'fei-t/iefiuTUling ef a. ColUge- in Mil Co&i0j\ Anonymous Gift 19^-3 '^ s^^/^/^^'^ *&c^ ^~%^JZ$ yffy CJ)e SLato of Ettualtsm, EXAMINED IN ITS RELATION TO THE IBorb of <*Bo&, TO THE $rimitttoe Cfjurcf), TO THE C&urrf) of <£ngfenti, AND TO THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL €|)um|) in tije ftniteii £tate& BY THE RT. REV. JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D.D., LL.D., BISHOP OF VERMONT. In necessariis unitas; in non necessariis libertas; in omnibus caritas. FOUKTH THOUSAND. NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY HURD AND HOUGHTON, 459 Broome Street. 1867. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by John Henbt Hopkins, Je., M. A., , in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York. To the Rt. Rev. the Bishop of Vermont, Presiding Bishop of the Church in the United States. Rt. Rev. Father: — As the question of Ritualism is exten sively agitating the Church of England, and has already begun to make itself felt in our own Church, it would give us, and many others, pleasure to know your views of the subject in full : espe cially as to whether an increase of Ritualism would be advisable among us, or whether the ordinary average of present parochial practice would best carry forward the great work of the Church in such a country as ours. We are, Rt. Rev. Father, Your obedient servants, and Sons in the Church, MORGAN DIX, J. I. TUCKER, J. FREEMAN YOUNG, P. K. CADY, WM. CROSWELL DOANE, C. W. MORRILL, McW. B. NO YES, ROBT. B. MINTURN, JOS. SANDS, WILLIAM A. CONSTANT, JOHN ABURTUS, JOS. P. PIRSSON, JOHN F. MILLER, CHARLES CONGDON, FRANCIS MANY. To the Rev. Drs. Dix, Tucker, and others of the Clergy and Laity. My dear Brethren and Friends : — I thank you cordi ally for the value which you seem disposed to attach to my views on the vexed subject of Ritualism ; and cheerfully prom ise, under Divine favor, to comply with your request, as soon as I can command the necessary leisure from my official duties. Your faithful servant in Christ, JOHN H. HOPKINS. B uelington, Vebmont, April 5, 1866. Cable of Contents. SfnttoDuction. Necessity of Form and Order in the Public Worship of the Church — What is proposed in tpis Work — Resemblance to Rome no Objection to Ritualism — No personal Inclination toivards Ritualism Pp. i — 5 fit$t Cfjagter. The Divine Model of Ritual in the Tabernacle and Temple — Priestly Vestments — Embroidery — Precious Stones — Incense — Anointing Oil — The Golden Candlestick — Choral Service of the Temple — All this by Divine Command — The Temple resorted to by our Lord when on Earth Pp. 6 — 8 ££conD Cfjagter. Portions of the Mosaic System passed aioay — The rest of that System not abrogated — Our Lord Himself -was the God of Ancient Israel — The Christian Church at first composed of yews only — Difficulty of admitting the Gentiles to an Equality — The Council of Jerusalem did not free Israel from the Ceremonial Laiu — All Jewish Christians zealous of the Laiu — St. Paul and St. James — The Mosaic System not superseded but perfected — The Ordinary Vie'W not in accordance — u viii Table of Contents. f outfl) €fjagter. Continuation of the Reply to Bishop Brovune — The Epistle to the Hebrews — The Old Covenant and the New — The Old Covenant not restricted to the Ancient Ritual — Agar and Sar*h, Mount Sinai and Jerusalem — The Old Covenant, the Moral Lava — °Ihe Ceremonial Lava a Part of the Covenant of Grace, though not yet fully developed — Misapplication of the Covenant of Works by the Jews — This View in Harmony with Article VII. — The Scrip tural position of converted Jews Pp. 23 — 32 jfiftfj €tjagter. Points of Voluntary Conformity to the Mosaic Ritual, on the Part of the Primitive Church — Orientation — Position of the Altar — The Atrium — Gates and Veils — Separation of Sexes — Texts — Altars — Altars not inseparable from the Notion of Animal Sacrifice — The Altar of Incense — Legs — Stone Altars — Candles or Lamps — Incense — Bovjing towards the Altar — Chrism in Confirmation — Vestments — Sticharia and Tunicles — Orarium — Alb — Dalmatic — No Black in the Mosaic Ritual — The Book of Revelation — White — The Reformation not caused by Ritual — Reasonableness of Variety and Beauty in Ritual — Black intro duced by the Preaching Friars Pp. 33 — 48 §>\tfy Cfjagter, Summary of Points of Conformity, be t=me en the Gentile Church and the Mosaic System: 1. Threefold Ministry— 2. Three great Fes tivals— 3. Psalms, Scriptures, and Liturgy — 4. Incense, Chrism, Lights — 5. Priestly Vestments — 6. Sacred Music, Chanting — 7. Magnificence of Church Edifices, Altars, Branches, Flowers, Processions, Consecrations, the Tables of Consanguinity and Affinity, and the Moral Lava — The Jewish System Divine — Points of Difference from Rome: 1. No Pope in Israel — 2. No Saint Worship — 3. No Priestly Celibacy — 4. No Auricular Con fession — 5. No Purgatory — 6. No Monasticism — 7. No adding of New Articles of Faith — Good Things not to be rejected because Table of Contents. ix Rome retains them — This the Principle of the English Reforma tion — The Pope not Antichrist — The Roman Church still a Part of the Holy Catholic Church. . . Pp. 49^-57 ,*f>etoentf) C&ajrtet. The Legal Position of Ritualism in the Church of England — The English Rubric concerning Ornaments — The Second Tear of Ed-ward VI. — The Vestments used at the Consecration of Bishops Hooper and Poynet — Mitre, Cope, and Pastoral Staff — Consecra tion of Archbishop Parker in Scarlet, -with Silk Copes, and singing the Litany — S^ueen Elizabeth favoring Ritual — Jhomas Samp son's Letter to Peter Martyr about Candles, Crucifix, and Vest ments — Puritanical Opposition to the S^ueen — Surplice and Cap — Bishop Andrewes's daily Furniture for the Altar — Bishop Cosin's Notes on the Prayer-Book — His Opinion in favor of Vest