I E) RARY OF THE U N IVLRSITY or ILLINOIS CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE AKCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY AND THE REV. FRANCIS H. MURRAY, WITH REFERENCE TO THE FORMATION OF A DISTRICT CHURCH OF THE ANNUNCIATION, CHISLEHURST. BROMLEY, KENT. PRINTED BY EDWARD STRONG, U, MARKET SQUARE. 1875. Addington Park^ Croydon. Felruary 16 th, 1875. My Dear Mr. Murray, I have given my best attention to the subject which you have brought before me and considered the two Memorials_, one addressed to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the other to myself on the subject of your proposal, that the Ecclesiastical Commission should assign a District to the Church commonly called the Church of the Annunciation at Chislehurst. I have intimated to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that I some time ago gave my provisional assent to the formation of such a district, on the condition that c^3000 was contributed for its Endowment : and in my comnumi" cations with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I have not found that any legal objection has been alleged to the formation of the district. Looking to the probability of the population of Chisle- hurst rapidly increasing, I think it is the duty of the Com- missioners and myself not to refuse such a sum as .3^3000 when it is offered to the Church without some very strong reason. I am glad to find that one of the causes of dissatis- faction expressed by those who oppose the permanent formation of a district, will be removed by your willing- ness to hand over the Patronage to the Council of Keble College, Oxford, an important public body as likely as any other, that could be named, faithfully to fulfil the trust which it is proposed to rest in them. As to the presenta- tion for the first turn, it is only fair and right that it should be left to you, as Incumbent of the Mother Parish, seeing that it is your duty at present to nominate from time to time the person who is to minister in this Church while it continues a Chapel of Ease. I regret that there should be any feeling in the minds of those who have memorialized the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners against the proposed District as to your unfit- ness to exercise such Patronage. My attention has been directed to a correspondence which took place between you and Archbishop Longley some seven years ago on the subject of a Book circulated with your sanction in your Parish. I understand you to have disapproved of some of the statements contained in that book when your attention was drawn to them. I am quite aware that your opinions on the subject of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper differ materially from those held and maintained both by myself and my predecessor ; but this important subject is one on which very great differences of opinion have ever existed amongst divines of note, whose attachment to the Church of England has never been questioned : and I have no reason to suppose that your opinions on this matter go beyond the limits which the law, as interpreted by the Highest Court of Appeal, has laid down as admissible within our Church, I need scarcely urge on you the importance of guard- ing those who act under your authority against such exag- gerations^ either by preaching, or by the ceremonial which they adopt in worship, as likely to lead persons who attend your Church, to suppose that a doctrine, repudiated by the Church of England, is inculcated, and that the barriers are overstepped which have ever separated the Reformed Church of England from the errors of the Church of Rome. I feel assured, from our conversation, that it is by no means your wish to revive in either of your Churches what is commonly called the Doctrine of the Mass, or to encourage your people to such an adoration of the Sacra- mental Bread and Wine as has been declared by our Church to be " Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians.^^ Believe me to be. Ever yours truly, Rev. F. Murray. A. C. CANTUAR. Rectory, Chislehurst, March 4th, 1875. My Lord Archbishop, I beg to acknowledge and to thank your Grace for your letter giving your formal sanction to the formation of the District to be attached to the Church of the A.nnunciation ; conditionally upon the sum of ^3000 being raised towards the Endowment^ and also stating your approval of the patronage being vested in the Council of Keble College. In replying to your Grace^s letter, I am obliged in the first place to allude to two passages in the Memorial which has been presented to you by 34 gentlemen in opposition to that scheme, and also reflecting upon myself. I may say that two of them do not live in this Ecclesiastical District; six are members of the Wesleyan body, and twenty are members of the congregation of Christ Church. It is therein stated " Doctrines, Teaching, and Practices, some of which were brought to the notice, &c.^^ The ex- pression, " some of which " applies to all three of the pre- ceding words j yet in his reply Archbishop Longley said, '^ no particulars are specified in w^hich the present Ritual in Chislehurst Church is at variance with the law and order of the Church of England.^^ This statement also occurs at the close, " when he characterized Mr. Murray^s teaching, &c.