Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

2

Breviarium Aberdonense ad Usum Ecclesie Scotorum et Consuetudinem. Vols., 4to. Reprinted from the very rare edition of 1509-10, in the old style, with the Rubrics in red, half-bound, morocco, uncut, £2 28., published at £5 58. [Edinburgi, 1854.

Formed on that of Salisbury by Bishop Elphinstone, who died in 1513. Only four copies of the edition, 1509-10, are known to exist.

Bruderi Concordantiæ

Omnium Vocum Novi Testamenti Graeci.
New Half Morocco, £1 78.

4to,

[Lipsiae, 1867.

The Church and the World. The Three Series Complete, 8vo., new cloth, 148. Published at £2 5s. 1866-67-68.

Manning's Sermons. 4 vols.,

8vo., cloth, 1844-49. £3 3s.

Cruden's Concordance. Complete, Royal 8vo., New cloth, 5s. 6d. 1874.

Books Bought.

VIVISECTION.

Now ready, 8vo., price 2s. 6d., cloth,

UNABRIDGED EVIDENCE given

before the ROYAL COMMISSION on VIVISECTION, on the 1st and 6th November, and 20th December, 1875.

BY GEORGE R. JESSE, Author of "Researches into the History of the British Dog," &c.

N.B.-The Blue Book Report, issued by the Royal Commission, presents the above Evidence in a mutiated condition only.

BASIL MONTAGU PICKERING, Publisher, 196, Piccadilly, London.

MATTER AND SPIRIT.

A

[blocks in formation]

bearing the above name will be started on the 1st July. Its object will be to discuss scientific questions, and also all matters connected with Religion, from a Christian point of view. It will not be the organ of any school of thought among Christians, but will endeavour to show men that it is possible to be a Christian, and yet to welcome scientific discoveries, and also to discuss calmly and in a rational manner philosophic questions and other matters which bear directly or indirectly on religion.

All MSS. or books to be reviewed, to be sent to the Editor of Matter and Spirit, Williams and Norgate, Henrietta-street, Covent-garden, W.C. Books for review to be sent one month prior to publication of Magazine. MSS. sent to Editor will, when not accepted, be returned if stamps are enclosed; no responsibility, however, will be undertaken if they are lost. Each writer is responsible only for his own article.

Advertisements (of books) to be sent to the Publishers.

Subscriptions 4s, a year, or 4s. 6d. post free; single numbers 1s., by post 1s. 2d.

Persons wishing to subscribe are requested to send their names to the Publishers.

Demy 8vo., cloth extra, with Photographic Portrait and Illustrations, price 12s.,

MEMORIALS of the Late Rev. Robert

STEPHEN HAWKER, Vicar of Morwenstow. By the Rev. F. G. LEE, D.C.L.

"Dr. Lee's Memorials' is a far better record of Mr. Hawker [than the volume by Mr. Raring-Gould] and gives a more reverent and more true idea of the man."-Athenæum.

"A volume of engrossing interest, which depicts the subject of it with taste and sympathy."—Daily Post.

"Dr. Lee has, undoubtedly, shown that recent events, and in particular the passing of the Public Worship Regulation Act, had much troubled Mr. Hawker."-Saturday Review.

"A curious and interesting volume."-Weekly Register. "We are willing to credit Dr. Lee with an honest intention of championing the reputation of a deceased fellow-elergyman against what he holds to be unfounded aspersions."-Scotchman.

"I can hardly find words to express to you how much I like your Memorials.' The truthful and most charitable loving-kindness running through the whole book shows the true friend in need to one who rever ought to have been judged like another man."-Rev. R. S. Hawker's Sister to the Author.

CHATTO and WINDUS, Piccadilly, W.

[blocks in formation]

THE PUBLIC WORSHIP ACT AND THE WAY TO MEET IT.
This Day, Price One Shilling, by post 1s. 1d.

“DO THEY WELL TO BE ANGRY?”

A SECOND LETTER ADDRESSED, BY PERMISSION, TO CARDINAL MANNING.
WITH AN APPENDIX ON THE HIGH CHURCH PRESS.

By PRESBYTER ANGLICANUS.

By the same Author, price 1s., by post, Is. 1d.

CHRISTIANITY OR ERASTIANISM?

A LETTER ADDRESSED, BY PERMISSION, TO HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL MANNING, ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER.

[blocks in formation]

Being the Order of the Administration of the Holy Eucharist according to the Use of the Church of England, with the Complete Devotions, Literally Translated, of the Ancient Liturgy of the Western Church; the Offices of Preparation and Thanksgiving before and after Mass, and some Rubrics from the First Book of King Edward the Sixth.

