Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 68

Ritualism,—and the—Rights of the People

page break

Ritualism,—and the—Rights of the People.

Ritual, in its widest sense, includes many things about which there is no controversy. The acts of standing or kneeling, of responding, or singing, are, strictly speaking, parts of ritual. There are, indeed, those who consider that surpliced choirs and intoning the prayers are practices to be condemned as Ritualistic in the sense of being excesses of ritual; but these are no longer practices which are in any sense distinctly characteristic of the Ritualistic party in the Church: they have been adopted by men of all shades of opinion, and stand on a different ground altogether from those which have a doctrinal significance, and the kind of objections that can be raised to them are of much the same nature as those which can be raised against the use of instrumental music in church. Among ourselves, we have so long been accustomed to the latter that it is no longer a matter of controversy with us. There is much to be said for a stately and dignified worship which does not in any degree involve High Church or Ritualistic doctrine. Even John Milton, himself a Puritan, and the author of a work entitled "Reasons of Church Government against Prelacy," thus decribes in his poem, "Il Penseroso," such a dignified service, with all the surroundings of church architecture and church music:—

page 4

But let my clue feet never fail
To walk the studious cloister's pale,
And love the high embowed roof,
With antique pillars, massy proof,
And storied windows, richly (light,
Casting a dim, religious light.
There let the pealing organ blow
To the full-voiced choir below,
In service high and anthems clear
As may, with sweetness through mine ear,
Dissolve me into ecstasies,
And bring all heaven before mine eyes.

Whatever differences, therefore, there may be on these points, they do not touch my present argument.

The fathers of the movement which led to the full development of Ritualism were mainly Pusey, Newman, Keble, and Williams, and the first note was struck in the Oxford "Tracts for the Times" more than fifty years ago, though I am informed that Pusey and Keble never adopted the external practices of many of their followers. Judged by their opponents, this was the verdict of the time. Rev. W. Goode says:—"I must add that their works have such constant and manifest traces of their being imposed upon and misled by Romish writers, that we cannot but fear that they suffered themselves to be prejudiced in favour of that system of doctrine to which the circumstance's of the times had given them a formidable bias, before they had studied the subject in a way which alone could have entitled them to assume the office of reformers and correctors of the Church." They dwelt much on the authority and divine character of the Church and its Sacraments, giving a sacrificial character to the Holy Communion, and by consequence a priestly character to the Christian Ministry: and this is the verdict of the great Dr. Arnold, of Rugby, on their teachings. "It is clear to me that Newman and his party are idolators: they put Christ's Church, and Christ's Sacraments, and Christ's Ministers in the place of Christ Himself. . . . I have been looking through the Tracts, which are to me a memorable proof of idelatry. Some of the idols are page 5 better than others; some being, indeed, as very a Truncus ficulnus as the most degraded superstition ever worshipped; but as to Christianity, there is more of it in any one of Mrs. Sherwood's or Mrs. Cameron's, or, indeed, in any of the Tract Societies, than in all the two Oxford octavos." "The universal cry was," says Canon Perry. "that the whole party was dishonest to the Church of England, that they were Romanists at heart, and were rapidly going forward to a general union with Rome."

Newman did go over to Rome, and was followed not long after by Archdeacon Wilberforce and Archdeacon Manning. They were followed by numbers, and the effect of these doctrines on some of the ablest and brightest men of their day is a warning and a lesson not soon to be forgotten, even though of late, secessions have not been so numerous. The reason for this, no doubt, is that a section of the Church of England has been so far Romanised that numbers who accept all but a few of the doctrines of the Romish Church find themselves at home in her without putting on the additional fetters which an entire submission to Rome would impose; and others, and I am glad to believe a large number, while Ritualists in practice, have adopted an Anglican rather than a Romish standard of doctrine. But I have a witness as to the true tendency of these doctrines and practices, whose words are weighty, as they are those of a bishop of the Romish Church, who knows whereof he speaks.

The following observations were made recently at the opening of Truro Cathedral by Dr. Vaughan (Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford):—" The Protestant Church of England has lent herself unwittingly, but truly and efficiently, to the service of the Catholic Church. There has been going on a disintegration and separation of the good from the false, and the human from the divine. This showed itself in a remarkable manner in the rise and: development of what was called the Tractarian movement, during which over 1000 most learned, most conscientious, and must self-denying ministers and other members of the page 6 Protestant Church, after availing themselves of the liberty of that heresy, which was part of their system, to examine all things and test all things for themselves, joined the Catholic Church, satisfied that that Church must be catholic as to time, doctrine, and place. Then there arose what was commonly called the Ritualistic movement. A few years ago the Anglican bishops, with one or two exceptions, were shocked by the departure of the Ritualists, and the Legislature was again and again invoked to put down the Romanising tendencies. Still, the practices have gone on; churches in which Ritualism is adopted are arising all over the land under the jurisdiction of Anglican bishops, until Catholics can scarcely distinguish between such places and the churches belonging to their own communion. Even the great Cathedral of St. Paul, in London, is being turned to resemble more a Catholic church than anything else; a magnificent altar and reredos have been erected, which could not have been more effectually designed by an architect in Rome, so perfect are the outlines and decorations. It is now only necessary to provide the relics of the saints and secure the blessing of the Catholic Church in order to celebrate High Mass."

And now another from within our own Church. I have quoted a good deal from the Students' Church History, by Canon Perry, of Lincoln, by no means a hostile witness; and I quote once more:—"But while the best hope for the future may well be cherished, when the surprising development of all schemes of Christian love and care in the Church of England is contemplated, it is not to be concealed that two great dangers menace that Church—of opposite character, indeed, but both of most serious import. The first is the undoubted fact that certain of her clergy teach doctrines and encourage practices which are entirely alien from the doctrines and practice of her best divines, and have no real support in her formularies, but are either evolved from the imagination from supposed primitive practice, or are directly imitated from Rome. This tendency towards Romanising happily is not widely spread, but it is sufficiently prevalent to generate considerable suspicion in the minds of the laity, to alienate page 7 many from the Church, and to stimulate the action of that persecuting spirit which seeks to repress eccentric conduct or teaching in the clergy by the stern action of the law, at a terrible cost of bitterness and uncharitableness."

