Pak B X- HhpSz 1 ¦''¦ O (J PLEA FOR " ROMANIZERS'' (SO CALLED) IN THE aitsluait Communion* A LETTER TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON. BT THE REV. ARTHUR BAKER, M.A., WADHAM COX.LEGE, OXFORD; ASSISTANT CURATE OF ALI. SAINTS, ». MARY6EB0NE; AUTHOR OP "SBRMON9 ON HOLT JOF, THE SPIRITUAL AFFECTIONS, AND THE SAINTLY CHARACTER." " His Grace answered,— That if they had proved he had laid any plot for reconciling the Church of England with the Church of Rome, with the maintenance of idolatry, it were a damnable plot indeed ; but if Christian Peace and Truth might be established all over Christendom, he should think himself happy if he was able to establish such a reconciliation, whatever he suffered."— Triai of Archbishop Laud. State Trials. LONDON : JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, AND NEW BOND STREET. M h 0 3 2. MDCCCL. hz LONDON : PPJNTF.D BY JOSEPH MASTERS, ALUKRSGATE STREET. - — t A LETTER. My Lord Bishop, The time has come, when, it appears the plain duty of those in our Communion who are charged with "Romanizing" as a fault, either to deny the charge, or to abandon their principles, or else unreservedly to avow and justify them. I confess that I, for one, am so confident, that those upon whom that obnoxious stigma is affixed, have a good, righteous, and Chris tian meaning, that I am not unwilling to admit and appropriate it, with such explanation as, in the emergency, I have ready at hand to ofibr. What then I understand by " Romanizing," is sim ply this, — not claiming to hold all Roman doctrine, nor desiring to give a Roman colouring to the system of the Church of England, nor to introduce every thing Roman into the English Church, which the letter of her formularies does not exclude. But I understand the wish to put the most favourable construction possible upon the Roman system, to see all the good in it, and not willingly to believe any evil : so to interpret both Roman and Anglican theology, as to bring out, when ever it is possible, the one true Catholic doctrine, con- tained (if it so be) under seemingly contradictory definitions ;* and this, with the charitable hope, please God, of doing what one can, consistently with duty in other respects, to recover visible Catholic Communion. Now, I am thoroughly persuaded in my conscience, —I have not the smallest appreciable doubt or misgiving in the matter, that by this course I am acting most agreeably to the will of our Blessed Lord, and in perfect accordance with my position in the Church. I am thoroughly persuaded, that a contrary course, — the trying, I mean, to put the least favourable con struction upon Roman practices and doctrine, mag nifying diflPerences, not making out the best case possible, consistently with seeming truth, to prove approximation and effect an adjustment between the two Communions,! — is very sinful, and most hateful in His sight. I suppose this to be a chief cha racteristic sin among Christians in this country at this day ; and I am especially anxious, by God's grace, to escape it. I am sure that many also (as myself in * The present Bishop of Lincoln, besides much else to the pur pose, has said, " I feel too, that some latitude must be allowed in the subscription to the Articles, and am not desirous to confine it within narrow limits. They, who agree in the substance of a doc trine, may, nay, will differ as to the point of view from which they regard it, and consequently as to the terms in which they state it." Charge, 1843, p. 11, 12. ¦\ I request particular attention to a passage of Bishop Sander son, quoted at length in the Appendix, in which he points out the duty, "to bring both sides to as near an agreement, and reduce the diiferences to as small a number and narrow a point, as may be ; that if we cannot grow to be of the same belief in every thing, we might at least be brought to show more charity either to other, than to damn one another for every difference ; and more ingenuity than to seek to render the one the other more odious to the world than we ought, by representing each other's opinions worse than they are." former years) have been brought up, unconsciously to entertain very erroneous notions indeed of several of the doctrines and practices of the Roman School, and have in consequence been greatly prejudiced against them : it appears to me, therefore, if possible, a plain duty to set people right in these points, and to remove their prejudices. And I believe that the course of conduct indicated in the above principles, and neces sarily following upon their practice, is exactly that which has gained for those who inculcate and practise them, the obnoxious sobriquet of " Romanizers." Yet, so long as Holy Scripture is a record of our Blessed Lord's will, such principles are surely right, and dutiful, and eminently Christian. For if there be any meaning in the term Catholic, as distinguishing God's Church under the Gospel, from its previous condition, it is this, — that by Divine institution it has altogether lost its national and local character ; that race, language, political