[blocks in formation]

The PEOPLE'S MASS BOOK is intended to supply the want, largely felt by the English Catholic laity, of a devotional Office, at once in perfect barmony with the Liturgy of our Prayer Book and with the Ancient Missal of the West. It contains in a popular form, adapted to the simplest comprehension, as well as to the requirements of the most advanced Churchman, those formularies of Eucharistic Worship, undoubtedly Apostolic in their main features, which have been used by the great Saints, Martyrs, Confessors and Doctors of Western Christendom during, at least, the past fifteen centuries; and which, to the present day, are employed in the celebration of the Christian Mysteries throughout by far the larger part

NOTICES OF THE

"Mr. Grant may be commended for his skill in making a harmonious whole out of incongruous materials. Perhaps its least attractive feature is the title. It may be very true, that by our Reformers the highest act of worship was commonly called the Mass; and it is equally true, that it is a convenient little term just adapted, by its brevity, to modern English usage, and therefore not at all unlikely again to come into common use but its reintroduction must be exceedingly gradual."—John Bull. "There is much in this new Manual which is of special value at the present time. Its chief feature consists in giving as devotions for the people either the actual words of the Secreta,' commonly used by the Celebrant, or prayers closely founded upon them. Persons using this book, therefore, will not be at a loss to know what the Priest is saying at the various parts of the Service, but will be able to offer the same prayers that he is offering, instead of having long prayers provided for them which cannot possibly be said in the interval of time allotted to them.

The Rubrics from King Edward's First Prayer Book in this little Manual are also an advantage at the present time, when many talk about that Book and few know what it contained."'-English Church Union Gazette.

"It would be curious to conjecture how the Public Worship Act, if fully developed, would deal with the compilers and clerical users of so astounding a compilation as The People's Mass Book.' "— Weekly Register.

"Will no doubt be found highly useful, as the form is convenient and the type clear."-Holy Teachings.

of the Church of God. These devotions are combined with the English Liturgy in such a way as to present both the one and the other complete and yet without confusion. The Manual is equally adapted for use at plain and at Choral Celebrations; and contains Forms of Prayer for those who communicate, as well as for those who merely assist at Mass.

The Rubrical directions, introduced from the First Book of King Edward VI, may serve to show the real mind of the English Church respecting those ritual observances which Puritanism contrived, in former days (as the Preface to our present Prayer Book, with evident reprehension, points out), to decry and bring into contempt.

PRESS, ETC.

"A cheap little book. It contains the entire Eucharistic Office, interpolated with Meditations for Private Use, Prayers for the Dead, Commemoration of the Living, &c. The Rubrics from the first Book of King Edward VI. in themselves show the real meaning of those ritual observances which have been so resuscitated during the last few years."-South London Observer.

[ocr errors]

Nearly every doctrine which the great Reformers turned aside as the out-worn rags of superstition is here gathered up out of the dust, and carefully pieced and tagged together. Two or three years

ago it would scarcely have been attempted to publish such a Mass Book as the present for the use of the English laity."-Echo.

"The errors of the pre-Reformation Church of England, and those remaining in the half-Reformed Church of Edward VI., are unblushingly brought forward for use in devotion by members of the Protestant Church of England in the nineteenth century. The aspirations of Cardinal Manning being more surely accomplished by issue of manuals of devotion like that before us than by all the efforts of the Romish hierarchy and its satellites."-Islington Gazette.

are the

[blocks in formation]

CHURCH HASSOCKS,

Cushions, -Seat Mattings-Carpets-Hangings, &c. THOS. BROWN and SON, Church Furniture Manufacturers, 14, Albert-street, Manchester. Communion Cloths, Gowns, Hoods, Cassocks,

Surplices, &c.

Printed and Published by JOHN H. BATTY, 376, Strand, W.C.

[REGISTERED FOR TRANSMISSION ABROAD.

[ocr errors]

A Journal of Religion, Politics,
Politics, Literature

No. 6.-VOL. I.]

and Art.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 1876.

LORD GRANVILLE'S RESOLUTIONS ON THE BURIALS' QUESTION.