I wish I could agree with him that the danger is not widespread, but an admission from such a quarter that there is a danger is sufficient for my present purpose.

Now, here the question of doctrine comes in, and what are the doctrines of the Ritualistic school with which, as honest members of the Church of England, we may take issue? They are mainly threefold, and may be embraced under these heads:—
1.The relation between the Church and the Scriptures.
2.The doctrine of the Real Presence and of Sacrifice in the Holy Communion.
3.The powers of the Priesthood.

Now, it cannot be expected that I can deal with these great questions in the spirit of a theologian. I cannot for a moment lay claim to the learning, or the intellectual grasp, needful for dealing with all the subtle distinctions involved in these doctrines. I shall lay before you clearly the opinions of others well qualified to speak, and I shall endeavour to deal with the several points involved in a humble and reverent spirit, and, at the utmost, in the space of time at my disposal, I can give you but a mere outline of the arguments.

1. The Church and the Scriptures.—The view that the Church of Christ is guided by the Holy Spirit, and is the depository of the truth, that in fact the Church existed before the Scriptures, and codified the inspired writings, fixing what is called the Canon of Scripture, is no doubt correct; but the controversy arises when we are told that tradition is to guide us in our interpretation of Scripture, and that what all men always and everywhere have received is the test of Catholic doctrine. Here I pause in doubt. Will any doctrine stand that test? Are the early fathers alway clear and safe guides?—has the Church never erred?—have we not perpetual need to go back to page 8 the fountain head, the well of Scripture undefiled? The doctrine of development is a dangerous doctrine, all the more because it has in it some element of truth. I may use as an illustration of development, by means of successive traditions carried down and enlarged from age to age, the following. Suppose a portrait carefully takes by a competent artist from the original, and suppose, further, that this portrait were copied by another who had never seen the original, and this again by a third and a fourth, and so on, would not each portrait differ slight from the one of which it was a copy, and each copy successively from the others? and after many copies would not the last differ very widely indeed from the original? So, I think, have we had gradual departures from the Scriptures, until the most monstrous doctrines have been developed and promulgated as the true faith. Once tradition is placed between us and the Bible, the Romish Church gains an immense advantage, and the Reformation, which was in the main a return to Holy Scripture as the one rule and guide of our faith, is discredited. What say our articles.

Article XIX says—"As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch has erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matter of faith."

Again Article XX says—"The Church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of Faith. And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God's Word written, nor may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore; although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation."

And Article XXI.—"General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assemblage of men whereof all are page 9 not governed with the Spirit and Word of God), they may err and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Therefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture."

Here we have the relation between the Church, and the Scripture clearly laid down, and now, by the way of contrast, I quote a small Catechism found by me in the Sunday School and at once withdrawn. It is edited by the Rev. W. H. B. Pro by, and in the preface I find the following:—"The Church, not the Bible, is the pillar and ground of the truth." The marginal reading of the word given as "ground" is the word "stay," which I prefer. What a remarkable statement founded on one passage in Timothy! Pillar and stay of the truth. But what is the truth? Surely the Bible, or rather the inspired writings contained in it? And how can the two be placed in opposition?* What sort of teaching is this for our young people? No wonder the author speaks in the same preface of "purging out the evangelical element in the Church." Hear Canon Mason on this point, whose work, the Faith of the Gospel, was lent me by our clergyman, who claims him as a great personal friend, would that he would listen to his voice—

"Thus 'unscriptural' becomes synonymous with 'novel.' and therefore with 'false,' or at least with 'un-

* Note.—Dr. Wordsworth, late Bishop of Lincoln, in his learned and valuable work, "Theophilus Anglicanus," which is written in eatechetical form, says:—

Q. Bat if what you have said be so, might it not be objected that our faith rests on the authority, not of the Bible, but of the Church?

A. No. The Church and the Bible are both from God: the one it God's Kingdom, the other is His Word. As soon as we are conscious of anything, we find the Church with Holy Scripture in he hands and appointed by God to deliver it to us and to instruct us in its meaning. The Church speaks to us ministerially, the Bible authoritatively.—[This, it must be remembered, is the view of an Anglican High Churchman, and I have throughout taken my witnesses, for the sake of fairness, mainly from that school of thought.]

page 10 necessary.' 'Those fierce words.' as Jeremy Taylor calls them, of S. Basil well express the feeling of the Fathers on this point. It is a manifest fall from the faith, and a manifest incurrence of the charge of arrogancy, either to make light of anything that is in Scripture, or to introduce in addition any tiling that is not."
But if the voice of the Church is to be our guide, of what Church? the Church of Borne? the Greek Church? the Anglican Church? All these are claimed by the Ritualists to be branches of the Church Catholic, but how they have differed! Can any one at this moment say what is the united voice even of the Anglican Church in matted involved in this question of Ritualism. The only guide we have is our Prayer Book. The Church in England is in fetters to the State, and I hope and believe that ere I many years these fetters will be struck off. In New Zealand we have no such fetters, and here our bishops have pronounced (in the Carlyon case) and have pronounced against the main practices and doctrines of the Ritualists. But practically the voice of the Church means to the uninstructed, that is to the large majority of the people, the voice of the individual priest, and I do not hositate to say that doctrines and practices have been introduced and enforced by individual priests which no General Assembly of the Anglican Church would endorse or confirm. And if the idea of the Catholic Church is to be narrowed down to the theory of Apostolical succession,* what about the vast body of Non-Conformists? Have they none of the Spirit of Christ? Are they ontside the pale, and left to the uncovenanted mercies of God? That is, I believe the theory of those who accept the doctrines of the Ritualistic school, and such a conclusion alone would make me doubt whether there is not something wrong in the theory, for I cannot but think that there are at least as many spiritualty minded men outside the pale of

