century. So long, therefore, as the Prayer Book of the English Church remains unaltered-so long as we retain all the grand fundamental verities of the Christian faith embodied therein-so long shall we continue to be a true and living branch of the Catholic Church; so long can there exist no possible reason for introducing into our ritual any mediæval observances, other than those which are sanctioned by the laws of the Church of England, or by prescriptive custom.

of "

6

"But," it is said, "these usages and observances will restore Catholic unity. They will take away from us the reproach, under which we now justly labour, of being isolated from the rest of Christendom. They will tend to restore the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;' "" and loud is the outery raised against the Bishop of London, because his lordship has ventured to imagine that the revival may, possibly, have a somewhat different effect; that, instead of restoring "Catholic," they may possibly, and probably, tend rather to restore "Romish" unity; that their ultimate development will bring us back, not to primitive, but to "Romish" Catholicism. "Even the bishops themselves," says Mr. Bennett, "make the idea of Catholicity equivalent to Popery. Our own bishop perseveres in fastening upon me the charge of copying Rome. He has told me that I adopt this and that rite because it is Roman;' that we are leading men to precipices,' and the like" (p. 172). The imputation Romanizing" is, in fact, regarded, by certain parties, as the very acme of "bigotry;" the restraining from such practices is the very quintessence of "persecution is said to be "driving men over into the ranks of the enemy." But we say, first, can it be forgotten, ought it to be forgotten, that of those English priests who have put the "restorative theory" into practical operation, the greater number have already gone, not simply "step by step to the very verge of the precipice," but actually headlong over into the gulf beneath it? From Mr. Newman down to Mr. Dodsworth, facilis descensus Averni, and, still later, down to the mover of the resolution of sympathy with Mr. Bennett, passed by the London Church Union on the 10th of December, these men have gone over to the Church of Rome. Are we then gravely to be told, that our bishops are "bigoted and intolerant," because, seeing others of their clergy pursuing a similar course, they are apprehensive of a similar result, and endeavour, by a timely warning, to guard against it? We know full well that post hoc, ergo propter hoc, is very frequently unsound reasoning, but surely there is here an à priori argument on the side of those who do so reason. Surely if one, standing by the side of a river, saw twenty persons bathing -if he saw ten, after venturing to a certain spot, sink to rise no

งา

66

66

more, he would not be deemed impertinent if he ventured to warn the rest of their danger; and, moreover, would not be amenable, on any just grounds, to the charge of "persecution," if, supposing him to possess authority, he exercised it by way of prevention. The case of the secessions to Rome is surely very parallel to this. At all events, we put this alternative-either they who have seceded did so deliberately, with their eyes open, or they were led on step by step." In the one case, they were "double distilled" traitors to the Church of England. In the other, the Bishop of London acts most faithfully to his clergy, and to his Church, if he does all he can do to prevent the recurrence of a similar catastrophe. And as to the charge of thereby driving men over to the ranks of the enemy"-it is an expression which no true-hearted English Churchman would dream of employing; it is one, we firmly believe, that has done very great mischief at the present crisis. What does the expression mean? Simply this, that, whenever an English priest grows discontented with his position, he naturally, as a matter of course, begins to think about secession to the Church of Rome; in other words, that there is, really, no essential difference between the principles of the two communions. For our own part, we are convinced that no possible combination of circumstances can justify "secession" from our own Church, much less "apostasy" to the Church of Rome. We believe that the principles of the two Churches, so far as they differ, are necessarily antagonistic to each other, and that no sound Anglican priest, whatever difficulties he may find in the one, would ever dream, for an instant, that he would better his condition by going over to the other. Bishop Ken once bore an honoured name among English Churchmen-Bishop Ken was a Nonjuror," but he never became a Romanist. Let us once cleanse ourselves from this, not surely undeserved, suspicion; let us once persuade our people that nothing shall ever drive us to Rome, and sure we are that one grand cause of our present difficulties will speedily be removed"heaviness may endure for a night, but joy will come in the morning."

66

But we say, secondly, that, whether the "restorative theory" be or be not sound in itself, this, of all others, is not the time for putting it in practice. What is our present position? The Church of England is fighting a battle, not, as recently, for the maintenance of the Christian faith, but for her very existence. Enemies, strong and mighty, beset her on every side. We ask Mr. Bennett, and D. C. L., Is this a time, when our bishops are called "possessors by act of Parliament of their episcopal revenues," their spiritual character and func

tions being ignored altogether?-Is this a time when he, who is now Cardinal Wiseman, who, "with bated breath and whispering humbleness," endeavoured to cajole the English nation in his recent "Appeal," thus addressed "the faithful" in his "Lenten Pastoral" this time last year?" May we not clearly see the agitation and uneasiness of men's minds in regard to that semblance of a Church in this country which has deluded many till now? in what manner it is slipping more and more from their hands, in proportion as they have clasped it the closer, and clung to it more desperately? Are there not multitudes to be seen upon it, like the crew of a shattered vessel, who have refused timely to escape, that now feel all the insecurity of their position; feel how disjointed, and breaking piecemeal, is the framework they had once thought so solid; and how, with helm abandoned, compass broken, and skill baffled, even it is reeling and drifting, the world's sport, towards a dreary reef, and a waste shore? An establishment of earth's creation has ventured to wrestle with its Maker, and is sinking beneath Him."-Is this a time, when that avowedly Romish organ the "Tablet" says, as it said on the 23rd of last Nov., speaking of that unhappy young man, Lord Fielding-" Men owe no duty to such a thing as the Established Religion, but that of leaving it with every sign of loathing and hatred: tenderness and charity towards individuals are not qualities which a system of imposture ought to call in to act towards itself”—Is this a time, when one calling himself "an English clergyman," dares to print such language as this?-