C

HURCHMEN are indebted solely to the two Archbishops for the recent debate on the subject of the Burials' Question, in the House of Lords. Those prelates own such a sensitive regard for the feelings of Dissenters and such a total disregard for the consciences of Churchmen, that they seem resolved to over-rule and nullify the proposals of the Lower House of Convocation, either by hook or by crook. Convocation has spoken out plainly. But its very concession, (a silent service,) is now turned against it: for Dr. Tait waxed sarcastic on the proposals of the Lower House, and rated its members severely, because they had resolutely declined to do His Grace's bidding.

The House of Commons, however, has shown how much the feeling of the country is altered, now that the views of political Dissenters are adequately comprehended for the division this year was a very marked contrast to that of previous years, and showed sufficiently well that, if our Episcopal leaders were not time-serving traitors, (which several of them certainly are,) we might easily win the battle by a sure and brilliant victory.

Last Monday week the House of Lords was very full. So large a number of Bishops has not been present for some years. The owners of lawn-sleeves were in full force, and there had been a vigorous whip on both sides. Lord Granville, who was not very well, spoke somewhat feebly but evidently rather to the Secularists and Nonconformists than to his peers. The whole affair was an obvious political dodge; a shrewd Liberal contrivance; a daring and bold Whig trick. The Opposition want a policy. Their mournful song is "We've got no work to do." So the whole party, aristocratic Whigs as well as Republican and Communistic Radicals, join hands over the Dissenters' sham Burial-grievance. It will be one of their cries at the next General Election; and, no doubt, a leading feature of their programme.

Lord Granville's Resolutions stand thus:-"That it is desirable that the law relating to the burial of the dead in England should be amended, (1) by giving facilities for the interment of deceased persons without the use of the Burial Service of the Church of England in churchyards in which they have a right of interment, if the relatives or friends having the charge of their funerals shall so desire; (2) by enabling the relatives or friends having charge of the funeral of any deceased person to conduct such funeral in any churchyard in which the deceased had a right of interment, with such Christian and orderly religious observances as to them may seem fit." His speech in support of them was entirely and wholly one-sided. Everybody and everything were considered except Churchmen and the National Communion. The supposed "grievance" was shown to be an obvious imposture; yet no doubt could exist that it would well serve the Opposition: so it was frankly adopted. The Duke of Richmond's speech was admirable :-not well delivered, nor very effective to his audience: but closely-reasoned and most convincing in its arguments. One most telling argument, however, made a great impression. To those persons, not a small body, who being Churchmen, have given land for new burial-grounds the Liberal leader says: "You, as earnest supporters of your Church, have given this land for its benefit because you believe your Church requires it; but I insist that any person, whether Nonconformist or Freethinker, shall be at liberty to go into the churchyard thus established and perform services there such as he may think fit, although you gave the land for a very different purpose." If that be the noble earl's proposal," remarked the able Lord President of the Council, I can only say, with my view of the rights of

[ocr errors]

[PRICE THREEPENCE.

property, that it simply amounts to a confiscation of that property. Is it fair that the National Church in this country should be the only Church that cannot prescribe the rules and regulations which are to prevail in the conduct of the services in our churchyards? My noble friend talked a good deal about wounding the feelings and running counter to the conscientious scruples of our Nonconformist brethren, and I am sure I should be very sorry to say anything which would wound their feelings; but then the Nonconformists are not the only persons whose feelings are concerned in this matter. It is, I may add, a somewhat remarkable fact that during the discussions with regard to Church-rates, this grievance as to the Burial Service was very seldom, if ever, put forward; and I do not think it is open to those who were clamorous for the abolition of Church-rates to turn round now, after objecting to pay for keeping up our churchyards, and claim to have the benefit of them."

As regards the tactics of Dr. Tait, they are quite apparent. He intends to allow Dissenters to have all they demand, and hectors and lectures the parsons because they won't aid him in the confiscation of property and in the abolition of their rights. Sir William Lawson has told us what his clients need :-"We must have this scandal removed at all hazards. Well, but I will be honest. I do not say let us get rid of this and the Church will be stronger. No; I admit fully— let me be honest about it-that if you let the Nonconformist into the churchyard, it is only a step towards letting him into the church." These clients say that they are not satisfied with mere permission to perform services in the churchyard; they want the church, and will not be satisfied until they get it. Again, not a fortnight ago—on the 3rd inst.—at the meeting of the Liberation Society, held in Birmingham, the Mayor, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, in the chair, Dr. Landells, who is well known in connexion with this question, made the following statements :

"Let me say, finally, in spite of Government and in spite of clergy, we will carry our Burials' Bill, which is the next thing we have in hand, and, that done, we shall be a step nearer the ultimate goal. There will not be much between us and the citadel then. Having taken possession of all the outworks, the fortress itself will soon fall into our hands; for we do not conceal the fact that this is our final aim, and that we cannot rest satisfied until that aim has been realized. Our clerical friends, in arguing against the Burials' Bill, tell us, with refreshing simplicity, that if we get into the churchyards, we shall want to get into the churches next. What charming innocents they must be to put it thus! I think if by getting into the churches they mean that we shall demand to have national property employed for national purposes, and not reserved for the exclusive use of a sect, why then, of course, we mean to get into the churches; and, what is more, if our right to the churches be as good as our right to the churchyards, we shall succeed in gaining what we demand."