position, have no longer any thing whatever to do with the reality and actuality of Christian fellowship and brotherhood. That the same love, sympathy, considerateness, and, so far as possible, unanimity, are due to every single individual member of the Church, be he Englishman, Frenchman, ItaUan, African, American, of whatsoever climate, or whose soever subject he may be ; so that whatever is said in Holy Scripture about the duty of brotherly love, affectionate yielding to one another's prejudices, being of one mind and one heart, walking by the same rule, and minding the same thing, and the hke, applies equally to one and the other: " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all One in Jesus Christ." & When our Blessed Lord said, " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall beUeve on Me through their word ; that they all may be One, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be One in Us," — He surely did not mean, that separate Communions and schools, whether na tional or otherwise, might innocently exist in the Church, with licence to the members in each to en tertain Christian feelings towards each other, antipathy and antagonism towards members of the rest ; surely. He expressed His earnest desire for union in the Catholic Church, irrespective of Communions and schools. And they, who most devote their thoughts and energies to the furtherance of Catholic Union in the Church at this day, — that is, do what they can, consistently with other duties, to bring together e.g. the Roman and Anglican Communions (assuming both to be constituent members of the Church), — are per forming, so far, the most acceptable service possible, next to the care of their own personal holiness, and one most accordant with our Blessed Lord's will. Yet these are the persons who censoriously are charged with "Romanizing" in the Anglican Com munion. And the text above quoted leads to the further consideration, that Catholic Union is necessary to the maintenance of Truth. Our Blessed Lord went on to say, " that they also may be One in Us, that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me." Truth is only finally established by Union. Catholicity is a stamp of Truth. The watchword of Anglicans from the beginning has ever been, " Quod semper, ubique, et ab omnibus." And our Twentieth Article expressly has declared, " The Church hath power to decree rites and cere- monies, and authority in controversies of Faith ;" the Church, i.e. of course the Catholic Church, not any particular branch, section, or Communion within it ; except for the time and subordinately to the voice of the Universal Church. In all doubtful religious questions. Truth is to be finally ruled, not by private interpretation of Holy Scripture (as all Anglicans of the High Church school allow), nor by antiquity (for the Fathers of course cannot possibly be a prac tical popular rule of faith, the majority of Christians being unlearned and unable to read them,) — but by Holy Scripture and antiquity as authoritatively in terpreted by the living Church, and becoming its guide; i.e. (briefly and comprehensively stated, but with logical precision), by the Catholic Church itself. But how are we to get at the voice of the living Catholic Church, so long as it remains divided ? Blessed be God, the main truths of the Faith were ruled while it was yet undivided ; and the Church through out the world still bears concurrent, although separate testimony to those truths. But on other points, the Truth cannot be ruled by the Church, until the Church speaks as one. Therefore, when it is sometimes urged against us, Truth before Union, the reply is ready at hand, — but Truth itself cannot be tested except Union be first obtained ; the Church of Rome may be right, or the Eastern Church, or the Anglican, in their several theological definitions ; but we cannot decide which is right, if either or all, except by Catholic Union. Here again, then, my Lord, is a sufficiently urgent reason with earnest minds, "hungering and thirsting after " the revealed will of God, even in spite of a conviction, that many things are not as they should 10 be, to remain in one's place, and to strive if it be possible, by any legitimate course of conduct, to bring about a Catholic Union. And I would briefly observe in passing, that this view is no argument whatever to persons holding it, for individuals among us " going over " (as the phrase is) and joining the Communion of Rome, a course which, on the principle of the above reasoning, would not tend in any way to settle the question of Truth. On the contrary, I am persuaded (not without expe rience) that scarcely any view has such power to keep persons steadfast with hopeful patience in their position, amidst surrounding perplexity and provoca tions, as this one, clearly realized, and practically carried out. These then, perhaps, are the two principal motives which should seem to account for and justify, or rather render obhgatory, as a duty done to our Blessed Lord, that conduct which is stigmatized as " Roman izing." That such conduct is consistent with minis terial fidelity in our Communion — nay, that it is the most faithful embodiment of its theory, though I own very obviously at variance with the existing phenomena of the Anglican and Roman relations in the Church, I am convinced by the following considerations. 