* Note.—I do not mean to suggest any doubt of the fact of Apostolical succession, but only of some of the extreme inferences drawn from that doctrine. Our Church has never formally pronounced on the orders of other Christian bodies; the Ritualists do.

page 11 the Catholic Church, as defined by the High Church party, as are within it. Christ himself owns them if we do not. If Ritualism becomes the rule of our Church, these Christians will never be brought within that Church, and the fight which they possess will never shine within the Church of England, but the breach will become wider. I do deplore the divisions of Christendom, and I do desire to see the approach of all good men to one communion, but the basis of that communion can never be tradition, it can only be the truth ascertained in the Holy Scriptures and the minimising of essentials in matters of faith, since in many points there must be differences.

Ritualism has all the characteristics of a sect. It seizes hold of particular points, partly in the Scriptures and partly not, and magnifies them out of all proportion to the great body of Christian truth. Instead of "Come unto Me" it is "Come unto the Priest," instead of "Believe and live" it is "Take the Blessed Sacrament and live." Instead of "Being justified by faith we have peace with God." it is "We are within the pale of the Holy Catholic Church and are safe."

I now come to the second point, which is—

2. The doctrine of the real presence and of sacrifice in the Holy Communion. And here I tread with awe and reverence. Whatever view we take of that holy rite, we cannot deny that it is a very sacred and solemn one, instituted by our blessed Lord Himself, and reminding us most touchingly of His one great sacrifice for our sins and for the sin of the world. Sad indeed is it that this observance, which should bring us into closer communion with Christ and with one another, should be the ground of strife and controversy, of bitterness and dissension. But I have often been struck with a remark of that great breather, Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who, in the midst of an impassioned argument, calmly pauses and says, "Let us hear the truth; the truth can do us no hurt." I shall give you what I believe to be the truth, and mainly from the lips of others. And I take first the "judicious" Hooker, who has been described as one of the greatest lights of the English Church, who wrote in the reign of Queen, page 12 Elizabeth, in the midst of the great controversy with Rome, and whoso great work on Ecclesiastical Polity is placed in the hands of all candidates for Holy Orders and a copy of which was presented to me by our Bishop. He writes, be it remembered, also from the point of view of a moderate and thoughtful High Churchman and he was a man of profound learning. What does Hooker say? These are his words:—

"The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not, therefore, to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.

"And with this the very order of our Saviour's words agreeth, first 'take and eat,' then 'this is my body which is broken for you;' first drink ye all of this,' then followeth 'this is my blood of the New Testament which is shod for many for the remission of sins." I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ when and where the bread is His body and the cup His blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him the receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really, nor do really contain in themselves, that grace which with them or by them it pleases God to bestow."

And in a passage, which I specially commend to those who can appreciate accuracy of definition, he thus defines the three doctrines with regard to the Real Presence, and frames his celebrated Eirenicon, "Whereas, therefore there are but three expositions made of 'this is my body,' the first ' this is in itself before participation really and truly the natural substance of my body by reason of the existence which my omnipotent body hath with the sanctified element of bread.' which is the Lutherans' interpretation [consubstantiation] the second, 'this is itself and before participation the very true and natural substance of My baby by force of that Dsity which with the words of consecration abolisheth the substance of bread and substituteth in the plea thereof My body,' which is the Popish constructs [transubstantiation] the last, 'this hallowed food, through concurrence of the Divine power, is, in verity and truth, page 13 unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that exceptional participation whereby, as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as My sacrificed body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, and this is to them and in them My body. Of these three rehearsed interpretations the last hath in it nothing but what the rest do all affirm and acknowledge to be most true, nothing but that which the Words of Christ are on all sides confessed to enforce nothing but what the Church of God hath always thought necessary, nothing but that which alone is sufficient for any Christian man to believe concerning the use and force of this sacrament; finally, nothing but that wherewith the writings of all antiquity are consonant and all Christian confessions agreeth."* But what say the Ritualists?

The Rev. Vernon Hutton, in a pamphlet called "Reasons for being a High Churchman" (which some admirers published by advertisement in the Otago Daily Times'), says Our Lord's words, "this is my body, this if my blood," are to be taken literally—a doctrine which, by the way, was directly condemned in the Carlyon judgment by all our Bishops. But why literally? When Our Lord says, "I am the door," "I am the true vine," is He to be taken literally? Or when He says, "If thy right hand offend thee cut it off, or if thy right eye offend thee pluck it out," is He to be taken literally? But if taken literally in one part of this passage, surely He must be taken literally in the other part. When these words were spoken, Our Lord's body was not then broken, His blood was not then shed; and yet he says, "which is broken for you, which is shed for you." If the is in this case be taken literally, we make Our Lord say what was not

* Note.—Hooker further very pertinently says If on all sides it is confessed that the Grace of Baptism is poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it, although it is neither seated in the water nor the water changed into it what should induce men to think that the Grace of the Eucharist must needs be in the Rucharist before it can be in any that receive it."

page 14 then true. How by any possibility, while He was sitting with them, could the Apostles have understood the words literally? And yet He spoke to them primarily, and only to us through them.

But I quote another Ritualistic authority. "The Congregation in Church," a manual published at Home and recently introduced into this parish, which gives directions for rites, ceremonies, &c., connected with "Catholic worship" ("Roman" Catholic, it might have said). Speaking of the Communion Service after the consecration of the elements, it says:—"As you leave your seat to go up, remember that the Blessed Sacraments is now Present. Make, therefore, a genuflexion or bending of the knee till it touches the ground."

