Quakers, who dismissed all the forms with
which the wisdom of the Most High had invested religion,
and set the women to preaching in the face of Scripture,
and finally succeeded in making his followers, after their
own fashion, the most formal sect in the world, - formal in
dress, formal in speech, formal in every thing which the
Lord had left free, and only enemies to forms where He
had expressly commanded them.
But success was impossible in a scheme which stood in
such manifest opposition to the Word of God, and the laws
which He had given to humanity. The pure morals, the love
of peace, the strict discipline, the quiet zeal, and the active
benevolence of the Quakers, have always won for them a
high degree of estimation. Yet the whole of these, admir7





98


Restoration of Ritzal.


able as they were, could not secure a lasting, much less a
growing, influence. They have gradually diminished, until
comparatively few remain, even in the city of William Penn,
once the stronghold of their society. And thousands of
their descendants have found in the Church that true system where the worship of God is conformed to the nature
of man, and the spirit and the form of religion are united
together.
Enough has been written, however, and perhaps more
than enough, to be a satisfactory answer to the application
of my respected brethren. I have only to state in conclusion, that I am an advocate for Ritualism, so far as it is
fairly warranted by the Bible and the law of the Church,
and can make its way with the free choice of Ministers and
people. It is not likely that I shall bear any active part in
it, as my age is too advanced for my habits to be changed.
But I have little doubt that my children will behold the
" glory and the beauty " of our public worship brought back
to the first stage in the Reformation, in accordance with the
rule which has never been formally renounced, and still
remains in the rubric of the English Prayer-Book. And I
trust that the work, conducted as it should be, in the spirit
of a pure and living Faith, and with the Christian grace
of peace and charity, will add attractiveness to the cause
of truth, and increase the influence of the glorious Gospel.


THE END.