ments, Lights, Bo-wings and Crossings, Altars, Albs, Chasubles, Copes — Burleigh's Chapel — Cosin in favor of the Credence and the Mixed Chalice, but not the Anointing of the Sick with Oil — This Anointing approved of, in Obedience to St. James — Legatine and Provincial Constitutions still in force : 1. The Mixed Chalice ordered — 2. No price to be demanded for Chrism, Oil, Baptism, Visiting or Anointing the Sick, Communion, or Burial — List of Matters then in use — None of these Things forbidden — Disused through the influence of Puritanism, but the La The Law of Ritualism. mation are faithfully preached by the clergy, I can see no danger that a solemn, rich, and attractive ritual will ever lead any one to Popery. Is it not more reasonable to believe that the restoration of the old ceremonial, which existed in the second year of Edward the Sixth, would give our Church the advantage which now forms the most allur ing characteristic of Rome ? For what but her superior claim of outward grandeur and impressiveness, operates so powerfully to keep her own votaries steadfast in their alle giance, and to draw so many others into the snare of error ? Has not truth as good a right as falsehood, to be adorned with beauty? And is it to be questioned that religion should favorably affect the senses, in order that.it may bet ter reach the soul ? I say not this because I feel the slightest inclination toward the old Ritual, which was certainly the established rule in the second year of King Edward VI. Personally, I prefer the more simple ceremonial to which I have been accustomed all my life, and men can hardly be expected to adopt new tastes and habits at the age of seventy-five. But I cannot condemn the ordinances which the wisdom of God "appointed for His chosen people. I cannot argue against the Gentile Churches for taking the Church of Israel for their model, because that was the only model which was in truth divine. Whatever my individual taste and habits may be, I owe all my religious allegiance, in this and every other subject connected with the Gospel, to the Written Word of God. And when I see that the Rubric of the English Prayer-Book is in accordance with that Word, substantially enjoining the same principles of "glory and beauty" in the outward ceremonial of the Sanc tuary, my reverence for the Bible compels me to acknowl edge that a splendid and impressive Ritual can neither be hostile to the doctrines of a pure faith, nor unfavorable to the exercise of a spiritual devotion. CigTO Chapter, The Law of Ritual in the Church of America. Having thus endeavored to prove, at least with candid impartiality, that the advocates for the old Ritualism in the Church of England have the Scriptures, the Primitive Church, and their own law upon their side, I come next to the important question, How far are we, an independent branch of the Holy Catholic Church, bound by the same principles ? And here I would first direct the reader to the language of the Preface to our American Book of Common Prayer, where we read that " this Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or worship ; or farther than local cir cumstances require." Whether this word " essential " be understood to mean, essential to the attainment of salvation, or essential to the existence of the Church, or essential to the succession of her ministry, the purity of her faith, the administration of her sacraments, the exercise of her discipline, and the established form of her worship, there can be no question that in any and all of these senses our Church has not departed from the Church of England, but is, in all re spects, substantially the same. But now the important inquiry is presented, namely : — Is the omission of certain other matters in the English system to be understood as a departure from it, in such a sense, that we are no longer at liberty to maintain any thing in 78 The Law of Ritualism. doctrine, discipline, or worship, which, though fully estab lished by law in the Church of England, is not specifically ordered in our own ? Here, undoubtedly, is a question to be settled. For it is certain that our Church does not enjoin or require many things which are enjoined and required in our Mother Church. Are we to suppose that those things, with us, are therefore to be held unlawful ? Or, in other words, do omission and prohibition bear the same meaning ? To maintain that these terms are synonymous, and that omission and prohibition are precisely equivalent, is an absurdity so gross, that I cannot suppose any reasonable man would deliberately adopt such a preposterous proposi tion. Yet there are many in our Church whose attention has never been directed to the subject ; and hence their notions are unavoidably confused and indistinct, needing a plain explanation. In the hope of aiding them to form a clear and just conclusion on this important point, I ask their consideration of the following statements : — It is a well-settled rule, in all our courts of justice, that every part of the Common and Statute Laws of England, which were in force throughout the Colonies, and adapted to their circumstances before the war of Independence (with the single exception of what concerned the rights of the Crown), continued to be the laws of the land, notwith standing the Revolution, and are still obligatory, unless changed and done away by subsequent acts of our own legislation, Of that proposition, there is, and can be, no doubt whatever. This well-known principle supplies the true legal founda tion, on which our American Church can rest securely without danger of mistake. Before the Revolution, the English Prayer-Book was the Prayer-Book of the Colonies, and the Rubric directing the ornaments of the Church and her Ministers to be in accordance with the usage of the second year of Edward Colonial Law continued. 