« ПретходнаНастави »
what it comes to after all. To begin with, who commissioned the deputies? To commit the Church of England, it is neces. sary that they should have been synodically empowered to represent and pledge the Anglican body. But whereas the Synod of Dort met in 1618, no Convocation of either province assembled in England between 1614 and 1621 (Joyce : England's Sacred Synods, p. 648), so that there was no proper authority in existence to commission them at setting out, or to receive their report on their return. They went purely as political emissaries of King James I.-a fact which Macaulay, using the event for the same purpose as the Reviewer, indiscreetly discloses by the means he adopts to colour the proceeding more highly, for he says that the deputies were
commissioned by the head of the English Church.'—(Hist. Eng. chap. i.)
Next, what is really needed to make out the case is to show, not that Dutch Protestants admitted English clergymen, whose ministerial character they had no ground for disputing, to vote in their Synod; but that Anglicans allowed Dutch Protestants to sit and vote in Convocation. The 'reciprocity,' so far, “is all on one side,' and that the wrong one for the Reviewer's purpose. The argument, in short, is much as if the Reviewer, endeavouring to prove that no marked social distinctions exist in England, were to cite the presence and share of some ladies and gentlemen of rank at a servants' dance, in proof of the thesis that footmen and housemaids are eligible as guests at a Court ball.
Thirdly, if the English deputies had been there in any true official capacity, they must have discharged a function cognate to that of plenipotentiaries at an international congress, must have exchanged ratifications, and their signatures, like those to a treaty, must have pledged their senders, unless their action were subsequently repudiated at home. But the decrees of the Synod of Dort have never even been suggested or thought to have been received in this country as of authority, and therefore the action of the deputies, whatever it may have effected in Holland, was wholly inoperative so far as England was concerned.
And lastly, the most eminent Englishman there, Joseph Hall, afterwards Bishop of Norwich, became wiser in later life, and published in 1640 his Episcopacie by Divine Right Asserted. Accordingly the presence of Hall, Carleton, Davenant, and Ward at Dort in 1618 proves as much as and no more than the presence and voting of Bishops Harold Browne and Wordsworth, Dean Stanley, Lord Charles Hervey, and several other English ecclesiastics, in the Old Catholic Congress at Cologne in 1872 ; whereas there is definite synodical action in the refusal of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1689 to permit the phrases Protestant Religion and Protestant Church' to be applied to the Church of England in a formal address from the clergy to King William III., and that on the express grounds that Socinians, Anabaptists, and Quakers styled themselves Protestant Churches, and also that the Church of England would suffer diminution in being joined with foreign Protestant Churches.'—(Lathbury, Hist. of Convocation, p. 331.)
It is worth while, in closing this part of the argument, to refute a cavil which may be raised on the ground that the Church of England, while practically securing Apostolical succession, nowhere declares its absolute necessity. The fact is, that only the Oriental Church does make such an express declaration, and that in the Confession of Dositheus, adopted by the Council of Bethlehem in 1672; for even the Tridentine decrees come short of this, and are not so worded as to clearly exclude the other hypothesis, since their most stringent clauses merely condemn those who say that bishops are not superior to priests, that they have not the power of confirming or ordaining, or that the power which they possess is common to them and to priests. But it is nowhere asserted in the decrees that this power might not be communicated to priests by ecclesiastical arrangement, and, as a fact, a simple priest may, by Papal dispensation, act as the minister of confirmation.-(Dens : Theologia. ‘Tract. de Confirmatione,' vii, 2.)
Having established so far the Catholic polity of the Church of England, and shown that her theory has always been the same, even when her practice, owing to the unfaithfulness of her prelates, was most lax, we will now turn to the doctrinal question raised by the Quarterly Reviewer, which he has most conveniently narrowed to the single issue of the Sacrifice of the Mass,' around which,' he alleges, 'the final struggle of the Reformation centred.
We may fitly preface its discussion by a few words on the manner in which he has been good enough tô refer to ourselves, because it serves as a pattern of the controversial method of his school, from which its moral honesty can be readily gauged. He has carefully selected a number of passages, spread over several of our articles, sedulously disjoined from their context, and so emptied of half their meaning, on which he bases a charge of Romanising tendencies against us, while passing over in entire silence all those articles wholly or partially devoted by us to the refutation of the Roman system and claims, so as to leave those of his readers who are not also ours under the impression that nothing of the kind has appeared in our pages. And there is an indiscreet admission at the beginning of his paper, that his motive for writing it at all was that the havoc effected by the recent judgment of the Lord Chief Justice of England in Mr. Mackonochie's case has made the general public suspect, what all experts know, and what his scathing reply to Lord Penzance and the Chief Baron's recent letter to Earl Cairns have further confirmed, that the findings of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in all the recent ecclesiastical causes are of too flimsy material to last much longer, so that unless a new and effective cry can be got up to exasperate the ignorant against the High Church school, the machinations of its enemies are likely to fail.
