this as it may, we will proceed to consider the question,-Was it the duty of the Bishop of London to interfere with Mr. Bennett, or to allow him to carry out his principles and his practices, to any extent he pleased? But we must pause first, to notice the curious development which the "Farewell Letter" unfolds to us. By his own immediate followers Mr. Bennett is regarded as the veteran champion of what it pleases him to call "Catholicism." He is a Churchman who has spent all his energies in the cause of, so called, "Catholic principles." D. C. L. thus describes

him :

66

Among these clergymen, one of the most conspicuous was Mr. Bennett. Strongly impressed with the ceremonial character of the English ritual, and having a strong conviction of the binding force of the literal injunctions of the Rubric, he steadily carried his own principles into practice in the church of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge."-p. 29.

But now how will our readers be surprised (we think D. C. L. must have been a little surprised also,) to find that, up to 1840, Mr. Bennett had really no "church". -we beg pardon-no "Catholic" principles whatever? He was, credat Judæus, by his own showing simply a "good Protestant." Let us hear his own account of himself:

"In reviewing my opinions of Church matters at that period,” [1840, when he first came to St. Paul's district,] "I do not think there was in me the slightest bias towards any ritual observances, saving those which are well known, as carrying out the common ordinary decorum of what is usually called the Protestant' Church of England. On the contrary, towards the Church of Rome, I perfectly well remember, that I showed to the full extent all the prejudices and abhorrence which good 'Protestants'"-[the sneer is Mr. Bennett's, not ours,]" which good Protestants,' as such, so faithfully cherish. As an instance of which, I full well remember preaching a sermon, on the 5th of Nov., in which sermon I indulged to such a degree in all the vituperations of the doctrines of Rome, that the sermon was printed by desire of the congregation."-p. 2.

In another place he describes himself as "a parish priest, young in the administration of the Church's work (for St. Paul's, remember, was the first and only living to which I had been presented)."-p. 6. He does not state whether it was also his first parochial charge. And how do our readers think Mr. Bennett became a sound "Catholic?" Not as some, by education; not by the sheer force of conscientious conviction; not by studying the principles of the Prayer Book, and comparing those principles with the theology of the primitive Fathers, and of Holy Scripture; but simply, strange to say, by virtue of the

Charge of the Bishop of London, in 1842. He had been slightly inoculated by the Oxford School," during the two preceding years, but the Bishop of London's Charge was plainly, as he says, the real cause of his " Catholic” zeal.

Let us again quote his own words (p. 139): "There was a principle of pastoral guidance, firmly built up in me by the very teaching, which both as a duty and a pleasure, it was my part to embrace-I mean that of the bishop of our diocese." Again, he says, that the bishop "had set him upon the road to begin, under his auspices," the inculcation of the principles he taught at St. Barnabas. Whether this be correctly stated, we shall inquire hereafter; we simply wish to present our readers with Mr. Bennett's mental portraiture in 1840-42, as he has himself drawn it in 1851, for no purpose, that we can perceive, except that of casting all the odium he possibly can upon the Bishop of London. Now let us take D. C. L.'s description of the bishop. He says, "I have a deep and sincere respect for that prelate." (Strange, by the way, that he who proceeds to vituperate another, generally begins by expressing his "deep and sincere respect' for the object of his vituperation!)—

"He has, for more than twenty years, presided over a diocese with a population as large as that of a kingdom; and during this time his industry in multiplying churches and schools has been indefatigable; his munificence in promoting these, and all other good works, unbounded; and very lately, he has made a noble stand for an article of the Christian faith!”—p. 28.

And yet, in spite of all this, D. C. L. thinks it becoming to attack the Bishop of London, quite as fiercely as the Bishop of Manchester, by way of evincing a "Churchman's" gratitude! Surely, then, if the bishop and Mr. Bennett came into collision upon matters of ritual observance, taking Mr. Bennett's own view of himself, and D. C. L.'s description of the bishop, one would naturally think, reasoning à priori, that the bishop was quite as likely to be in the right, as his professed disciple, and, by his own showing, most obedient follower, the incumbent of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge. Now let us see how the case really stands. Mr. Bennett thus describes the "principle" on which he has acted since, as he says, the bishop's Charge of 1842:

"The principle mentioned in the earlier part of the correspondence, was the propriety of adhering to the old Catholic rites and usages of the Church, prior to the Reformation. I sincerely believe that to be the spirit of the English Church, as the necessary link, by which it is tied to ancient times."-(p. 134.) Again, he says" The desire of restoring things ancient to the Church in England, is equivalent to a desire of

becoming reunited to the rest of Christendom."-(p. 151.) In another place he says "I cannot bring myself to think that the Church of England is the only Church in the world that would deny these customs." By adopting them, as one means with others, a gradual assimilation with the rest of the Catholic Church would be made; the prejudices of all the different sects and schisms would be conquered; and Catholic unity would be restored."-p. 82.

Mr. Bennett's theory, therefore, may briefly be stated thus. He considers every priest at liberty to introduce any practices, which have been used, at any time, in the Church, which are not distinctly forbidden by the English Prayer Book; the object of such restoration being the revival of Catholic unity.