79 VT., was as binding in America as it was in England, though, in both, that Rubric had long been practically dis regarded. All the other rules of the Church of England belonged also to the Colonies, because the Church was the same Church, having the same doctrines, the same forms, the same discipline in every respect, notwithstanding the fact that the Colonial Churches, under the force of circum stances, were not enabled to carry them into full execution, having no 'Bishops, nor organized dioceses, nor Cathedral services. Nevertheless the law was there, and so far as law was concerned, there was no difference. If, then, the laws of England (with the single exception stated), continued to be the laws of the United States after the Revolution, save only so far as they were changed or superseded by actual legislation, much more does the prin ciple apply to the Church of Christ, whose " kingdom is not of this world." For in the Church, there was no Rev olution. The Church in the Colonies did not seek to separate her ministers or members from their Mother ; nor claim her independence by any revolt against the spiritual authority from which she derived her very being. And therefore when she asked for an independent ecclesiastical organization, she did it on the ground of necessity, after England had acknowledged the political independence of the United States, and a treaty of peace had been ratified between their respective governments. The request thus dutifully made was received most graciously. Our Mother Church not only admitted the validity of the plea, but cheerfully granted the application. The Parliament passed a law for the special purpose of consecrating our first three American Bishops ; and thus, with magnanimous kindness and true Christian sympathy, they enabled us to commence our new career. Having now become an independent Church, we ac quired, of course, the power to legislate for ourselves, as completely as the United States possessed authority to 80 The Law of Ritualism. make their laws, and alter them at pleasure. And as the law of England before the Revolution continued to be the law of the United States after the Revolution, until it was done away by the exercise of this independent power, even so the law of the Church of England continues to be our law to this day, so far as it has not been superseded by positive ecclesiastical legislation. For, as we have seen in the quotation from Dr. Lushing- ton himself,1 " No statute can be affected by non-usage" It needs the authority of the legislature itself to alter what the legislature has established. No other power but that which creates, can destroy the law. The omission to legis late cannot alter the law. The neglect to obey it cannot alter the law. The creation of a prejudice against it can not alter the law. In a word, no law can be deprived of its binding obligation, until some other law is passed which, of necessity, does it away. All this is so manifest to the slightest reflection, that I should be ashamed to set it forth in such detail, if the very common misconceptions of many amongst my most highly esteemed brethren did not seem to render the explanation necessary. The application of the principle to our actual position, however, may help to clear the truth of the case from the possibility of misconception. 1. Our Church in the United States, by virtue of the Act of Parliament which authorized the consecration of our first three Bishops without the acknowledgment of any relation to the civil power, is perfectly free from all those parts of the English law wherein the secular government was directly concerned ; while all that belonged 'to the doctrines, disci pline, and worship of the Church herself considered as a spiritual society, remained in force, until a change should be made by our own independent legislation. This is the fundamental legal principle. And in accordance with it, 1 Perry, p. 78. Omission is not Prohibition. 81 we have re-arranged our Liturgy, our Offices, and Ar ticles, agreeing in the main with the standard Book of our Mother Church ; in all of which, of course, our own law is alone obligatory. 2. We have omitted the Athanasian Creed from its place in our former English Liturgy, because some persons ob jected to the damnatory clause, which saith, that this is the Catholic Faith, " which Faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish ever lastingly." But our Church has nowhere prohibited the doctrine, nor passed any censure on our Mother Church for maintaining it. While it is true, therefore, that this Creed cannot be lawfully introduced into the public Lit urgy, which is fixed by our legislative authority, yet it.is no less true that every clergyman is at liberty to preach it, precisely as it stands in the English book, if he thinks it advisable. And were he inclined to enforce the damnatory clause itself from the pulpit, although very few, even amongst our English brethren, would praise his discretion, still it is most certain that our Church has set forth nothing that would justify any formal sentence of rebuke or con demnation. 