1 . Let us endeavour to realize the fact of the Re formation in this country. The Church of England was in a state of isolation brought about by the savage lust and tyranny of the reigning Prince, which resulted in a breach between the Roman and Anglican Communions. It is confessed on all sides, that there was at that time very much which was practically wrong. The Council of Trent admits the necessity of reform, as well as the Church of England. It forbids e.g. in the celebration 11 of the Holy Eucharist, " what* either avarice, which is idolatry, or irreverence, which can scarcely be sepa rated from impiety or superstition, the spurious copies of true piety, have introduced." As to Extreme Unc tion, it was obliged to enact, that if those who received it, should recover,! they might again receive it, when again in peril of death. For some did not administer it, until there was no human hope of recovery ; some did not think, that if it had once been administered, it might again be. To which the Church of England doubtless referred, when it spoke of " the corrupt fol lowing of the Apostles," in that what the Apostles had appointed with a view to recovery of health, was commonly administered only when there was no human hope of it. Again, as to Indulgences (or " pardons," as our Article calls them,) the Council professes its desire, that abuses should be corrected, " all corrupt gains for obtaining them, from which a very large cause of abuses had been derived in the people of Christ, should be altogether done away ; and that the other abuses which had in whatsoever way resulted from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or any other source, which could not be specially forbidden, on account of the manifold corruption of the places and provinces where they were committed," were to be collated in the different dioceses and referred to the Pope.j The Council of Trent, thus in some things at least, undertook to reform, as well as the Church of Eng land. Both appealed to the same authorities. The Roman Church to Apostohc traditions ; the English Church to the early centuries, the Homilies mention the six first centuries, in which all genuine tradition, all * Sess. 22, de sacr. Missse. ! Sess. 14, c. 7. J Contin. Sess. 25. 12 which was " semper, ubique et ab omnibus " must have been deposited. Both appeal to the same Scrip tures, and the same Fathers. Surely we may hope that the difference is not so irreconcilable, while we appeal to the same standards of Truth. When on both sides they came to embody those principles in written formularies, the terms and theo logical systems employed did in many points savour of distinct religious schools, and so far, no doubt, are pur posely antagonistic. Still, I cannot but suppose, and in deed have no doubt, that even after the promulgation of those formularies, as symbols of Communion on either side, that hundreds and thousands were comprehended, and intended to be comprehended, in separate Com munion, who notwithstanding held all essential prin ciples in common, with the exception of the Pope's supremacy, if even that. I conceive their position to have been exactly that of those who are now styled " Romanizers " in the Anglican Communion. 2. Such is the view a priori, and hypothetical; such also the a -posteriori historical matter of fact. It is certain, that for many years, until the eleventh of Elizabeth, all those who were favourable even to the Papal Supremacy in this country, went on attending services in our churches, using our English ritual and Prayer-book.* How could they have done so, if essen- * Strype states that many members of the Lower House of Convo cation, being Roman Catholics, subscribed the Articles, and even took the oath of Supremacy, understanding it politically as a mere test of loyalty. ]\Ir. Oakeley uses this fact for the same purpose in " The subject of Tract XC. historically examined," from which I borrow the reference, though I had not read that work at the time of writing my letter. He also quotes Fuller, " Hitherto " (i. e. till a.d. 1570,) " Papists generally without regret repaired to the places of Divine Service, and were present at our prayers, sermons, and Sacraments." 13 tial principles, such as would require a breach of com munion, were necessarily involved ? It is pretty cer tain, again, that the Pope offered to sanction our Prayer-book, on condition of the acknowledgment of his supremacy.