Here there is a distinct intimation of a "Presence" in the Sacrament itself, to which external homage is to be paid. But Mr. Bennett, who figured so largely before the Ecclesiastical Courts and the Privy Council in Shep hard v. Bennett is still bolder:—Mr. Bennett: "Who myself adore, and teach the people to adore, the consecrated elements, believing Christ to be in them—believing that under their veil is the sacred body and blood of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

Sir R. Phillimore, remarking on this passage, said:—"It seems to me that the first of these sentences dose contravene the mind of the Church as expressed in the declaration about kneeling, which is at the close of the order of Administration of the Lord's Supper, and though as will be seen, these words are not without some counts-nance from considerable authority, they are in my judgment to be reprehended." And to quote from another part of the same judgment—"Mr. Bennett speaks of the visible presence of Our Lord on the Altar of our Churches' Sir R. Phillimore: "I have read these words with much surprise and sorrow. I have no hesitation in pronouncing that the expression is in its plain meaning, at variance with the language of the service of the Holy Communion of the 28th Article, and of the Catechism."

I will only further quote, to show the lengths to which page 15 the Ritualists go, from a leaflet for the use of teachers,* which I found only the other day in our Sunday School:—

The Holy Eucharist,

  • Q. What commandment did He then give the Apostles?
  • A. He told them to "Do this" in remembrance of Him.
  • Q. What took place when they spoke the same words?
  • A. The bread and wine became Christ's true Body and Blood.
  • Q. Did Our Lord give this authority to anyone else?
  • A. Yes; to all Bishops and Priests who came after the Apostles.
  • Q. When do the bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood?
  • A. When the words of consecration are said by the Priest at the altar.
  • Q. What are the words of consecration?
  • A. The same words which Christ used: "This is My Body," "This is My Blood."

Should not our young people be protected from teachings like this? Is there any distinction between "becoming" and "being changed into"? I have referred this assertion to several clergymen, and they all agree that this is Transubstantiation.

Now, in contrast to all this, take the words of our Article XXVIII. and the Rubric on Kneeling. Article XXVIII says:—"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith."

And the following words from the Rubric on Kneeling in the Communion Service are very important:—"It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians); and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are

* Note.—Published by the Church Extension Society.

page 16 in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."

But the whole evidence as to the true doctrine of the Church of England was reviewed in a vast number of quotations by Sir R. Phillimore in a judgment very favourable in the main to the Ritualists in Shephard v. Bennett. And what does he say?—

Sir R. Phillimore: "I say that the objective, actual, and real presence, or the spiritual real presence, a presence external to the act of the communicant, appears to me to be the doctrine which the formularies of the Church, duly considered and construed so as to be harmonious, intended to maintain. But I do not lay down this position as of law, nor do I say what is called the receptionist doctrine is inadmissible."

This judgment was reviewed and revised by the Privy Council, and this was their verdict:—"Any other presence than this, any presence which is not a presence to the soul of the faithful receiver, the Church does not by her articles and formularies affirm or require her members to accept." But they added, with a reference to Sir R. Phillimore's judgment, that the view of a real actual and objective presence after a heavenly and spiritual manner was not excluded.

Thus at most any real presence must be of a purely heavenly and spiritual, and therefore not of a corporal and actual character, in the elements themselves, and this remains the law of the Church in England at the present moment.

I will say in passing that Watorland, a great Eucharistic authority in our Church, has clearly shown from the Fathers and otherwise that the words of Our Lord in John vi., so often quoted and relied on by the Ritualists, have no proper Eucharistic signification at all.

Quoting Archbishop Cranmer and Peter Martyr, Waterland says:—"From what has been observed of these two eminent Reformers, we may judge how John vi was understood at that time; not of doctrines, nor of sacramental feeding, but of spiritual feeding at large, page 17 feeding upon the death and passion of Christ Our Lord. This, I think, has been the prevailing construction of our own divines all along; and though it has been much obscured of late (for half a century, perhaps, or more) by one or other hypothesis, yet has it never been lost, neither, I suppose, ever will be."*

But practically the doctrine of the extreme Ritualists is transubstantiation—a doctrine first formulated in the year 900, and formally adopted by Rome 300 years later

* Note.—Among many quotations from the Fathers by Water-land in support of his view, I nee I only give the following from St, Athanasius, who lived in the 4th century:—"He occasionally gives us his thoughts on John vi., 61, 62, 63, in these words: 'Here He has made mention of both as meeting in himself, both flesh and spirit, and He has distinguished the spirit from the flesh tint they, believing not only the visible part of Him bat the invisible also, might learn that His discourse was not carnal but spiritual. For how many men must the body have sufficed for food if it were to have fed the world? But for that very reason He intimated beforehand the Son of Man's Ascension into Heaven, to draw them off from corporeal imaginations and to teach them that the flesh He was speaking of was to be heavenly meat from above and spiritual food which he would give them. "For," says he. "the words which I have spoken they are spirit and life." As much as to say. "That which outwardly appears and is to be given for the salvation of the world is this flesh which I have about me; but this, with the blood thereof, shall be by Me spiritually given for food, spiritually dispensed to every one for a preservation unto all men, to secure to them a resurrection to life eternal." It will be seen that there is no sacramental teaching here.