The bishop's objection to this theory is twofold. First, that the theory itself is not in accordance with the spirit of the Church of England; secondly, that it is a most dangerous theory to put in practice at the present time, because all such usages are, as a matter of fact, derived now, however Catholic they might once have been, from the peculiar ritual of the Church of Rome; in other words, that they have (and the suspicion that they have it, is the bishop's most deadly offence) a "Romanizing" tendency. Let us examine this question. A little reflection will, we think, show, that the Bishop of London is perfectly right in both particulars. The statute law of the English Church, to use an expression of Mr. Sewell's, is the English Prayer Book. This, as far as circumstances do not limit the possibility, every English clergyman is bound to obey. But then, surely, he can have no more right to go beyond this, unless custom sanctions his doing so, than he can have, intentionally, to fall short of it. But the theory referred to above goes far beyond this, and there are two reasons why it is objectionable. First, its carrying out involves a palpable absurdity; secondly, it is contrary to the spirit of our Prayer Book. Just suppose, for a moment, that every clergyman acts up to this principle, according to his own individual taste, where shall we stop? One may wish to revive the primitive Agape, with, as a necessary consequence, all their attendant irregularities. Another may have a fancy for infant communion. Another for reviving the primitive ceremonies connected with adult female baptism, of which Bingham gives us so graphic an account. One gentleman, the Rev. Arthur Baker, of whom, though we differ from him toto cœlo, we wish to speak in terms of the highest respect, because his letter to the Bishop of London is written in an honest, manly, straightforward spirit, has openly expressed his wish to restore the practice of "extreme unction;" the practical difficulty being, to get any "holy oil" which has been blessed by a bishop of our

communion! We ask again, therefore, where shall we stop? Once allow permission to introduce novelties at pleasure, and you can put no limit to individual fancy or caprice. We say confidently, "Est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines. Act up to the Prayer Book as much as you please, but if you wish to go beyond it, to introduce practices not sanctioned by custom, then consult the bishop of the diocese, and let his decision, in all cases, be final.

But we say, moreover, that Mr. Bennett's "restorative theory," which is not, as D.C.L. speciously observes, a question respecting the "interpretation of the rubrics of the Church of England (p. 39), but a question, rather, respecting matters on which the rubrics are wholly silent, contradicts the spirit of the English Prayer Book.

However much Mr. Bennett may dislike the term "Protestant," we presume even he will not venture to deny, that the Church of England is a "Reformed Church." Now, from what was she reformed? Let us consult the preface to our Prayer Book. It says: "And although the keeping or omitting of a ceremony, in itself considered, is but a small thing, yet the wilful and contemptuous transgression, and breaking of a common order and discipline, is no small offence before God-the appointment of the which order pertaineth not to private men ;"-(would not priests, as such, come under this appellation?)" therefore, no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter any public or common order in Christ's Church, except he be lawfully called, and authorized thereunto." Take one more passage. "This our excessive multitude of ceremonies was so great, and many of them so dark, that they did more confound and darken, than declare and set forth Christ's benefits unto us." We submit that these two quotations demolish at once Mr. Bennett's theory. No one, surely, can say that any priest, as such, can be "lawfully called and authorized to alter any public or common order in Christ's Church." It is quite clear also that, if every priest had this power, and acted upon it, we should have no possible security against being burthened with the same kind and number of ceremonies, from which, as her own Prayer Book teaches, the Church of England was cleansed at the Reformation. It is useless to bring, against this view, the oftquoted rubric about the "ornaments of the Church in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI." As far as the Bishop of London and Mr. Bennett are concerned, that rubric is simply nihil ad rem. The question between them was not about " ornaments," but about ceremonies and ritual observances. Whether he liked it or not, the bishop did consecrate the Church of St. Barnabas, and he has never once required Mr. Bennett to alter any

thing connected with the "ornaments" of that Church. He has simply required him to discontinue certain "practices," not authorized by the Rubrics; practices, as we have shown, based upon a theory utterly untenable in itself, and contradictory to the spirit of the Prayer Book of the Reformed Church of England. Mr. Bennett may wish for an alteration of the statute law of his Church-he may wish that he had liberty to introduce any usages he pleased, whether from the Romish, or the Primitive Church; but, so long as our Prayer Book remains unaltered, so long as ours is a "Reformed" branch of the Catholic Church, so long will the preface to that Prayer Book, and the spirit of that Reformation, alike condemn the introduction, into our service, of any practices, which cannot plead either rubrical injunction, prescriptive usage, or episcopal sanction.

"Oh, but," it is replied, "these usages are the marks of our Catholicity; they are the signs of our holding the Catholic faith; they are the links by which the English communion is united to the Holy Church throughout all the world. Restrain me, or any other priest, from introducing those usages, and you remove at once the ties by which we are associated with the rest of Christendom." We answer, first, that, unless D. C. L. has made an erroneous statement, before the Farewell Letter was published Mr. Bennett had offered to relinquish every individual practice to which the bishop had objected, except that of standing before the altar during the consecration of the elements; that is to say, Mr. Bennett first steadily refuses to make any alteration whatever; he forces his resignation upon the bishop; he exposes the bishop to a running-fire of misrepresentation, of abuse, and of insult, from D. C. L., and various other quarters. He then offers to relinquish all the practices in dispute, except one; and then, because the bishop does not think proper to be forced into altering his determination, Mr. Bennett is to be held up to his parishioners as a martyr to Catholic principles; his theory of "restoration" is to be the mark of the Catholicity of the English Church; and the Bishop of London is to be exposed to public contempt, as an intolerant despot, as destroying, at once and for ever, the claims of the English Church to be a true and living branch of the Church Catholic, because, forsooth, the Bishop of London wished to restrain one of his clergy from certain practices, all of which, save one, and that, on the face of it, a very doubtful point, that very clergyman has, when it was too late, offered to relinquish !

66

We say, moreover, on this point, that there are two kinds of Catholicity," primitive and medieval, one from which, another to which, if we may so speak, we were reformed, in the sixteenth