* It is taken for granted that the Articles were drawn up, as articles of peace,! with a view of comprehending differences, and obtaining consent in matters touching true religion, between the various schools then contending in the Anglican communion ; not excluding either those who were favourable to the old religion, or those infected by the Lollardism of the preceding century, or by the foreign reformers. But, if this were so indeed, and it is a matter, I repeat, of notorious historical record, then surely, my Lord, those charged with " Romanizing " in the Anglican commu nion at the present day, so far from representing a And Strype's Grindal : " Of the subscribers (to Queen Elizabeth's injunctions for conformity), there were many, who had said Mass in Queen Mary's time, and such as would not change their custom of old Pater Noster." * "The nuncio's offers were said to be these : — to confirm the English Liturgy ; to allow the partaking of the Sacrament in both kinds, as it was in Bohemia ; nay, and that he would disannul the sentence against the Queen's mother's marriage, in case she would rank herself and subjects under the Pope of Rome, and own that See. But she bravely refused, and slighted these specious offers." — Strype's Annals, vol. i. p. 1, 340. f Bishop Patrick, in a letter, dated Feb. 8, 1682, 3, (quoted in a note of Malone, in Boswell's Johnson, vol. ii. 92. Edit. 1822,) writes thus, " I always took the Articles to be only articles of Com munion ; and so Bishop Bramhall expressly maintains against the Bishop of Chalcedon ; and I remember well that Bishop Sander son, when the King was first restored, received the subscription of an acquaintance of mine, which he declared was not to them as articles of faith, but peace. I think you need make no scruple of the matter, because all that I know so understand the meaning of suhscription, and upon other term^ would not suhscrilie." 14 principle at variance with the letter and spirit of the Anglican formularies, do in truth supply that element in the constitution of the English reUgious mind, to provide for which, inclusively with others, those formu laries were originally drawn up. 3. Of this, (which is a further consideration, tend ing to the same conclusion,) the formularies them selves afford satisfactory internal evidence. Writers on both sides have abundantly proved the possibihty at least of construing the Thirty-nine Articles in a Catholic sense, so as to include members of the two communions. I need only mention as conspicuous in stances, the names of Sancta Clara on the Roman side, (whose view is mainly supported from the writings of Bishops Mountague, and Andrewes,) and of Archbishop Wake, on the Anglican, in his correspondence with Dr. Dupin.* To my own mind, the recent secessions from the Anglican to the Roman Communion, prove the same thing. They prove at least that holy and conscientious men have held principles in our communion, which in their judgment were no disqualification for communion with Rome, when, for reasons independent of doc trine, (such e.g., as the supremacy of the Pope, or * There is no reference in the text, as being beside my imme diate purpose, to the attempts made (once, in the 13th century, for a time successfully) to re-unite the Greek and Roman Communions; nor again, to Bossuet's attempt to conciliate the French Protestants ; nor to the views of the Lutheran Syncretists, so called, (Leibnitz, Cassander, Calixtus, &c.), to which latter school a friend has directed my attention, as very importantly bearing upon the general subject of Catholic Reconciliation. I should also not omit to mention, as modern instances among ourselves, the pamphlet on the subject, by Mr. Wix, Rector of S. Bartholomew's in the City (published above thirty years ago), and more recently, the very interesting series by the author of "Proposals for Christian Union." 15 AngUcan Erastianism,) they have thought it their duty to quit the former for the latter body. Surely the dif ference cannot be so very hopelessly irreconcileable when inteUigent conscientious persons such as these, have come to that conclusion, and acted upon it for many years, without any scruple then or since ; whereas I am only contending in my present letter, that temperate catholic-minded men on both sides may be conceived of as standing in such nearness of approxi mation, as to give a good hope of a final satisfactory adjustment ; and, that it is our plain duty to strive by all legitimate means in our power, subordinate to Divine Providence, to expedite such a blessed consum mation. But it is the performance of this sacred duty according to our best judgment and discretion, which, not unnaturally, under the name of " Romanizing," is charged against us as a fault. Of course, my Lord, the above explanation claims only to offer the statement of an intelligible principle, which may serve to account for the general conduct of those among us, who have been and are so stigmatized ; it does not pretend to justify any particular acts or practices, or the teaching of individuals, in carrying out that principle into detail. The legality or illegality, the wisdom or the imprudence, the right or the wrong of these must be judged of by each person in his own case with reference to circumstances. Scarcely any one else, I suppose, is so well able and competent to judge. Nay, not even the Diocesan in the case of