The modern Roman doctrine was not put forward till the middle of the ninth century. Paschasius Radbert, a monk, put forward a treatise, which attained a reputation. In this treatise the rhetorical phrases of the Fathers were turned into hard material definitions, and the doctrine of transubstantiation broadly expressed. This was at once disputed, and the best and completest answer was by Ratramnus. The controversy went on for 200 years, but at I length in 1216, the doctrine was formally defined in the Lateran Council, and put forth as part of the authorative teaching of the Soman Church that Christ's body and blood are really contained under the species of bread and wine, the bread being transubstantiated into His body, and the wine into His blood. The Council of Trent in 1551 confirmed in somewhat stronger language that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood.—Turning Points of General Church History, by Rev. E. L. Cutts, B.A.

page 18 which does not mean, as many suppose, to the intelligent Romanist, a carnal and actual change of the elements it true and natural flesh and blood. I cannot do better or this point than quote a sermon of Dean Goulburn, whose "Thoughts on Personal Religion" is one of the most beautiful expositions of true Christianity I have ever read and he, too, is by no means a Low Churchman. He says:—"Putting aside all the subleties which the wit of theologians have woven like so many cobwebs round this dogma, and the hard terms, such as 'substance' and 'accidents,' in which they have attempted to explain and vindicate it, I take the idea which the tenet conveys to a plain, simple-minded Romanist to be exactly this: that usually, and even under the circumstances of ordinary worship, our Blessed Lord is really in heaven, observing us no doubt, and listening to our prayers, but still at a vast distance from us, but that on the utterance of the priest of the words of Consecration, He is drawn down into the church, and is concealed under the consecrated elements; so that the state of things is really just the same as when He visited the Apostles from time to time after the Resurrection and ate and drank with them, and showed them the wounds in His hands and side. . . . But how emphatically corrected and reproved by Scripture is the sentiment which I have described. Nothing can be clearer on the surface of the narrative than that the spiritual state of the Apostles after Pentecost was far higher, far more blessed, yea, one of far more intimate communion with the Lord than it had been previously . . . But, alas! the natural and corrupt heart of man is not really satisfied with that spiritual presence of Christ which has superseded His bodily and visible presence. We like walking by sight much better than walking by faith and liking this, naturally we imagine to ourselves a local presence of Christ upon earth in one particular spot and under a particular form of matter, even when such as imagination involves the greatest absurdities." Contrast this with the "Congregation in Church," which says, "Re- page 19 member the Blessed Sacrament is now Present, make a genuflexion," &c.*

I can only briefly allude to the idea that the Holy Communion is "a sacrifice offered by a priest on an altar," to use the words of the "Congregation in Church" before quoted. Hutton says: "We think ourselves quite justified in believing that the Holy Communion is the sacrifice of the New Law . . . and if it is a sacrifice, those who offer it must be priests." I could bring numerous authorities to show that this is contrary to the teaching of our Church. Hooker and Waterland are the best authorities on the point, and a reference to our Prayer-book shows that there is no altar in our churches but a table—the Lord's Table. The only sense in which the term "Sacrifice" is permissible, is in that of a Sacrifice of Commemoration offered by the whole people, or by the priest in the name of the whole people, just as they offer sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. This is what the judgment of the Privy Council says on the subject:—"Our Church does not teach that the communion table is an altar of sacrifice. She has deliberately ceased to do so .—Vide K. Edw. VI., 1st Prayer-book." And a stone altar erected in a metropolitan church was ordered to be removed.

I have also the late Bishop of Manchester on this point:—"Bishop of Manchester's address to Diocesan Synod: 'He must emphatically proclaim his own conviction that the symbolism of Eucharistic vestments and the

* Note.—Farrar says ("Life of Christ"):—"The "transubstantiation' and ' sacramental' controversies, which have raged for centuries round the Feast of Communion and Christian love, are as heart-saddening as they are strange and needless. They would never have arisen if it had been sufficiently observed that it was a characteristic of Christ's teaching to adopt the language of picture and of emotion. But to turn metaphor into fact, poetry into prose, rhetoric into logic, parable into systematic theology, is at once fatal and absurd. It was to warn us against such error that Jesus said so emphatically—' It is the spirit that quickeueth; the flesh profitcth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and: they are lite.'" (John vi. 63.)

page 20 symbolism of the Eastward position, as they were now told they must understand them, were symbolisms of a doctrine that was not the doctrine of the Church of England, and which could not be proved from Holy Scripture: he meant the doctrine that ministers in the Holy Sacrament were discharging the functions of a proper priesthood, and that what they offered to God was a proper and propitiatory sacrifice.'"

As to all the surroundings of ceremony which illustrate these doctrines, Incense, Elevation of the Cup, Eucharistic Vestments, the Biretta, &c., though in some cases there has been conflict, the Privy Council has finally decided against their legality. It is, therefore, clear that the highest authority in the realm, which the Ritualists set at naught, contrary, as I think, to their ordination vow, which binds them to the doctrines and sacraments "as received by this Church and Realm," has condemned as foreign to our formularies most of the ceremonies which they are persistently foisting on us.*

There has been a long controversy about the ornaments Rubric in our prayer-book, which seems at first sight to admit certain vestments used in the second year of Edward the VI, The point turns on subsequent actios suppressing Eucharistic vestments in the reign of Elizabeth, and on the meaning of the word "retained." The judgment of Phillimore was in favour of the Ritualistic

* Note.—The decisions of greatest importance are those is Martin v. MacKonochie, Liddell v. Westerton, Shephard v. Benutt, Elphinstone v. Purchas, and Clifton v. Ridsdaie. It is to be regretted that litigation has evoked much bitterness of feeling at Home, and the result as a whole has been harmful; but while it is desirable that these subjects should be dealt with by the Church herself without appealing to Civil Courts, I cannot but think that great weight must be attached to the interpretation given to our formularies by the highest legal authorities of our day. With respect to the Biretta, Beresford Hope, while defending the Ritualists, with whom he sympathises strongly, says of this "ornament":—"This is a Romish Cap which gives a peculiarly alien character to the service very disturbing to my own mind, and I cannot but think that there is some irreverence in the covering of the head of the minster while performing Divine service."

page 21 view, but this was reversed by the Privy Council after careful renew, on the ground mainly that what had been Disused for 60 years in the Church, when our present Prayer-book was printed in 1622, could not be then spoken of as "retained;" and this argument is strengthened by the further disuse for 250 years since. The wording of the Rubric is unfortunate, but the disingenousness of the Ritualists who want to put a literal interpretation upon it when it suits them is shown by the fact that though processional crosses are undoubtedly excluded by it, they introduce them, though not in use in the second year of Edw. VI. The controversy is comparatively unimportant here, but I think our bishops ought to decide what is and what is not permissible.