Now, all this is known as accurately to Drs. Tait and Thomson, as it is to ourselves. Churches and churchyards stand on exactly the same footing. Grant one, and the other goes. Yet Archbishop Thomson is so sensitive of Dissenters' grievances, that he practically advocated unconditional surrender. The piety and propriety of the Whigs-represented by Lords Coleridge and Selborne-were also on the side of Dissent: while the old Whig hacks, or their representatives, of course ranged themselves under the same banners. The Bishop of Lincoln spoke boldly, but the early part of his speech was delivered in so low a tone, that it was practically inaudible. Lord Salisbury spoke very well, and with most forcible arguments, and promised on the part of the Government some settlement by which the sham and artificial agitation

should be laid to rest by a new Bill. But we have not much hope. The Liberals, the Tory Orangemen, the Gladstonian Ritualists and the Infidels, are of course all in favour (from very different points of view,) of important concessions and a compromise. It is quite out of the question, therefore, to hope to defend our present position: more especially as our own leaders, the two Primates, and several of their Suffragans have gone over to the enemy. At the division Lord Granville scored 92 votes: but was defeated by 148 Tory peers. The two Archbishops and the Bishops of Oxford and Chester left the House without voting at all. Sixteen Bishops voted with the Government: the Editor of Essays and Reviews voting with the Whigs. The Roman Catholic peers were divided. On the Liberal side we find the names of the Marquis of Ripon, Lords Acton, Camoys, Dormer, Emly, O'Hagan and Vaux of Harrowden; while in the Tory ranks were ranged the Marquis of Bute and the Earls of Gainsborough and Orford.

The practical question, notwithstanding our good majority, will soon come uppermost. It will speedily be made a political cry. The poor parsons, whether they like it or not, will have to give way. So, in a little while, will it come to pass as regards our churches. Their turn will very soon arrive. The delight of Dr. Tait's eyes, and the joy of Dean Stanley's heart, will be speedily realized, not in Westminster Abbey alone; but in every parish church throughout the land.

The only question we choose to put to Churchmen in conclusion, is very simple and very elementary. It is this-Are you prepared to go on giving for buildings, restorations and endowments, when-as the Archbishops point out,-you must be content to be robbed of your rights and, in return for your charitable feebleness, have your consciences disregarded and your property confiscated?

THE PROSPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY IN THE EAST

I

S it not time that some one should advocate a Christian policy in the East? The insurgents, as they are called, in the Herzegovina, are really fighting for Christianity against Mahometanism-for religious freedom against the most grinding and degrading tyranny. Had they been Garibaldian ruffians marching on Rome to unseat the Fope, or free-thinking Republicans in arms against any settled Christian authority, the Liberal press of this country would have been urgent about their grievances, and public attention would have been concentrated on their movements. As it is, there is every prospect that, after an ineffectual attempt, they will be overborne in their struggle for freedom and for Christianity, and that the Turkish Empire will be propped up yet a little longer by the efforts of powers professedly Christian.

Such a result will be a lasting disgrace to the Europe of the nineteenth century. Even judged by much lower standards than that, the key-note of which is Christianity versus Mahometanism, the Turkish Empire is a disgrace and a nuisance to Europe. It is impotent for good, but fruitful in mischief; and under its deleterious influences and wretched misgovernment, some of the fairest portions of the earth, in point of climate and resources, are rendered useless and unprofitable. The most characteristic features of the Turkish Empire are recognized concubinage and polygamy, universal dirt, official corruption, and national bankruptcy; such an Empire only exists, and is only permitted to exist, because Russia, Austria, and Germany cannot agree as to the partition of the spoil, and are too much afraid of each other to act independently in the matter. What is required is a policy which should befriend the Christian subjects of the Porte without furthering the aggrandizement of the three great powers above-mentioned, or any one of them; and such a result might be obtained by the establishment, or rather restoration, of a Greek or Byzantine Empire in the SouthEast of Europe.