3. Our American standards have laid down no law for the vestments of the deacon or the priest, but our Church has simply continued her practice under the law of our venerated Mother which expressly enjoins the use of the surplice. This law we have never changed, and therefore it is still, and doubtless ever will be, binding : for it has its derivation from the Primitive Church, which adopted it from the divine law of Israel. The Church of England has never given any legal authority to the black gown, as the proper habit of the preacher. But she has suffered it, ever since the Pope of Rome brought in the fashion -by authorizing the Black Friars {Fratres Predicatores) to preach wherever they pleased, throughout Europe. This sufferance was con- 82 The Law of Ritualism. tinued, and our Church received the practice from her venerable Mother, both remaining in the same position to the present day, while very few, in either of the Churches, seem to remember that this dress, — supposed to be especiaUy evangelical, because it was favored by our Lutheran and Presbyterian brethren, — had its real origin from the Monks, and from the. Papacy, long before the Reformation. There are many, however, who plead in its behalf the authority of custom ; not being aware, I presume, that no custom has the force of law, unless it be so old, that, in accordance with the legal phraseology, " the memory of man runneth not to the contrary."1 Strictly speaking, therefore, this matter has no right to be called custom, in the sense of legality. For we know its beginning from the Monks and the Pope, and hence this common apology has no true foundation. 4. Our Church has set forth no rule for the vestments of her Bishops, save that the Ordinal mentions the rochet. The only law which includes the whole is the law of our Mother Church, referring to the second year of Edward VL, and that law is as binding on us as it is on them, until we think fit to make another. The present fashion, in both the Churches, is the same, but it is absolutely desti tute of any legal warrant. It cannot claim authority from cUslom, for the reason already assigned. We know, from the historical account of Archbishop Parker's consecration, that this fashion was not introduced in the reign of Eliza beth. When it came in, or by whose agency, I doubt whether any man can tell. Most probably it was brought about by the influence of Puritanism, in the dangerous spirit of compromise with those zealous antagonists of the Church system; who, however, as experience has fully proved, were never conciliated, but still continue to declaim against our supposed leaning towards Popery, as persist ently as ever. 1 Blackstone, Vol. I. p. 67. The Choral Service legal. 83 Many years ago, I took the liberty to improve my own vestments by adopting the forms of the alb and the surplice, which are appointed by the law of the Church ; as also by laying aside the bands, and the black gown, in the service of the Sanctuary. This, however, so far as I know, was attributed, not to any reverence for ecclesiastical consist ency, but rather to an affectation of singularity. But the time may come when the question will demand attention ; and, then, if I am not much mistaken, a far more extensive change will be adopted by my respected brethren, not only in form, but in color also. Men may endeavor to make light of these matters, as being things of indifference. But nothing should be esteemed of indifference which stands connected with religious worship. And no Christian who reveres the Bible will undervalue the subject of ministerial costume, when he remembers that it was thought worthy of being specially regulated by the God of Israel. 5. Another instance where the law of our Mother Church is followed, presents itself in the chanting of the Psalms, the Responses, &c, although our Prayer-Book does not express the alternative " said or sung " as in the Church of England, but only prescribes that they shall be " said ; " the words " or sung " being omitted. Yet this does not prevent our chanting them, nor does it hinder us from singing them as anthems, according to the established prac tice in the English Cathedrals. For our Church has used no terms of prohibition. She directs that they shall be " said," and the words may certainly be said, i. e., pro nounced audibly, whether with music or without it. But she has never decreed that they shall not be sung. And therefore singing them is no violation of the law ; thus proving again that omission and prohibition are matters which are perfectly distinct, and never to be confounded with each other. 6. It may next be observed that nothing is said, in our 84 The Law of Ritualism. American standards, to authorize Cathedrals, crosses, cre dences, episcopal chairs, altar cloths, &c. Neither have we set forth any declaration approving Deans and Chapters, Archdeacons, Metropolitans or Archbishops. But on the other hand, nothing is said against them. They are all found in the records of the Primitive Church. They are all found in the Mother Church of England. And we have proclaimed to the whole Christian world, in the Preface to oui" Book of Common Prayer, that our Church did not intend " to depart from the Church of England any farther than local circumstances require." Whenever, therefore, local circumstances do not require any departure from the established laws of the Church of England, have we not here virtually pledged ourselves to comply with them? And as we have enacted no laws of our own in any of these matters, how can we be charged with a violation of law if we choose to introduce them ? 7. The same liberty exists with regard to lights upon or behind the Altar, the use of chrism and incense, the mixing of water with the wine of the Holy Eucharist, and the repre sentation of figures and emblems in stained glass windows ; for all of these were established by usage in the second year of Edward VL, and our Church has uttered no pro hibition concerning any of them, but has merely omitted to notice them, directly or indirectly, in her whole legislation. It is certain that none of these things interfere with our Liturgy, because they may be used without deviating, in the slightest degree, from our prescribed forms. And the plain result would seem to be that their introduction, whether expedient or not, can never be justly considered unlawful. Such, in my humble opinion, is the fair view which ought to be received, on the legal aspect of the question. The last point to be considered is the very serious inquiry presented by my respected brethren, namely, " Whether an increase Expediency. 