Parish Priests ; for how can he possibly be so well acquainted with the requirements, and yearnings, and spiritual position of the people committed to each Pastor's care ? And I make this remark, with the most sincere respect and dutiful affection for your Lordship's 16 office and person individually, because it may tend to explain the position claimed by some, as stated in your recent charge ; viz, latitude in all uses not prohibited by law; implicit obedience only in matters faUing within Episcopal jurisdiction. Certainly, this lan guage, at first hearing, does not sound quite in harmony with the law of love ; but, I am persuaded, that many of those who in principle assert it, are not unwilling to acknowledge a filial submission to their bishop's " godly admonitions." At the same time, it is not easy to see, how the principle of the claim itself can with any safety be conceded. Considering how uses allowed by one Bishop are as likely as not to be pro hibited by his successor in the see, or by contemporary Bishops in adjoining dioceses ; considering the exceed ingly arbitrary and capricious rule, in some instances, of individual Bishops in simple matters of taste and ritual propriety, wholly beyond their jurisdiction ; considering the increase of jealousy and dissatis faction among the inferior and parochial clergy, at the present mode of election to the Episcopate, and its horrible prostitution to personal and political party purposes of late ; considering that all directions given beyond one's jurisdiction are simply matters of opinion, and therefore, in strict morals incapable of imparting the quality of obedience to the act of those who volun tarily submit to them, however valuable, according to the character and experience of the individual director; considering that it is but substituting the opinion of one individual for that of another ; considering, lastly, that, in the class of questions more particularly alluded to, individual Parish Priests very often have given their minds to study the whole subject, while the Diocesan, who happens to be over them, being wholly 17 occupied with his practical Episcopal labours, may have paid to it no particular attention, but if consulted, might speak merely from his private predilections ; under all these considerations, it does not appear sur prising, if some clergymen of standing and ability should prefer depending upon their own (I suppose in alienable) responsibility in such matters, and be gra dually withdrawing from the custom of seeking Episco pal direction in them, which has almost grown up into a right of interference, and are now resorting to an ac knowledged practical principle in all pohtics, civil or ecclesiastical, that, where no express enactment exists, whether prohibition or injunction, an entire licence of practice is presumable ; somewhat similar (though of course not quite parallel) to that, for example, which is exercised in the case of suffragan Bishops them selves, in subordination to their Metropolitan, or of Metropolitan, in relation to his Patriarch. I should be very sorry, if the above view were con strued so as to impair in any degree, a filial and loyal feehng towards our Fathers in the Lord, and Rulers. There is no less loyal feeling towards a Sovereign, as a Minister of God, because obedience towards him is restricted to matters falling within his jurisdiction ; nor is he an unruly citizen, who pays obedience in all things to his country's laws, but where left at liberty follows his own choice. What father would think of peremptorily interfering with the domestic arrange ments of his son ? It is just because a rule is being exacted, as if of right, in matters left at liberty by the Church's law, that such an unwilling obedience is now so often paid. So long as a Bishop's interference is regarded in this rigid legal way, there is no room and no motive for a loving filial obedience. The noncon- c 81 formists of old contended for entire liberty, and ex emption from the written law, and were answered thus by Bishop Sanderson : — " If the Church had been silent, if the authority had prescribed nothing herein, these ceremonies had then remained for their use, as they are for their nature, indifferent ; lawful, and such as might be used without sin ; and yet arbitrary, and such as also might be forborne without sin." This expresses nearly what I mean. There is a large margin of latitude left by the English Canon Law, in regard to the use of religious practices, on which " the (National) Church is silent," the use of which, there fore, I contend, is a matter of private and personal consideration. This principle is admitted in the case of doctrine. I cannot see why it should be rejected in the lesser matter of ceremonial. Surely unity in the one case is as much aimed at in our formularies, as uniformity in the other. Yet differences of belief and teaching on points not formally and authoritatively ruled, are not thought to interrupt the ideal of doc trinal unity. I cannot see why a different law of liberty should apply in the case of ritual