It is undeniable that a distinct doctrinal significance is given to the practices I have referred to, and that in adopting the Manual Acts of the Romish Rubric, turning the Lord's Table into an altar of sacrifice, and teaching that the elements are changed into the very Body and Blood of our Lord, they have endeavoured to undo what was done at the Reformation, and to conform almost exactly to the Romish practices then protested against. I admit that the English Church is far older than the Reformation, and that the word "Protestant" can only have a local and temporary meaning*; but I do hold that what was then done was in the main rightly done: the supremacy of Holy Scripture was asserted, and much that was contrary thereto was given up, though some things were retained by way of compromise that might wisely have been given up.

* Note.—Dr. Wordsworth, in "Theophilus Anglicanus," before quoted, says on this question:—

Q. You speak of the Church of England as existing before popery, and as holding the ancient faith; but is she not called a Protestant Church, and is it then consistent to say that she is older than Popery when Protestantism is a renunciation of Popery? and how then can she be united by doctrine with the Catholic Church?

A. The Church of England as a church is as old as Christianity. Her Protestantism is indeed comparatively recent, and this for a good reason, because the Romish errors and corruptions against which she protests are recent; but the fact is that as the Universal Church for the maintenance of her Catholicity was protesting at the first four General Councils, as she protested at Nicœa against the heresy of Arius, and at Constantinople against Macedonius; as she protend at Ephesus against Nestorius, and at Chalceden against Eutyches, so the Church of England became Protestant at the Reformation in order that she might be more truly and purely catholic; and as far as Papal errors are concerned, if Rome will become truly Catholic, then but not till then, the Church of England will cease to be Protestant.

page 22
3. And now I come to the doctrine of the Priesthood, which is so closely bound up with all the teaching and ceremonial of the Ritualistic party. Now "priest is but presbyter short writ." The Ritualist writers say it does not matter what name is used if the thing signified is to be found in Scripture; but I shall endeavour to show that the name is of considerable importance. The idea of sacrifice is almost always associated with the term Priest. The Greek word so interpreted in the New Testament is "hiereus," from whence comes hierarchy. I got a friend who is a Greek scholar to go carefully over the passages in the Epistles where this term is used, and I find it is invariably applied to a priest under the old dispensation. "Our great High Priest," a "priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," "and every priest standeth daily ministering," &c.—Heb. 10-11; but never once is an officer of the Christian Church called "hiereus"—episcopos, diakanos presbuteros, but not "hiereus." Now can it be conceived that if those officers who administered the Holy Communion in Apostolic times were regarded as offering a sacrifice, the proper term for a sacrificing priest would not have been applied to them.* To my mind this is a powerful argument against all sacerdotal pretensions. Our Minister corresponds to Presbyter—i.e Elder. "Seeing then," says Hooker, "that sacrifice is now no part of the Christian Ministry, how should the name of priesthood be thereunto rightly applied and he replies only by analogy, "in regard of that which the

* But although the term hiereus is never used to indicate a Christian minister, the whole body of the people are so described, they are kings and priests (hiereis)—Rev. 1-6; and St. Peter speaks of them as a royal priesthood, hieratuma—I Pet. 2.9.

page 23 Gospel hath proportionable to ancient sacrifices—viz., the Communion of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ—although it hath properly now no sacrifice." I think, however, it is not unimportant that in this case the name has been changed, because under it is brought in a great deal that in Scripture is plainly excluded from the idea of the Christian Ministry, and the danger from priestcraft is not either imaginary or small. Not content with the two sacraments which according to them derive their efficacy from the act of a priest, they bring in the other five more, which our Articles plainly reject.

"Marriage," says the "Congregation in Church," is one of the seven sacraments, and has been so from the Apostolic times," and the other four are Holy Orders, Confirmation, Penance, and Extreme Unction. Astounding that the men who fight so for a literal interpretation of the ornaments Rubric should so boldly contradict Article XXV and the Catechism. But all this is to give further power and importance to the priest. The Confessional is brought in with all its dangers. The tremendous power of priestly absolution is exercised and insisted on—a passage in the Visitation of the Sick giving, unfortunately, a slight colour to these pretensions, the form "I absolve thee" being there used, though in the ordinary service of the Church the form is "He pardoneth and absolveth." And here I think it very necessary to give some important words of Dean Goulburn's upon this point of absolution from a very valuable work of his on the Holy Communion.

"Goulburn on the Communion (p. 200):—'As to the form "I absolve thee" in the Rules for the Visitation of the Sick (a late introduction, by the way, dating from the twelfth or thirteenth century, whereas all the primitive absolutions run in the modest style of prayers), it cannot possibly impart more than a strong declaration, "I declare thee absolved," and thus falls under the former head—i.e., residing in the Ministry of the Church.'"*

* Note.—If it be inquired when the use of the indicative form of absolution first began to be used in the Church—that is, the form "I absolve thee," instead of the deprecatory form "Christ absolve thee "—Morinus has fully proved that there was no use of it till the twelfth or thirteenth century,—not long before the time of Thomas Aquinas, who was one of the first that wrote in defence of it; and our learned Bishop Usher has clearly proved the novelty of it from Aquinas himself.—Goulburn. [Apply S. Basil's test re "Novel."]

page 24

He further points out that if our Prayer-book has anything in it contrary to Scripture, it is not to be received (see Articles); and says: "Christ Himself, though of course He might have done so, never said i absolve thee,' but 'thy sins be forgiven thee' "

I will now give what Canon Mason, a High Churchman, but of the Anglican typo, says of the Christian Ministry; and I may state that I submitted it to another High Church clergyman in Dunedin, who admitted its accuracy. It will be seen that it at once disposes of the pretensions of the Romanising Ritualists, and it is altogether a frank and candid statement of the case, which I did not expect from such a quarter.