85 of Ritualism would be advisable among us ; or whether the ordinary average of present parochial practice would best carry forward the great work of the Church in such a country as ours." And to this I shall devote my next and concluding chapter. &inty Chapter* Expediency of Mutual Toleration. I have stated, at large, my reasons for believing that the divine law, which it pleased the Lord to bind upon His favored chosen people, has never been repealed : though the sacrifices ceased, being types of the Atonement accom plished by the death of our glorious Redeemer, and the priesthood passed from Aaron's sons to the Apostles, and baptism in the sacred name of the Trinity and the Sacra ment of the Holy Eucharist were instituted by our Great High Priest ; all of which were not to be understood as an abrogation of the law, but rather as a further development of the sublime plan for its designed perfection, in accord ance with the declaration of the Saviour Himself, that He " came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill." I have also shown that while the Gentile portion of the Church was pronounced to be free from the ceremonial law of Israel, by the Council of the Apostles, under the guid ance of the Holy Spirit at Jerusalem, yet they adopted, as the only divine model, the principal features of the Mosaic system in their external order : the great principle of faith in Christ, with all its attendant graces, being of course, in both branches of the Church, precisely the same. This being understood, we see, under the administration of the inspired Apostles, two classes in the one undivided Church — the Jewish converts, who practised circumcision. and " walked orderly, and kept the ceremonial law ; " and the Gentile converts, who were free, and only borrowed Two Parties in the Church. 87 from that law such parts as they deemed to be best adapted to edification. In the essential principles of sav ing faith these two classes were perfectly united. They worshiped together. They lived together as friends and brethren, in mutual love and harmony, each respecting the distinctive position of the other with regard to the Mosaic system, while all maintained that the only requisites essential to salvation consisted in " repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." Here, therefore, as it seems to me, we have a plain guide in the question of expediency, with regard to the present controversy about Ritualism. For it proves that there may be, with the approval of the Holy Spirit, different classes in the same Church of Christ ; even as there were in the far less comprehensive Church of Israel. That it must be so, to some extent, seems, indeed, inevitable. Our own Church has had, since the era of the Reformation, two parties, more distinct in feeling, and sometimes, unhappily, more bitter in hostility, than the Jews and the Gentiles in Jerusalem and Antioch. The Church of England suffered grievously from their dissensions, in the time of Elizabeth. Their opposite partialities were in exercise even in the days of Edward VL, when that good man, Hooper, chose to be suspended from preaching for nine months, before he would consent to be consecrated, as Bishop, with the vest ments used in the Church of Rome. The Puritanical element reached its height in the reign of the unfortunate Charles I., when Archbishop Laud and the King himself were doomed to the scaffold, and the Liturgy and the Epis copate seemed to be banished from the land. And al though, in the good providence of God, the Church re tained the love both of her priests and her people, and was restored to honor under Charles IL, yet the leaven has re mained, which is always at work to prevent her perfect unity, and she continues to be more or less divided by party- Bpirit, to this day. 88 The Law of Ritualism. The origin of this difference is well known to all who are familiar with the history of the Reformation in . the six teenth century. That great movement began in Germany, under the celebrated Luther, in A. D., 1517, and he was quickly followed by Calvin and Zuinglius, while Henry VIII. was still a zealous partisan of Popery. All of these reformers were compelled, by necessity, to proceed without the Apostolic system of Episcopal government, because they had no Bishops in their party. Deprived of that re straining authority, they went to the extremes which usually attend a popular revolution, and discarded every thing which they saw in the Church of Rome, as a mark of Anti christ. Happily, however, they retained their reverence for the Bible, although they could not see why the pre cepts, which God Himself had laid down for the Church of Israel, should be accepted as a pattern for the Church of Christ. Yet their doctrines concerning the faith were, for the most part, thoroughly agreeable to the Scriptures. Their writings were admirable for their piety and learning, and were spread abroad in England, with great success. And the whole work of the Reformation, notwithstanding the quarrel between Henry and the Pope, remained in their hands, until the accession of Edward VL, in 1547 ; — full thirty years having thus elapsed from the beginning of Luther's labors, before the real commencement of the English Reformation. Calvin, at Geneva, was then at the zenith of his fame ; and his great work, the " Institutes of the Christian Religion," was the favorite text-book with the vast majority of those who longed for a deliverance from the tyranny and corruption of the Papal system. And that majority irere naturally led to take his society at Geneva as the best pattern of what the Church of Christ should be, and to submit, with entire confidence, to his dictation. But the leading English Reformers were men of a dif. ferent stamp, and performed their arduous task with a wiser and more discriminating spirit. Cranmer and Ridley Evils from the Want of Bishops. 