The chief difficulty in achieving this object is the very unsatisfactory character of the Oriental Christians themselves. Those who have seen most of the Greek nature like it least, and the almost simultaneous discovery of simoniacal tendencies among Greek Archbishops and Bishops, and of mutinous and murderous propensities in Greek sailors, does not afford much encouragement to those who would wish to see a Greek Empire. Yet it must be borne in mind that the degradation

of the Oriental Christian is the necessary result of his long subjugation to Mahometan rule. If the original cause be removed, the effect may in time be cured. It is impossible to regard the establishment of the Mahometan power in the south-east of Europe, and in Asia Minor, otherwise than as a judgment upon the Byzantines for their perfidious and schismatical conduct. But the internal decay of the Ottoman power seems to indicate that the duration of this judgment is drawing to an end; and as the relaxation of the Babylonian captivity opened the way for the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem, so the downfall of the Turkish Empire will pave the way for a re-construction of Oriental Christianity.

It is of course impossible to foretell, and unwise to attempt to foretell, the exact course which such a re-construction will take; but we think that it could not be otherwise than a great gain to Christendom at large. The Easterns, although their religion is in a very stagnant condition, and although separated from that which they themselves admit to be the central and chief See of Christendom, have yet no sympathy with Protestantism or Rationalism. Anything which tended to bring them to the front as an integral portion of Christendom, would strengthen the cause of ecclesiastical Authority and of a belief in the Supernatural. They have, moreover, a better basis whereon to treat with Rome than the Anglican Church: if they could be set free from Mahometan rule and welded together in one political and ecclesiastical organisation, the inevitable result must be the discussion of their attitude towards the Pope, an da possible issue might be the healing of the schism between Old and New Rome. At all events it is clear that, even as they are now, they have more claim to rule the Turks than the Turks to rule them: and the efforts of all those who believe in Christianity should be directed towards the suppression of Mahometan supremacy, whether in Europe, Palestine, or Asia Minor.

If anything could impress this duty upon our countrymen, it would be the evanescent results of the contrary policy which England pursued at the time of the Crimean War. Within twenty years all that we thought we had achieved has disappeared; Turkey is in a worse plight than ever; and Russia is exercising a direct and potent influence in the solution of the matter along with Austria and Germany; while England and France, the conquerors in the Crimean War, are really left out in the cold. Much of this, of course, is due to the general loss of influence which England has undoubtedly suffered, however much she may choose to shut her eyes to the fact; but the Christian patriot will look even deeper than this, and see in the present phase of the Eastern Question a proof that a Christian country should never be so carried away by the influence of "modern ideas," or so governed by considerations of temporal expediency, as to reverse the policy of the Crusades, and take up arms for a Mahometan against a Christian people.

T

WHAT IS CONSERVATISM? NO. VI.

HERE are two questions which call for discussion in relation to the changes of human laws: the first is, whether they can ever be justly changed; the second, whether they should always be changed even if change might appear to be in the direction of improvement.

As to the first question, St. Augustine teaches that "the temporal law, although it be just, may yet be justly changed at times."

But some object that human law can never be changed rightly, because it is derived from the natural law, but the natural law remains unmoved, and therefore human law should do so also. But human reason, (which deduces human law from natural law,) is mutable and imperfect; and therefore its law is mutable. Besides, the natural law contains certain universal precepts, which always remain; but the law posited by man contains certain particular precepts as to different cases which arise.

Again, it is said, that the highest or standard measure should be permanent. Human law is the measure or standard of human acts, and therefore ought to be permanent. But, granting the desirability of permanence, this must be limited to the possible. In mutable affairs nothing can be immutably permanent; and so human law cannot be absolutely immutable.

It is said again, that law decides what is just and right.

But what is just for one time is just for all time, therefore what is law for one time is law for all time. It is true that we suppose physical laws to be absolute, and therefore what is right in corporal things is said absolutely; and so far, in itself, it remains right. But legal rectitude is spoken of in relation to the common utility, to which one and the same thing is not at all times proportionate, and therefore this legal rectitude or law of right is changeable.