^^ Words should be accurately quoted when they contain a grave charge. The late Arch- bishop did not characterize my teaching in those words. That sentence refers to a manual which was brought before him. Your Grace noticed this point when you spoke to me. I am quite aware of the responsibility of giving any book ; but it would not be contended that any one so doing is responsible for every sentence and expres- sion contained in it. When I received a copy of the reply of the late Arch- bishop I felt deeply that it altogether misrepresented my own views and those of the author of the manual, because it interpreted in a natural sense words applied to the Real Presence, and also argued very justly against any repetition of the Sacrifice of Christ. Neither I nor the author of that manual could have entertained or entertain either of those views for a moment. I stated this privately to Archbishop Longley, and I could have given a full reply to his answer to the Memori- alists, but it did not become me either then or now to enter into any controversy with my Bishop ;J^was obliged to let the matter rest, though I was exposed thereby to much misrepresentation at the time and since. Duty led me to be silent rather than publicly con- trovert the letter of Archbishop Longley. As this matter has been revived, I may be permitted to clear myself before your Grace and my parishioners bv making the following statement. I do so partly in reference to some paragraphs of your Grace^s letter to me, and for other o;eneral reasons. 1. I repudiate the opinion of any " corporal presence of Chi'ist's natural Flesh and Blood" — i.e., of the presence of his Body and Blood as they ''are in Heaven" — and the conception of the mode of His Presence, which implies the physical change of the natiu-al substances of the Bread and "Wine commonly called '' Transubstantiation," and which I entirely believe "over- throwetli the nature of a Sacrament." 2. I believe that in the Holy Eucharist by -virtue of the words and acts of Christ, through the power of the Holy Ghost, the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, " the in- ward part or thing signified," are Present really and truly, but spiritually and ineffably ; and " verily and indeed taken and re- ceived" under " the outward and visible sign" or " form of Bread and Wme," 3. I rej)udiate the notion of any fresh sacrifice, or any view of the Eucharistic Sacrificial Offering as of something 8 apart from the one all-sufficient Sacrifice and Oblation on tlie Cross, Which alone '* is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world both original and actual," and Which alone is " meritorious." I understand and fully accept the 31st Article as insisting on the absolute sufficiency and propitiatory power of the one great Sacrifice, and as condemning the popular heretical notion of there being any fresh offering of Christ in each Eucharist, or any new or repeated Sacrifice, instead of the application, plead- ing, memorializing, of the One and only true Sacrifice. 4. I believe that, as in Heaven Christ, our Great High Priest, ever offers Himself before the Father, "■ appearing in the presence of God for us," pleading by His Presence His Sacrifice of Himself once offered on the Cross ; so on earth in the Holy Eucharist, that same Body once for all sacrificed for us, and that same Blood once for all shed for us, Sacramentally pre- sent, are offered and pleaded before the Father as our Lord ordained to l)e "■ done" in remembrance of Himself. " Do this as the memorial of me." Tlds is the Paschal oblation which ye must henceforth ''sacrifice" "celebrate" ''offer "or ''do." 5. T repudiate (as the Rubric) all " adoration unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine" which would be " idolatry," but regard them with the reverence due to them because of their sacramental relation to the Body and Blood of our Lord. I repudiate also (as the Rubric) all " adoration" " unto a corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood as " they are in Heaven." I have repeatedly said in the Church that I could not con- ceive any one adoring the elements. I adopt the words of Bp. Andrews in his reply to Cardinal Bellarmine " we too with Ambrose adore the Flesh of Christ in the mysteries, yet do we not adore It but Him who is wor- shipped"; and, '* nor do we eat the Flesh without fii-st adoring, in which we agree with A^ugustine, yet nevertheless in no wise do we worship the Sacrament." 6 With reference to the use of the word " Sacrifice" and ''Altar," the same great Bishop in his Sermon on ''the worshipping of imaginations" has these words, " as the Church of Eome hath her " imaginations" so we want not ours ; for many among us fancy only a " Sacrament" in this action, and look strange at the remembrance of a " Sacrifice" ; whereas the ancient ^vliters use no less the word " Sacrifice" than " Sacra- ment," '-'Altar" than "table," "offer" than " eat," but both indifferently to show there is both. 7. In conclusion, with regard to the general charge revived against me I may be permitted to refer to a declaration which, for the satisfaction of my own conscience, I tendered to your Grace at Addington, being ready to have made it had your Grace so desii-ed or required it. "I hereby solemnly declare in the presence of your Grace as my Bishop and before God, that I have never to my knowledge or intention in any way either taught, practised, or permitted anything which has in reality the character of distinctively Eoman doctrine or practice, and that it is not in the least degree, God hel23ing me, my desire, purpose or intention in any way to do so ; on the contrary it is necessa- rily my bounden duty to the Church, as well as my o^vn con- viction, while holding what I believe to be the truth as taught or permitted A\dthin the just limits of the Clmrch of England, to guard persons against such errors as far as lies in my power. I make this declaration as also the full desire and purpose and act of the Curates of the parish. So help me God." Your Grace was pleased to say that you did not at all require this from me. I regret the length of this letter but the necessity has been entailed upon me in consequence of the wide circula- tion, as I believe, of the paper containing certain charges. 10 The most dutiful way for me to reply to them is by this communication which I desire humbly to lay before your Grace as my Bishop. I remain your Grace's faithful Servant, FRANCIS H. MURRAY. Lambeth Palace, S.E., March Sth, 1875. My Dear Mr. Murray, I have received your letter of the 4th inst. I am quite willing that you should print my last letter to you, together with your answer to it, dated the 4th inst. Believe me, Yours truly, A. C. CANTUAR. H. >^^ 'm^^i