89 were Bishops, under no temptation to set aside the prin ciples of Apostolic law and order. Their marvellous young king had too much respect for his father's memory to rush into extremes, and his counsellors had no desire to differ from the Church of Rome, except in those grave points of doctrine, government and worship wherein she differed from the Primitive Church, and from the Bible. While they felt all due regard for the work of Luther and Cal vin, they cherished a deeper reverence for the voice of Christian antiquity ; and therefore, in the Word of God, interpreted by the Fathers, they sought and found that true system, which they might have looked for at Geneva in vain. It would be unjust, however, to Luther and Melancthon, and even to Calvin himself, if we were to charge them with any positive hostility to Episcopal Government, or to a Scriptural and pure Liturgy. On the contrary, they would willingly have retained them, if they could. Their error consisted in omitting to state their convictions on those points in their public confessions, with such clearness as should have established a standing rule for their respective adherents. The plea of necessity might well have been admitted under their peculiar circumstances ; but it should have been plainly expressed, and accompanied with a dis tinct proviso that the want of Episcopal Government should be supplied as soon as Providence might put it in their power ; and their Liturgy should have been made obligatory on their ministers instead of leaving the use of it to every man's discretion. Unhappily, however, they chose to present their respective systems as sufficiently complete ; and the consequence was what might have been expected. Their followers were led to believe that Church Govern ment might be lawfully put into any form which human expediency chose to dictate, so that it was clear of Popery ; that Episcopacy was neither obligatory nor desirable ; and that the extemporaneous mode of worship was prefer- 90 The Law of Ritualism. able to a Liturgy, through its encouragement to zeal, and its freedom from formality. And the result has been that the faith of the Gospel lost all its ancient guards against innovation. The irruption of heresy, schism, neology, rationalism, pantheism, and infidelity, has devastated the heritage of Luther and Calvin to a fearful extent ; while the Church of England has preserved her integrity and orthodoxy without any serious inroad to the present day, and now exerts a more extended and salutary influence than ever. These consequences were not foreseen in the sixteenth century. If they had been, the German, Swiss, and French Reformers would doubtless have taken better care of the principles so essential to conservatism. But the two classes of English theologians who were then found to differ so widely in their ecclesiastical views, have come down to our own times ; and still continue to differ, under the modern phrases of High Church and Low Church, the first being strongly attached to the primitive forms of government and worship, and the second being disposed to favor the license adopted by the Calvinistic school. These two parties, as is well known, sometimes talk very hardly of each other. But the Church embraces them both ; for, after all their occasional strifes and contentions, they are held together by the strong bonds of Apostolic system, agreeing, substantially, in the great doctrines of saving faith, and maintaining the authority of the Prayer-Book ; while men of unquestionable zeal, learning, and piety may be found on either side, equally conscientious and sincere, and quite convinced that their views are in perfect accord ance with the Bible. As an humble member and office-bearer in the House of God, I have avoided the names of party, content with being a consistent Churchman, disposed to regard my brethren, whether High or Low, with true fraternal cordial ity, but always ready to defend what I believed to be the The Spirit of Puritanism. 91 truth, without fear, favor or affection, whether popular or unpopular, so that I had the testimony of my own con science, and the warrant of the unerring guide in the Word of my Divine Master. ' For I hold it to be impossible, under the inevitable con ditions of human infirmity, that all men should think alike, even in the best and purest Church existing. True, in deed, it is, that the great Apostle of the Gentiles con demned divisions. " I beseech you, brethren," saith he to the Corinthians,1 " by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." And yet he saith to the Romans,2 " Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things : another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not ; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth : for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up : for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another : another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind Let us, therefore, follow after the things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another." Here we have, from St. Paul himself, the true principle of Christian toleration in lesser things, so long as the essen tial faith of the Gospel, and the established laws of Church order, are not invaded. If indulgence in minor differences were thus allowed, even under the rule of an inspired Apostle, how much more must they be allowed in these days of religious diversity ? Do we not all condemn the Puritan spirit which quarreled with our Mother Church about caps and surplices, and altars and crosses, as bearing, • 1 Cor. i. 10. 2 Rom. xiv. 1-5, 19. 