uniformity. In case of doubtful interpretation of the Church's law, express provision is made (in the Preface to the Prayer Book) for a reference to the Bishop ; but I am speaking of cases where no doubt exists, as to the legality of a practice, on the part of persons using it. Again ; there is a special prohibition (in the fourteenth Canon of 1 603) against adding to the form or matter of the Book of Common Prayer; but I am not now con templating instances of that kind. 1 will state a few instances of the kind of liberty I mean. One priest shall perform the service in a lounging, slovenly, per functory way, another with external marks of great reverence in his gestures, postures, and tone of voice, crossing himself, bowing his head, &c. ; neither falling within the law. One shall lean upon the altar, with his face buried in his hands, another shall kneel at a short distance from it, with his arms crossed upon his breast ; one shall prefer preaching in his surplice, another in his gown ; one using a Collect before his Sermon, another an Invocation of the Blessed Trinity ; one preaching extempore, another from a book. Again ; one shall have his altar covered with a red velvet cloth, ornamented with a cross and sacred monogram in front, another with diaper and flowered work, and a cross placed above ; the slab of one altar shall be of stone, of another of deal or oak ; behind one shall be a picture of Moses and Aaron, with the Ten Com mandments, flanked and overshadowed by Corinthian pillars, capitals, and pediment ; behind another, stone tabernacle work; behind a third, hanging drapery. One shall have the pews of his church lined with green, blue, or scarlet ; another shall have the walls and roof painted in the same colours. One shall de corate his church at Christmas with holly, and other evergreens ; another with all kinds of flowers, and on all the greater Feasts ; a third (as in the north) shall strew the floor with rushes. So again, in matters of pastoral ministration, one shall deal with his parish ioners in one way, another in another ; one distribute books and pictures of one sort, another of another ; one prefer the method of cottage lectures, prayer and Bible meetings. Scripture readers, and the like ; an other, of frequent services, private confession. Sisters of Charity, and kindred institutions; of course, all along, by hypothesis, subject to the Church's law. It appears to me, that every parish priest possesses the c 2 20 same sort of discretionary jurisdiction in the ordering of such matters, as each Suffragan Bishop in the dis charge of his episcopal functions and diocesan rule, though in a different manner from surrounding dio ceses, or in matters also of a more private but semi- ofl[icial character, as e.g. the laying aside lately of the official head-dress of the preceding century, — an ab surdly unpopular measure at the time ! I am per suaded, that if the principle of entire liberty in such matters were generally recognised, the Bishops them selves would be spared much undue responsibility and odium, the priest would be relieved from much dis heartening irksomeness and restraint, and the people more truly would understand, appreciate, and respond to the pastoral relation towards themselves. The recognition and practical developement of this principle on a large scale, it cannot fairly be disallowed, is almost sure to issue in numerous abuses. For these the only proper and adequate remedy seems to be, the introduction of fresh enactments to meet specific cases as they arise ; alone a sufficient reason for the revival of the Church's standing legislature in this country ! Meantime, the principle itself is certain to go on energizing, undirected except by the private judgment of individual Priests, and the personal influence* (as distinct from the authority) of Bishops. Such a course cannot but be liable to occasional scan dals in the way of unreality and excess : conceit, and * Since the above was in type, the principle has been conceded by the present Bishop of Chichester in a letter to one of his clergy, dated Nov. 20, 18.")0 : — " the poiver of a Bishop of our Church is happily not arbitrary and despotic, but limited by law and canon. I desire to add, I will exert all the influence I possess to repress and control the practices within our Church " previously referred to. — Published in Brighton Gazette, Nov. 28. 