"For myself, then, I trust I may say, that I fully recognise the Church of Rome as the mother and queen of Churches; that I do not, knowingly, reject any part whatever of her authoritative teaching, or condemn any practice expressly sanctioned by her; that, as far as I am not prevented by positive restriction, I make her system my guide both in public and private; and that I ardently and unceasingly desire to be united to her, not only, as I believe myself to be now united, virtually, but openly and visibly, and to be able to pay in positive acts the homage which I now offer in will and intention. I use Romish books of devotion in preference to others. I recite the Breviary office without mutilation or alteration. I reverence the Saints of the Roman Calendar. I delight in assisting at the celebration of the Divine mysteries after the Roman use. I really am not conscious of a single ecclesiastical taste, or religious aspiration, that does not tend towards Rome, rather than in the opposite direction "."

Is this a time, we again ask, to talk, in a tone of querulous and

The Appeal to Rome. A Letter from an English Clergyman to a Roman Catholic Friend.

whining lament, about restoring "Catholic unity!" to hold up to the scorn of our bitter enemies the "isolation" of the Church of England? Doubtless, she is "isolated," but whose is the guilt of that isolation? Not ours, but theirs, who would impose upon us unscriptural terms of communion, who ignore our existence as a Church, who call us "heretics and schismatics!" Is this a time, then, to subject one, who has so nobly served the Church of England as the Bishop of London, to a charge of "persecution," because he endeavours to restrain his clergy from introducing ritual observances, which, no where ordered by our Prayer Book, may, possibly, once have been Catholic, but are now, beyond all doubt, exclusively Romish? Catholic unity is a good thing; but Scriptural truth and Anglican independence are far better, if they cannot all be had together. We call that man a patriot, who defends his own country in the hour of danger; and so, we say, has the Church of England, in this her hour of difficulty and trial, an exclusive claim upon the love, and gratitude, and allegiance, of all her faithful children. We say, that any priest or layman of the English Church, who, in his yearning after "Catholic unity," forgets the special claims of his own spiritual mother, acts as rashly and as wickedly as he, who, for the sake of a common humanity, should lavish his substance upon strangers, and leave those, whom God has committed to his charge, to starve and perish in the streets. It is idle and weak

"Peace, peace! when there is no peace." It is madness to call upon us to lay down our arms, with the sound of the enemy's trumpet ringing in our ears. It is treachery for us to "labour for peace," while all around shows that they are "making ready for battle." Let us hear one on this point, from whom we differ much, but whose words once had some weight with Mr. Bennett.

"About the future history of our Church," says Dr. Pusey, “I have felt the less anxious, because I felt, as your lordship too feels, and has expressed, that God's good hand was with her. I have never planned any thing, as some have at times planned, nor worked (as some would wish) directly for her reunion with the rest of Christendom, because I always felt that a healthful restoration of unity must be God's doing, in His time and way; to be prayed for, not planned. I have said so to others, who seemed to be impatient for this, and to aim at what was impossible. I have ever hoped that the Church of England, whom God. has, by His providence and in its history, so marvellously distinguished from the Protestant bodies on the Continent, or among the Dissenters, had a special destiny and office in store for her, in His All-merciful designs. And in this great restoration of our Church, when younger men have seemed to me to turn their eyes too narrowly to one portion

of God's work, I have both publicly and privately pointed out what has been so impressed upon myself, how that work embraces every part and action of the Church ".

But there is one other argument, advanced by Mr. Bennett, and those who hold similar views with him, in favour of the " restorative theory," which it is necessary briefly to notice. It is said, "Beware how you oppose the introduction of any antereformation usages; for, in so doing, you are running counter to the practice of some of the most esteemed and saintly divines of our communion." Bishop Andrewes, they say, did this in his private chapel-Archbishop Laud introduced that practice-Bishop Cosin another, and so on, with a host of other names, whom it is very far indeed from our wish to disparage in the smallest possible degree. We have a twofold answer to this position. First, that much as we venerate the private characters of these divines— much as we feel the obligation to them, under which every English Churchman must lie, still we cannot consent to allow that individual practice is to be permitted to weigh, for a moment, against the language and spirit of the English Prayer Book. We think, therefore, that the Bishop of London was perfectly justified in saying to Mr. Bennett, when objecting to that gentleman's attempt publicly to introduce into his parish the system of praying for the dead:-"The authorities which you have adduced in support of the lawfulness of prayers for the dead, have no weight with me, in opposition to the plain and acknowledged judgment of the Church of England" Of course the bishop did not mean to say, as Mr. Bennett insinuates, that he has no respect for the opinions of the divines Mr. Bennett had quoted, considered in the abstract; but simply that, inasmuch as the practice of "praying for the dead" was deliberately, for a good and sufficient reason, repudiated at the Reformation, and at every subsequent revision of our Prayer Book, therefore it is not a practice sanctioned by the English Church. Surely this is perfectly sound reasoning. It is one thing to bring a "catena" of Anglican divines in support of a disputed point of rubrical interpretation, in confirmation of a disputed doctrine; another, and quite a different thing, to set individual opinions up" in opposition to the plain and acknowledged judgment of the Church of England." But we say, moreover, that we have no objection to allow an appeal to the great divines of the seventeenth century, provided that appeal be a fair one; provided Mr. Bennett will carry out their teaching fairly

6 Letter to Bishop of London, p. 254.

7 Farewell Letter, p. 51.