92 The Law of Ritualism. in their opinion, too close an affinity with Popery ? And shall we imitate their course by quarreling with our breth ren about their vestments, or their lights, or their incense, or their music, or their reverential bowings at the altar, merely for the same Puritanical reason, namely, that they have too close a resemblance to the Church of Rome? Above all, shall we presume to condemn any thing belong ing to the worship of God, which He commanded in the Church of Israel, and which the Primitive Church of the Gentiles retained ? Must we quarrel with our Bible, cen sure the wisdom of the Almighty, and blame the very martyrs who died for the faith, because the Church of Rome and the Oriental Churches conduct some parts of their ceremonial worship on the same principle ? Surely, then, if ever there was a case of difference in lesser things which called for kindly toleration, the claim of liberty fbr our brethren who desire to restore the ancient Ritual would seem to have the strongest right of allowance. And this is the extent to which I should be willing to go, on the point of expediency. I have shown, at large, my reasons for believing, as I certainly do believe, that they have the law of the Church on their side. But if I had the power, I would not seek to enforce that law, after it has been so long disused, — disused, indeed, until neither our ministers nor our people, for the most part, have any knowledge of its history or meaning. I regard the object of the Ritualists as legally defensible, and have sustained it accordingly. At this day, however, it must be considered an experiment, which I am quite willing to have fairly tried, but on whose beneficial results, upon the whole, I do not feel qualified to pronounce any positive judgment. If our Church consisted of Christian Israelites, I have already shown my reasons for maintaining that the old ceremonial law was still in force, and therefore, as Israel ites, we should be bound by it, as we know that the Holy Apostles and the first Church in Jerusalem considered themselves to be. The Ritualists legally right. 93 But we are a Church of Gentiles, and the same Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that the Gentiles were free. We acknowledge ourselves bound, therefore, only by what those Apostles instituted. We take the testimony of the old Fathers, who lived nearest to their time, as the best evidence next after the Scriptures, of what those inspired master-builders of the Church approved. Yet it may be reasonably said that this evidence, on the details of Rit ualism, is not always sufficiently precise; and that much of it is not sufficienly early to supply the lack of proof in the New Testament, so as to remove all doubt, and reduce the question to absolute certainty. And therefore, although I deem that the testimony of the Fathers is a fair warrant fbr a verdict in favor of the Ritualists, and that the rubric referring to the second year of Edward VI. is yet more authoritative in its character, I could not recommend any legislation which should infringe on the liberty which our Church has so long enjoyed ; nor would I disturb the peace of those who might be alarmed, and perhaps alienated, by any Conventional act that would appear to them, however erroneously, to favor Romanism. Yet, on the other hand, I should not advocate any authoritative interference with those who desired to con form, in this matter of Ritualism, to the ancient standard. They do not propose to add or diminish, with respect to the doctrines or the' Liturgy of the Church. They only desire to present her solemn service in the manner that prevailed in the early years of the Reformation; and this, in my opinion, they have a legal right to do. In England, they have found that many congregations have zealously sus tained them. Nor can I doubt that many will sustain them amongst ourselves. It would probably become, therefore, only a more marked distinction between parties which al- readyexist ; and as the Church has included these parties from the beginning of her history, I do not perceive that any danger would be incurred by allowing them to ap- 94 The Law of Ritualism. appear in a more decided form. Unity in the same faith, the same government, and the same Liturgy, need not, and, as it seems to me could not, be unfavorably affected by a richer ministerial dress, by two lights burning on the altar, by burning a little frankincense, or by a greater manifes tation of outward reverence. And if these things are found to be attractive to many, and operate beneficially in bring ing them to the House of God, and enabling them to take a pleasure in the forms of religion, why should not the Church most willingly allow instead of trying to repress them? Time will decide, and nothing but time can decide, the question, " whether an increase of Ritualism is advisable, or whether the present average of parochial practice is best fitted to carry on the work of the Church, in such a country as ours." I doubt whether any man can estimate, with sufficient accuracy, the various elements which belong to such a subject, so as to form anything like a positive opin ion. Success, after all, must be the ultimate standard. And that can only be determined by time, after a fair trial. I am willing, however, to state my impressions, and the reader may take them for what they may be worth, accord ing to his own judgment. I incline, then, to regard it as most probable that this Ritualism will grow into favor, by degrees, until it becomes the prevailing system. The old, the fixed, and the fearful will resist it. But the young, the ardent, and the impressible will follow it more and more. The spirit of the age will favor it, because it is an age of excitement and sensation. The lovers of* " glory and of beauty " will favor it, because it appeals with far more effect to the natural tastes and feelings of humanity. The rising generation of the clergy will favor it, because it adds so much to the solemn character of their Office, arid the interest of their service in the House of God. And the opposition arising from its resemblance to Romanism will Ritualism is not Popery. 