21 fancifulness, and sensuous refinement will probably come in as secondary, or even primary, motives mis directing individuals. One cannot of course be too scrupulously on his guard against them; but there appears to be no remedy for actual abuses excepting the above. They, however, who seek discreetly, (ac cording to their knowledge, the fitness of their people, and the licence permitted by the English canon law,) to conform to the practices and teaching of the Uni versal Church, do seem to be acting, not only most agreeably to our Blessed Lord's Will, but to the spirit also and letter of our own communion, as embodied in the Thirty-fourth Article. " Of the Traditions of the Church. " It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one, and utterly like ; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Who soever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. " Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church, (ritus eccle- siasticos) ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying." There is here a plain recognition of, and a distinc tion drawn between our duties to the Catholic Church and those owing to the National communion under it, in regard at least to ritual uses. It seems clearly laid down that, where the national synod has not expressly legislated upon any particular Catholic ceremonial, the use of it is not only allowable, but a duty, lest 22 tender consciences be pained, (a consideration, I admit, not to be forgotten on either side) and the order of the Church interrupted. Such appears to be the principle maintained by Bishop Fleetwood as quoted in your Lordship's charge of 1842 : — " The ceremonies allowed in practice in the Church, though not enjoined by the Rubric, are such as were used in the Church before and when the Rubrics were made ; and being reasonable, and easy, and becoming, were not enforced by any new law, but were left in possession of what force they had obtained by custom. He that com plies not with these ceremonies, offends against no law, but only against custom ; which yet a prudent man will not lightly do, when ever it has obtained in general." Still more explicit, and equally decisive of the point in question, are the following statements of the thir tieth Canon (1603). " The abuse of a thing doth not take away the lawful use of it. Nay, so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things which they held and prac tised, that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies, which doth neither en damage the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men ; and only departed from them in those particular points, wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity, and from the Apostolical Churches, which were their first founders." It should plainly seem, that " departure " from Ca- thohc uses was intended only " in those particular points " on which the Anghcan law of direction ex pressly stated so.* And so also, in the same Canon, * Even in these prohibitions it is expressly stated there was no intention to protest against foreign uses : "in these our doings we condemn no other nations, nor prescribe anything but to our own people only." — Preface to the Prayer Book : Of Ceremonies. Not that I would imply any wish to introduce what is peculiarly foreign into ouv cei'emonial. On the contrary, I believe that it would be exceedingly absurd, unreal, and (in a Christian sense) unphilosophical 23 speaking of the use of the sign of the cross in Holy Baptism : " Upon those true rules of doctrine concerning things indifferent, which are consonant to the Word of God, and the judgment of all the ancient Fathers, we hold it the part of every private man, both minister and other, reverently to retain the true use of it prescribed by public authority : considering that things indifferent do in some sort alter their natures, when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful magistrate ; and may not be omitted at every man's plea sure contrary to the law, when they are commanded, nor used when they are prohibited." On this principle, (1) practices expressly enjoined acquire the nature of an obligation ; and (2) it is wrong and censurable, of course, to practise what is in express terms prohibited ; but there should seem to be (3) an entire liberty left of use or disuse as to points not specifically ruled either way, with an im plied deference, however, to existing Catholic custom. I sincerely think, my Lord, that those among us who are stigmatized as " Romanizers," are, more than others, acting conformably to this presumed Anglican theory of discipline. As instances of the first class of practices, which they, more than others, consistently observe, I may mention their (at least private) comme moration of the inferior holy days of our calendar — the anniversaries of Catholic Saints ;* their daily celebra tion of the Blessed Eucharist (as intimated, though not to do so. It would be against the principle of Catholicity to do so, which aims at supplying the most real and natural expression to re ligious feelings ; and this would vary, of course, according to the national character, in different nations. What is peculiarly Italian, for instance, would not very probably be suitable for English minds at this day. * The rubric seems to imply that notice of these should be given publicly, assuming that some such notice will be given every week ; " Then the curate shall declare unto the people what Holy-days, or Fasting-days, are in the week following to be observed." 