He says:—"Here comes in the doctrine of the Christian Ministry. We must plainly recognise at the outset that it is the whole body of the Church which is Apostolic, and not only a particular order within it. No proof is forthcoming that the commission given by Christ on the eve of His resurrection was addressed to the eleven to the exclusion of them that were with them (Luke xxiv., 33), or that the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost fell only on the twelve, to be by them dispensed to the rest. The entire society received the mission, the entire society received at once the inspiration by which it was qualified to perform it. . . . Within the Apostolic Church all are priests. There is no sacerdotal caste performing religious offices for a secular laity. The contrast between clergy and laity is that between a higher and lower degree of the priesthood. . . . If wilfully severed from the faithful laity, the clergy would have no right to act in the name of Christ. Their priestly ministries are those of the whole body, performed through them as its natural organs."

page 25

Though he uses the term priesthood, he manifestly Attaches to it a very different meaning from that applied to it by the Sacerdotalists, and puts the whole ministry on an intelligible basis, "Ourselves your servants for Christ's sake." Not lords over God's heritage, nor as doorkeepers holding the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

And it is a remarkable fact that the Church has recognised the validity of lay baptism in circumstances of emergency, and if one sacrament is valid without a priest, why not another? Of course there must be order in the Church. God forbid that everyone should be assuming the right to minister in Holy things without being called, and qualified, and set apart for the work. But order is one thing and Divine authority is another. The minister is the mouthpiece of the Church, but has no separate and individual power or authority. Even the objectionable passage in the Visitation to the Sick is qualified by the context.

"Our Lord Jesus Christ who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him of His great mercy forgive thee thine offences. And by His authority committed to me "I absolve thee from all thy sins," &c. But

Man, proud man, dressed in a little brief authority,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high Heaven
As make the angels weep.

That one man should dare to stand between his fellow man and his God, that he should even enter the family and tell a wife that she must obey her priest in spiritual things and not her husband, and should tell a son that he is to obey his priest and not his father—and such things have been done—seems to me the arrogant assumption of 4 terribly misguided mind. And the worst of it is that so much is done in secret.

Perhaps thou wert a priest, if so my struggles
Are vain, for priestcraft never owns its juggles.

The men who lend themselves to such a system I pity, the system itself I utterly abhor.

page 26

And now, having, I fear, exhausted your patience, I come finally to the Rights of the People. I have shown that the faithful people are an integral part of the Apostolic Church, and that the priest has no mission without them. What then are their rights.

1. They have clearly a right to be heard. When they feel their minister is wrong they must plainly tell him so Not with bitterness and harshness, but in all Christian charity. We have even high Apostolic example for religious controversy, for when St. Peter dissembled in a question of Ritualism of that day, viz. of Judaic observances, St. Paul says, "I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed."

2. They have a right to appeal to the Prayer-book which is a charter of their liberties as members of the Church of England. And although it needs revision, it is even in its present state a valuable safeguard against Romanising teaching.

3. They have a right to appeal to Holy Scripture, even against the Prayer-book. Not, indeed, to any private interpretation, but to its meaning as ascertained after all the lights of learned and devout expositors in all ages have been brought to bear upon it, not by way of authority, but by way of evidence, which it is the duty of every true student of Scripture to weigh. Those guided are safest, therefore, who have studied the Scriptures most closely.

4. They have a right still to protest against the re-introduction of practices which were given up at the Reformation 300 years ago for strong and valid reason.

5. They have a right to appeal to their Bishop, and if need be, to the whole bench of Bishops within the Ecclesiastical province.

6. And finally, they have a right to use every possible means of making the truth known and confuting dangerous error.

page 27

It is with these views I stand here to-night, and am prepared to use all my humble powers in lighting for the truth. I have no personal quarrel with any man. I admit that men with whom I have serious differences are conscientious, if misguided. I admit that the Ritualistic party have laboured hard, according to their lights, for the souls of men, and that no sincere work for God is without some good results; even though the wood, hay, and stubble will not stand the final tests, some precious stones may remain, built on the one foundation. Many of these men are noble and saintly men, but their work will at last be tried in the fire, and I think in some important points will be found wanting. Frequent services, frequent communions may have some good results. God is very merciful and gracious to all who approach Him, but it may be that in many cases mere externalism, without the root of the matter, is all the result of much apparent spiritual activity. God, and not man, is the Judge. But error will never do the work of truth. Even under the Jewish dispensation inward purity was set before outward observances. What saith Isaiah: "Bring no more vain Ablations, incense is an abomination to me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with, it is iniquity; even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, even when ye make many prayers I will not hear."

And why? Because inward purity was wanting. All these things may be without a true and living faith, and without inward purity of heart. Matthew Arnold, though often wrong, is right when he says the true method of Jesus is "inwardness." You may have it with, but you may also have it without, all these tilings; but the final test is that of a faith which lives and works.*

* He (Matthew Arnold) speaks of our Lord's words, "This Cup is the now covenant in My blood which is shod for you," as clearly alluding to those words of the prophet Jeremiah: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." And says, "No more doctors, no more scribes, no more priests; the crowning act in the secret of Jesus seals at the same time His method, His method of pure inwardness, individual responsibility, personal religion." (Literature and Dogma.)

page 28
I give one more quotation before I close, this time from Charles Kingsley, from a sermon preached at Bide-ford in 1854, early in the history of the Ritualistic movement, which has since attained such large proportions at Home, but is happily as yet in its infancy here. I could hardly have a more apt authority on the rights of the people:—