95 die away, as men learn to understand that Popery does not consist in the Ritualism which it pleased the Lord to order for His own chosen people ; but in Papal and priestly des potism, in false doctrine, in the worship of the Virgin and the Saints, in Purgatory and Indulgences, in Transubstantia tion and pretended miracles, in persecution and intolerance, and in all the other perilous corruptions which are in direct conflict with the unerring Word of God. These, and not matters of mere Ritual, are properly Romanism. And these, and only these, called for the work of Reformation. Conclusion. Probable Increase of Ritualism. In conclusion, I would only say, that my approval of Ritualism begins and ends with the Bible. There I find the celestial guidance which, rightly interpreted, can lead no man astray. And when I read the system of divine worship prescribed by the Lord Himself for His chosen people, and see that He commanded the incense, and the holy anointing oil, and the seven-branched light, and the ministerial garments of " glory and beauty," for His minis ters, how shall I doubt that these things must always be acceptable in His sight, when they stand connected with that Tpure faith which is the only animating spirit of devo tion? I reverence the Apostles, when I read that they held the law of the Almighty to be not abrogated, but fulfilled, ex tended, and still binding upon those to whom it was given — the chosen Israel. I reverence the decree of the Holy Spirit, which, with kind indulgence, left the Gentiles free. I reverence the Primitive Church of those Gentiles, who, being free, piously and justly took their pattern from the divine system of the Old Testament. I reverence7 my Mother Church, when I behold her law preserving the main features of the original model, and directing her blessed Reformation solely against those gross corruptions which needed to be reformed. But all this reverence refers to the only sure foundation of Christian faith and practice — the Word of God, which " maketh wise unto salvation." Anti-Ritualism is Quakerism. 97 And I venerate our Church above all the Churches of the world, precisely because she is, so strongly and preemi nently, the Church of the Bible, and is grafted surely upon the stock of Israel. Yet, while on strictly Scriptural grounds I approve this Ritualism, I do it as a matter of external order, in nowise essential to our acceptance with Christ. " By grace ye are saved through Faith," said the Apostle, " and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." If the ceremonial law were essential to salvation, the Gentiles could not have been declared free. The heart must be changed and sanc tified by the Holy Spirit, or outward forms can profit us nothing. For forms are but the Body of religion. The living, loving, animating Faith in the glorious Redeemer is its Soul. I have no fear, however, that the advocates of Ritualism are in any danger of forgetting this fundamental principle of the Gospel. Nor can I comprehend the notion that the use of solemn, beautiful and impressive forms must be hos tile to the spirit of Christian devotion. This Puritanical discovery was brought to full-blown perfection by George Fox, the favorite apostle of the Friends, or Quakers, who dismissed all the forms with which the wisdom of the Most High had invested religion, and set the women to preaching in the face of Scripture, and finally succeeded in making his followers, after their own fashion, the most formal sect in the world, — formal in dress, fbrmal in speech, formal in every thing which the Lord had left free, and only enemies to forms where He had expressly commanded them. But success was impossible in a scheme which stood in such manifest opposition to the Word of God, and the laws which He had given to humanity. The pure morals, the love of peace, the strict discipline, the quiet zeal, and the active benevolence of the Quakers, have always won for them a high degree of estimation. Yet the whole of these, admir- 98 Restoration of Ritual. able as they were, could not secure a lasting, much less a growing, influence. They have gradually diminished, until comparatively few remain, even in the city of William Penn, once the stronghold of their society. And thousands of their descendants have found in the Church that true sys tem where the worship of God is conformed to the nature of man, and the spirit and the form of religion are united together. Enough has been written, however, and perhaps more than enough, to be a satisfactory answer to the application of my respected brethren. I have only to state in conclu sion, that I am an advocate for Ritualism, so far as it is fairly warranted by the Bible and the law of the Church, and can make its way with the free choice of Ministers and people. It is not likely that I shall bear any active part in it, as my age is too advanced for my habits to be changed. But I have little doubt that my children will behold the " glory and the beauty " of our public worship brought back to the first stage in the Reformation, in accordance with the rule which has never been formally renounced, and still remains in the rubric of the English Prayer-Book. And I trust that the work, conducted as it should be, in the spirit of a pure and living Faith, and with the Christian grace of peace and charity, will add attractiveness to the cause of truth, and increase the influence of the glorious Gospel. THE END. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 01267 6863 --..