24 enjoined, in the rubrical direction about the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, " serving all the w^eek after," and also the special Prefaces) ; in chanting the Offices ; in their use of the " two Lights before the Sacrament ;" in " standing before " the Altar at the consecration; and in their administration of absolution privately, after con fession made in detail, as most unmistakeably con templated in the Exhortation of the Ofiice of Holy Communion, in the Order for the Visitation of the Sick, and in the 113th Canon of 1603. I am not aware that, in any single particular, they break the second rule, by the use of things prohibited, even in cases when following their private judg ment, they might naturally be disposed to do so ; e.g. by the reservation of the consecrated elements — an undeniable Catholic custom, disused for a particular reason in the sixteenth century, but of which the fre quent need in large parishes of repeated Communion of the Sick in one day, is now importunately demand ing a restoration. With regard to the third class of subjects, the principle of liberty contended for should seem to be very generally conceded, in such instances as turning eastward at the Creeds, bowing at the Gloria, singing " Glory be to Thee, O Lord," and "Thanks be to God," before and after the Gospel, bowing towards the Altar, the use of music, singing hymns, antiphonal chanting, vesting choristers in surplice, decorating Churches at the High Festivals, separating the sexes in church, using a trine aspersion of earth in committing the body to the grave, and the like reverent practices ; on which, however, the English Prayer Book and Canons are altogether silent. But if these and others have been traditionally pre served, some in one church or locality, some in another. 25 some almost universally in our parish churches, how many more, since the sixteenth century, may have gradually died out, and left no trace behind them,* es pecially during the ten years' withering blight of the Parliament's Directory, and the cold and deadening era which succeeded upon the Revolution ! I own that I cannot help thinking, that such must have been the case with the " practice of making the sign of the cross upon the forehead, which was " (says Bishop Kay, from TertuUian) " most scrupulously observed by the primitive Christians ;" the revival of which among us, however, your Lordship seems to fear, may not be unattended with superstition. I sincerely trust, that such may not indeed be the issue of returning to a practice (whether in public or in private worship) so eminently CathoUc ! Tertullian's words are : " At every moving from place to place, at every coming in and going out, in dressing, at the baths, at table, on lighting candles, going to rest, sitting down, in what ever action we are engaged, we sign ourselves on the forehead with the cross."! S. Chrysostom says of the same custom : " Let us have the sign of the Cross in our houses, on our windows, on our fore heads, and in our minds, with much devotion." I do not think, my Lord, that the practice hitherto among us, has at any rate exceeded such simple forms as these ;| or that it is desired by any among us to exceed them. The mixture of water with wine in the oblation * " Several venerable and pious usages of our forefathers received a severe shock in these times, under the same pretences of popery and superstition." — Wordsworth' s Institutes, Vol. iv. 561. t De Coron. Mil. c. 3. X It is used by the Archbishop in applying the unction at our Coronations, on the crown of the head, and on the palms of both hands of the new Sovereign. 26 of the Blessed Eucharist, and numerous other Catholic (but in our Communion, acknowledged obsolete) uses, might be classified under the same category, and, as I think, justified upon the same principle, as being them selves among the number of things indifferent, neither enjoined nor prohibited by the English Canon ; and which, though in some cases, and under one aspect, doubtless in close contact with superstition, may be conceived to be, under another, rightly realized, most innocent, reverent, and edifying. But, as I wish to argue for the principle to the full extent of its possible application, I will take the most extreme instance which occurs to me ; more par ticularly as, for an obvious reason, there is no danger in this case of an inconsiderate revival of the practice either in your Lordship's, or in other dioceses. I sup pose that many minds must have felt a difficulty in accounting for the disuse among us of the primitive and unquestionably Catholic Ordinance of Extreme Unction. Considering the apparently plain Scriptural authority for its Divine Institution and Apostolical practice and tradition ;* — considering that its miracu lous physical effects recorded in Holy Scripture should seem to stand on exactly the same ground as the typification, the earnest and the pledge by outward miracle, of the reality of the sacramental grace, specially conveyed in other Divine ordinances ; — con sidering that, in the twenty-fifth Article, it is dis tinguished from the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and the Blessed Eucharist, inclusively with " Confirmation, * " And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." —