Since human law is a dictate of reason by which human acts are directed; in accordance with this there are two causes which may justify change in it: one, on the part of reason; the other, on the part of the subject whose acts are regulated by law. On the part of reason, because it appears natural to human reason to pass by degrees from the imperfect to the perfect. Whence we see in speculative sciences, that those who have at first investigated any subject have handed it down in an imperfect condition to their successors, who have again transmitted it in a more advanced condition. So also in practical enquiries; for those who first addicted themselves to the discovery of anything useful to the community at large, not being able to think of everything themselves, have originated their inventions subject to many deficiencies, which later inventors have changed, and, by improvements, have arrived at results far more conducive to public utility. (This is eminently the case with regard to steam machinery.) On the part of the subject, whose acts are regulated by law, the law may rightly be altered on account of the change of the conditions of men, which may render changes expedient. So St. Augustine suggests an example: "If a people be moderate and grave, and a careful guardian of the common utility, the law rightly lays it down, that such a people may create its magistracy, by whom the commonwealth may be administered. But, however, if the same people, being depraved, exercise their suffrage corruptly, and commit the government to blackguards and scamps, the power of conferring honour is rightly withheld from such a people, and returns to the few who are good."

H

NEBUCHADNEZZAR AND HENRY VIII.

AVE our readers ever reflected upon the numerous points of similarity between these two tyrants? Both men were addicted to the unrestrained indulgence of sensual appetites, and both busied themselves in a most unusual manner with the religious convictions and practices of their subjects; possibly in both cases from a wish to compound for their own sins by looking after other people's souls. Both men were despots of the most ruffianly type, having no regard for the sanctity of human life or the sin of blood-shedding; yet both seem to have been possessed of a certain blunt good-nature to those who did not cross their wishes. Both men were possessed of the ridiculous notion that they were the "supreme heads" of everybody and of everything within their reach, and were entitled to impose their own passing fancies as to matters of religion upon the consciences of everybody who had the misfortune to live in their time and country. At the same time that they indulged these blasphemous claims they were both of them the victims of superstition in the bad sense of the word: and the same combination of superstition and arrogance which is to be found in each of them produced the same extraordinary inconsistencies in both. Nebuchadnezzar was one day supplicating, in a state of abject terror, the Three Children to interpret for him a dream; and the next was ordering them to be cast into the fiery furnace: even so Henry VIII. was at one moment the humble suppliant of the Pope to grant him a divorce and to satisfy his timorous scruples, and the next was ready to do without the Pope altogether, to divorce himself, and to start a new religion. Talking of this divorce, which really was the proximate cause of the Reformation, let anyone contrast the refusal of the Pope to be a mere tool of Henry's in the matter, with the conduct of Luther, Melanchthon, and Bacon in obsequiously granting a "dispensation" to the Landgrave of Hesse to have two wives at once; and he will not, we think, find his affection for "the principles of the Reformation " increased. The documents which establish exclusively that such a dispensation was granted by the three innovators above named are given in extenso by Bossuet in his Histoire des Variations, Liv VI. Taken in conjunction with

Cranmer's infamous conduct in connexion with Henry's divorce, the incident seems to show that the "Fathers of the Reformation," both at home and abroad, thought more of their duty to the king than of their duty to God.

FOUR LETTERS TO A. P. DE LISLE, ESQ., ON THE FORMATION OF AN UNIAT CHURCH.

SIR,

N

LETTER THE FIRST.

EARLY nineteen years ago-on the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, 1857-a Society was formed for promoting the Unity of Christendom. Its object was "to unite in a bond of intercessory prayer, members both of the Clergy and Laity of the Roman Catholic, Greek and Anglican Communions ;" and it addressed itself to those who "look forward for" the "healing" of the divisions rife among Christians, "mainly to a Corporate Re-union of those three great bodies which claim for themselves the inheritance of the Priesthood and the name of Catholic." You, Sir, from the very first sympathised most warmly with our object: in fact from your previously published treatise "On the Future Unity of Christendom" the Association may be said to have taken its rise. As one of its earliest members, I feel that I can address the present remarks to no one so fittingly as to yourself.

We had no "programme" beyond our form of prayer. Nevertheless, it was but natural that in praying for the Unity of Christendom, the members of the "three bodies" should expect a somewhat different answer to their prayers. The Roman Catholic members naturally hoped for Corporate Unity via the Corporate Submission of Anglicans to the Holy See. The Easterns would as naturally look for its accomplishment by means of a Council happier and more lasting in its effects than those of Lyons and Florence; while we Anglicans hoped that the gradual Catholicizing of the Church of England might pave the way for a general Council in whose decrees all would concur. With whatever ideal, however, each set out, all were agreed in accepting Corporate Re-union as our object, and Rome, the East, and the Anglican Church, as furnishing the subject-matter of Re-union.