"There are practices against which congregations have a right to protest, not only as Christians, but as free Englishmen. Congregations have a right to protest against any minister who introduces obsolete ceremonies which empty his church, and drive away his people. Those ceremonies may be quite harmless in themselves, as I really believe many of them are: many of them may be beautiful and, if properly understood, useful, as I think they are; but a thing may be good in itself, and yet become bad by being used at a wrong time and in a way which produces harm. And it is shocking, to say the least, to see churches emptied and parishes thrown into war for the sake of such matters. The lightest word which can be used for such conduct is pedantry; but I fear at times lest the Lord in Heaven should be using a far more awful word, and when He sees weak brethren driven from the fold of the Church by the self-will and obstinacy of the very men who profess to desire to bring all into the Church, as the only place where salvation is to be found—I fear, I say, when I see such deeds, lest the Lord should repeat against them His own awful words: 'If any man scandalise one of these little ones who believeth on Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged round his neck, and he were drowned in the depths of the sea.' "What sadder mistake? Those who page 29 have sworn to seek out Christ's lambs scattered up and down this wicked world, shall they be the very ones to frighten those lambs out of the fold, instead of alluring-them into it? Shall the shepherd play the part, not even of the hireling who floes and leaves the sheep to themselves, but of the very wolf that scatters the flock? God forbid? The Church, like the Sabbath, was made for man my friends, not man for the Church: and the Son of Man, as he is Lord of the Sabbath, is Lord of the Church, and will have mercy in its dealings, rather than sacrifice. The minister, my friend, was made for the people, and not the people for the minister. What else does the very word 'minister' mean? Not a lord who has dominion, but a servant, a servant to all, who must give up again and again his private notions of what he thinks best in itself, for the sake of what will be best for his flock."

To sum up, my argument is that the Ritualists are faithful to the formularies of our Church—(1) in placing the Church before the Scriptures, and introducing doctrines and practices which are not derived directly from the Scriptures, but from tradition, and often from late tradition, thus bridging over the main difference between the Anglican and the Romish Church. (2) In giving such an interpretation to our Lord's words in the institution of the Holy Communion as practically amounts to Trans instantiation, with its necessary concomitant of superstitious reverence to the consecrated elements themselves, turning a sacrifice of commemoration offered by the whole people into a "sacrifice offered by a priest upon an altar"—i.e., a proper or propitiatory sacrifice; and (3) in giving to the Christian ministry the character of a Divinely appointed priesthood with a separate and individual power; of Absolution, and thus practically making the people depend upon the priest in all spiritual things, and by means of the Confessional establishing once again a tyranny over men's consciences.

And now my task is all but accomplished. I hare page 30 endeavoured to show you what Ritualism is, where it leads, and how far it differs from the standards of on Church, and to point out your duty in regard to it. I am not conscious of having said anything but the truth, but I entreat you to enquire, to search, and to judge for your-selves. Read your Prayer-books, and, above all, read your Bibles. It is not a matter of small moment, but one involving great issues, and remembering how great a work was done for us at the Deformation in freeing us from a yoke of superstition and priestcraft, remembering that this great movement was the parent of our civil and religious liberties. I may venture to use the words addressed by St. Paul to the Gralatians, "Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage."

Do not let sentiment prevail over your judgment, and regard for persons prevent you from opposing false teaching. The introduction of error is often insidious and stealthy; good men have often boon themselves misled, and have misled others. It is painful to differ from those you have learned to esteem, but let us have truth before all things. I would like you to leave this hall with these words of St. Paul ringing in your ears, "What so ever things are true . . . . think on those things."

While this Lecture has been passing through the press, I have received a letter from a gentlemen in New South Wales, unknown to me, who expresses strong sympathy for my anti-ritualistic views, of which it seems he has heard. The Evangelical party in New South Wales are, he informs me, fighting the same battle with some success. I am glad to receive sympathy from any quarter, and though not an Evangelical, I certainly do not desire to see Evangelicals "purged out" of the Church, my correspondent sends me a good deal of literature bearing on the subject, and among the rest a pamphlet by Lord page 31 Ebury, President of the Society for the Revision of the Prayer-Book, and a revised copy of the Prayer-Book on Evangelical lines. In Lord Ebury's pamphlet is a photograph of the Bishop of Lincoln and his acolytes after celebrating the Holy Communion "pontifically," and the effect is startling. I refer to this correspondence mainly to show the wide interest which is felt in the matter in these Colonies. It may not be out of place to republish the following letter which my correspondent sends me, without offering any opinion on its contents:—

Revision of the Book of Commmon Prayer.—To the Editor of the Herald: Sir,—At the recent Sydney synod of the Church of England one half of the members present publicly recorded their votes in favour of a Revision of the Book of Common Prayer. It has, therefore, become evident that a revision is very much nearer than many persons have hitherto supposed. It consequently becomes a matter of primary importance that we should know in what sense the word "revision" is being used; and, with your permission, I will endeavour to show. By examining the names of those who voted for a revision, I find that they were all leading representatives of the Evangelical section of the Church of England. It therefore follows that what they mean by the word "revision" must be, substantially, as under—1, a reverential revision of the Book of Common Prayer on a thoroughly Protestant and anti-Ritualistic basis; 2, a removal from the Prayer Book of the word "Priest," and of everything that the word "Priest" implies, or is assumed to imply; and 8, the removal from the Prayer-Book of everything that implies, or that can be assumed to imply, that the minister obtains by the rite of ordination the power to forgive sins; or, in fact, any spiritual power whatever differing in kind or degree from what may be possessed by the humblest member of his congregation. If this is the true scope and intention of the word "revision" in the present controversy, as I fully believe it is, then it does seem to me that the leaders of the movement ought to page 32 say so distinctly and publicly; the respective parishes would then be enabled to make the necessary arrangements for sending to the future Synod synodmen property representative of the views of the respective parishes, either for or against such a mode of revision.—I am, &c., Hugh Latimer.

decorative feature

Caxton Printing Company, Manse Street, Near Princes Street, Dunedin.