The particular sentences of our penning which seem to have chiefly excited his wrath, are those in which we stated that the religion of the Breviary and Missal, as distinguished from popular Romanism, 'does not vary very essentially from that of the Book of Common Prayer,' and that it is comparatively pure. We have reason to doubt his possession of the information necessary to express any opinion on the subject, because he says in one place: The Roman Catholic service-book is a Missal. The Mass in it is everything. In the English Common Prayer-Book the service for the administration of the Holy Communion occupies no such prominence. Now this is exactly as if an illiterate Dissenter were to take up one of those portable altar-books issued for the use of officiating ministers by the Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, containing only the Communion Office, Collects, Epistles, and Gospels, and were to describe it as the whole of the Common Prayer. The truth is, that the Missal is only one, and not the largest, out of several volumes, which in their totality make up the Roman Catholic service-book, equivalent to our Prayer-Book, namely the Breviary, Missal, Ritual, Pontifical, Processional, and some minor and merely occasional ones not needful to specify in detail. The Breviary is the bulkiest of these, and is usually in four volumes ; but if a Totum (or one-volume edition), it is far larger than a Missal of similar form and type, having about 1,100 pages compared with 650, as it contains the Psalms, Hymns, Collects, and Lessons for every day in the year, and thus answers to the Morning and Evening Prayer, Psalter, Collects, and Lectionary of the Prayer-Book. The Ritual, or Book of Occasional Offices, such as Baptism, Matrimony, Burial of the Dead, &c., represented by another portion of our Prayer-Book, is a volume of about 300 pages more, if in the same letter; and the Pontifical, or Book of Offices for Bishops, of which the Confirmation Service and the Ordinal are the sole relics in the Common Prayer, takes up three whole volumes, with an aggregate of about 860 pages in a larger type, reducible to half that number by double columns and a smaller letter. Thus, without counting in the minor books, the Missal is in mere bulk less than one-third of the whole-a calculation from which the value of the Reviewer's assertion, whether he knew the facts or not, may be readily assessed. An examination of a small-type Common Prayer-Book yields the following proportions. The whole number of pages is 167. Of these 24 are occupied with the Preface, Kalendar, &c., leaving 143 for all the offices, and of these 45 belong to the Holy Communion and its variable parts—a ratio not very dissimilar to the Roman one.
As to the comparative purity of the Breviary and Missal, and their approximation to Anglican teaching, when contrasted with popular Romanism, which was our contention, it is such a mere commonplace of theology and history, seeing that the Prayer-Book is a condensed and recast translation from these very sources, that nothing could justify its denial by any one acquainted with the truth. For example, the Missal (irrespective, of course, of the services for days of modern institution) is, with but trifling exceptions, what it has been for at least twelve hundred years, and the Breviary proper (i.e. excluding accretions such as the ‘Horæ B.V.M., &c.). is almost entirely made up of Scripture, short biographies of Saints (purged by Pope Pius V. of much legendary matter which used to be there), and lessons out of the more eminent early Christian writers, notably S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Gregory the Great, and Venerable Bede. Of Papal supremacy, Mariolatry, indulgences, imageworship, purgatory in its coarser forms, invocation of Saints, and the like, there is practically nothing in the Missal, and exceedingly little in any save some very recent editions of
1 So Calderwood, in his Altare Damascenum (pp. 612, 613), A.D. 1623, observes that 'from three Romish channels was the English Service raked together ; namely, ist, the Breviary, out of which the Common Prayer was taken. 2ndly. The Ritual, or Book of Rites, out of which the Administration of Sacraments, Burial, Matrimony, and Visitation of the Sick are taken. 3rdly. The Mass-Book, out of which the Consecration of the Lord's Supper, Collects, Gospels, and Epistles are taken.'
VOL. VII.-NO. XIV.
the Breviary, no more, that is, than a conservative revision, such as has been advocated many times within the Latin Church itself, would easily and painlessly remove: whereas nothing short of a wholesale cataclysm could cleanse out the Augean stable of popular Roman cults and devotions.
Before coming directly to the discussion of the second question which the Reviewer has chosen as his battle-ground, we must remind our readers of the emphatic manner in which he insists on the powerful and even dominant influence exercised by Lutheranism, and especially by the Confession of Augsburg, and the Apology for that Confession, on the English Reformation and the authoritative formularies of Anglicanism. We contend that he, following Archbishop Laurence and Archdeacon Hardwick, has overstated the matter, but that is his affair, not ours, after we have once warned our readers of the truth. He tells us expressly, and with iteration, that the Mass is gone in England, and that Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist is of authority here and now.
Very good ; now let us hear what the Confession of Augsburg, the most authoritative formulary of Lutheranism, has to say on this head :-Falsò accusantur ecclesiæ nostræ, quod Missam aboleant, retinetur enim Missa apud nos, et summâ reverentiâ celebratur, servantur et usitatæ ceremoniæ ferè omnes.... Itaque non videntur apud adversarios Missæ majore religione fieri quam apud nos.'
Next, what says the Apology for the Confession of Augsburg? •Initio hoc iterum præfandum est, nos non abolere Missam, sed religiosè retinere ac defendere. Fiunt enim apud nos Missæ singulis Dominicis et aliis festis... et servantur usitatæ ceremoniæ publicæ, ordo lectionum, orationum, vestitus, et alia similia.
Here then are the two witnesses, which have been summoned into court with such a flourish of trumpets, testifying in favour of the defendant and full in the teeth of the prosecution.
It is worthy of remark, too, that whereas the Reviewer lauds the Confession of Augsburg on the ground that its adherence to ancient forms is part of its Protestantism,' and whereas we have just shown that amongst those ancient forms retained by it was the Mass, with most of its ceremonies (as is visible in Sweden to-day, with its ‘High Mass' and · Mass-shirt' or chasuble), yet he charges us with sheer Romanising for holding the mere literary opinion that there is much similarity between the Prayer-Book and the Missal. This charge, by-the-by, illustrates forcibly enough the curious fact