The intervening years have been fraught with great events. At home the principles of the Association took root: a Re-union School was formed, and may be said for a time to have leavened the Catholic movement in the Anglican Church. That movement had just begun to emerge from the study to the parish; it had entered upon the phase now so widely known as "Ritualistic." If every Re-unionist were not a Ritualist, it is hardly saying too much to affirm that every Ritualist was a Re-unionist. It was the A B C of our theology "de Ecclesiâ" that the Church consisted of three portions, parts, or branches, the centres of which were to be sought for respectively in Rome, Constantinople, and Canterbury. When an Anglican talked about this or that "Branch" of the Church, he was invariably speaking of one or other of these bodies in relation, or in contradistinction, to the other two. When Roman Catholics made merry over "the Branch theory" they made merry over the theory that the Catholic Church was tripartite, Rome, Greece, and England being three branches of one and the same tree. If I add that we looked upon the separation of these portions or branches-their loss of intercommunion and fellowshipnot merely as an evil, but as an unnatural and unchristian divorce: a temporary dispensation which ought to be done away as speedily as possible: and that we regarded the See of St. Peter as the ecclesiastical pivot around which United Christendom should revolve, I think I have expressed the sum of the Tractarian belief "de Ecclesiâ" as it existed in 1857, and as it continued to exist till 1870.

I am not concerned now to defend the "Branch" theory. It may have been logical or illogical. One thing it did for us. It enabled us to work-honestly and loyally-for the Church of England; it enabled us to take her at her word, and to strive to make her in reality what she was on papera living, energising, though alas! an isolated portion of the Catholic family. If to restore among Englishmen the wellnigh forgotten idea of Divine Worship: if to fill our churches with large and devout congregations of both sexes: if to substitute the "beauty of holiness for the ugliness and

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

squalor of neglect and indifference: if to revive a belief in the Sacramental system of the Church: if to bring crowds of all ages, men and women, and from all ranks of society, to the Confessional: if to put before our countrymen the Daily Sacrifice and frequent Communion as essentials of the Christian life: if to bring back due and reverent observance of fast and feast: if to show men that the Catholic Church is a reality, not a name, and a reality wider and deeper than any mere national or local Church: and that heresy and schism are tangible evils and (where knowledge brings responsibility) actual sins:-if these, I say, be good and desirable works, then all these, and many such, the Branch theory enabled the Ritualists to do in hundreds of parishes through the length and breadth of England.

But now, Sir, after thirty years of not unsuccessful struggles, we are confronted with two dangers which threaten our existence as a party within the Anglican Church. Our first danger is from within. Many Ritualists have shifted their ground. What I have called our old theology "de ecclesiâ " has given place in the minds of many to a novel scheme, in which the place occupied by the great Latin Communion has been usurped by Dr. Döllinger and the so-called "Old Catholics"! With these neo-Ritualists the Re-union of Christendom-of the "three bodies" under the presidency and primacy of the Holy See-has given place to an alliance with the East via the German schismatics. By a species of legerdemain, the "three great bodies which claim for themselves the inheritance of the priesthood and the name of Catholic," have vanished, and in their place have appeared the Eastern and Anglican Churches, plus Bishop Reinkens and his questionable following! I need not stop to point out how little there can be in common between those who adhere to the old programme and those who have adopted the new. This alone would be sufficient to produce a schism; and the proposal of "Presbyter Anglicanus" for a Uniat Church, and its repudiation by the hundred clergymen, are indications of our divisions.

Our second danger is from without. While we are bringing considerable numbers of the people under the Catholic system, the Church of England is submitting to an aggressive Erastianism, which will make it a mere department of the civil Government. The theory of the Church-confidence in which supplied the raison d'être of "Ritualism "—is giving place to a widely different practice. As long as the State merely claimed to give its sanction to Church lawsclaimed, that is, to have a veto upon ecclesiastical motions and as long as the Courts-ecclesiastical and lay-merely claimed the office of enforcing those laws, our position was tolerable. But now the Supreme Court of Appeal-in no sense an ecclesiastical assembly-claims, and exercises, the right, not of enforcing the law, but of interpreting it; and not merely of interpreting it according to the evidence, but of interpreting it ad libitum to suit the fancied exigencies of the moment! Hence, under cover of a Court of Final Appeal, we really have a Legislative body, in perpetual session, ready and willing to revolutionize the doctrine and discipline of the Church at the call of expediency. In the domain of faith, it is a Lay Synod which has declared Baptismal Regeneration, the Inspiration of Scripture, the Eternity of Punishment, the Real Presence, the Personality of Satan" open questions." Could the Vatican Council, in full sitting, have more directly and more thoroughly dealt with matters of faith? In the domain of discipline, it is a lay "Congregation of Sacred Rites" which, at the call of "expediency," has interpreted Rubrics so as to include and exclude the ornaments of the Church and her ministers-the Eastward Position, &c. Could the Sacred Congregation itself more directly and more thoroughly deal with matters of ceremonial? If it is asked what doctrine a clergyman of the Anglican Church may or may not preach, it is the Privy Council which decides the matter. If with what rites he is to celebrate Divine Service, the Privy Council decides. If who is to be admitted to or repelled from the Sacraments, the Privy Council decides. Faith, Ritual, Discipline, all are submitted to its manipulations, and on all its decisions are final and irreversible.

Meanwhile the Ecclesiastical Courts are secularized. Their rulings, as Courts of first instance, are liable to be reversed on appeal, and, as a matter of fact, generally are reversed; and, by binding themselves to the Judgments of the Supreme

Court, they have become, in fact, merely its mouth-piece. Lastly, as if to demonstrate that every depth has a lower deep, Parliament has revolutionized the whole status of the Anglican Church; and from the ruins of Ecclesiastical Courts has arisen a nondescript tribunal, the chief feature in the creation of which has been, that one of the few men who has a knowledge of the intricacies of English ecclesiastical law has been spirited away to preside over the Divorce Court while an ex-Divorce Judge, abysmally ignorant of Canon Law, has been substituted in his place.

Three issues await the Ritual movement. To submit to the Courts is not only to give the things of God to Cæsar, but to efface ourselves. For the Clergy to resign, as attacked, is equally to efface ourselves; for if there be no pastors, what is to become of the flock? Passive resistance, again, can lead only to one end-separation from the State Church. The State is strong enough to enforce its decrees, and who can doubt that it will enforce them to the "bitter end?" Sooner or later, the Courts will suspend and depose recalcitrant clerics; the benefices will be declared vacant, and filled up in due course. As the Clergy cannot retain the fabric vi et armis, they can only continue to minister according to their consciences, by falling back upon their spiritual character and repeating the course taken by the Nonjurors. Cæsarism, resignation, separation: these are our alternatives-all equally fatal to the fortunes of "Ritualism" as a part and parcel of the Anglican Church.

This, then, is the situation in 1876. Within-disunion, divided Councils, and a cultivation of a spirit towards the See of St. Peter the very opposite of that which the movement of 1857 was designed to exhibit: without-the marshalling of forces against the Catholic idea-which must, humanly speaking, and without a miracle, prove fatal to the claims of the Anglican Church to be an integral part of the Catholic family.

I might, Sir, enlarge upon both these points. Especially I might use the history of the Association to which allusion has been made, to illustrate the deterioration of the Catholic party in the Church of England. I might pause to point out that while the party was loyal to its original programme we had an active and energetic Secretary, and frequent successful meetings. The Secretary has vanished, and his successor makes no sign. The Society might be in Timbuctoo for all the majority of its members know. Again, what could be more fatal to the Society, as originally planned and constituted, than the appointment of a Freemason as President? Such an appointment could have but one effect-one would imagine it could have had but one object-to disgust and alienate all Roman Catholic sympathisers. Such an alienation would have been feared and regretted beyond measure twenty or ten years ago. But it is regarded with indifference now, which shows how widely we have drifted from our old moorings.

But what avails it to dwell upon these things-only too sadly known as they are to many of us? As we bave sown so we must reap. The past cannot be undone; the future is still ours. If the ship must needs be wrecked, something at least may be saved from the devouring waters. I am, with respect, your faithful Servant, CHARLES Walker.

Brighton.

Reviews and Notices of New Books.

DELIVERY AND DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. The Fifth Series of Cunningham Lectures. By Robert Rainy, D.D., Professor of Divinity and Church History, New College. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.

T

[FIRST NOTICE.]

HE Cunningham Lectures appear to be an institution in the Free Kirk corresponding very much to the Bampton Lectures in the Church of England; and Dr. Rainy's volume will fully bear comparison with the average products of the Oxford foundation. At the same time these Lectures strike us as of very unequal merit, and the work, as a whole, will disappoint those who look to it for any complete or adequate treatment of the vast subject announced in the title-page. Partly, no doubt, as will become clear presently, this was inevitable from the author's standpoint, and partly also from the limits imposed upon him; but still we cannot help thinking that

« PreviousContinue »