~ -Jji r^PC'7 *5$ l 1 Brf jA- ft y^EyW"' ** trr *^^B VyL^Mr mg/dSt ^sTISE A PRIMARY CHARGE. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/primarychargedelOOchur / TO THE CLERGY OF THE UNITED DIOCESES DUBLIN AND GLANDELAGH, AND KILDABE; AND, WITH SOME OMISSIONS, TO THE CLERGY OF THE PROVINCES OF DUBLIN AND CASHEL, AT THE TRIENNIAL VISITATION, SEPTEMBER and OCTOBER, 1865. BY RICHARD CHENEVIX, ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN, BISHOP OF GLANDELAGH AND KILDARE, PRIMATE OF IRELAND, AND METROPOLITAN. gubfm : HODGES, SMITH AND CO., PUBLISHERS TO THE UNIVERSITY. 3Toubon mrb Cambribgje : MACMILLAN AND CO. 1865. s -fas CHARGE, ETC. My Reverend 'Brethren, I MIGHT say much, without saying too much, without transgressing the limits of the strictest truth, of the deep sense which I entertain of my own insufficiency for such a task as has devolved on me to-day, and of the sense deeper still which I feel of my insufficiency for the office which has entailed that task upon me. If I know anything of my own heart, it is not willingly that I stand in the relation in which I do stand at this time to not a few older, to very many wiser, better, more full of labours, more approved in the Church of God, than myself. And yet I feel that it will be more consistent with Christian simplicity, — which avoids, so far as possible, speaking of self at all, even though in the language of disparagement and depreciation, which is conscious that a subtle pride may often lurk under language of this kind, — if, with only one briefest acknowledg- ment of this insufficiency of mine, and one earnest B 2 request that you will now and always assist me with your prayers, I ask you to believe that upon this day I would much rather occupy the room of one instructed than of an instructor, would infinitely prefer to be reminded of my own duty, than to say a word in the way of admonishment to others of theirs. All matters directly personal I would willingly have thus dismissed ; and yet there are two or three words — they are words of thankfulness to God, of gratitude to men — which, on the occasion of this my primary Charge, I cannot forbear to utter. Though not myself a stranger to Ireland, though belonging to it by birth as by descent, myself a native of this City, and long since knit to Ireland, not by interest only, but by the dearest ties of my life, yet the larger part of that life having been spent in England, I could not but feel what various difficulties might beset my path, suddenly transferred to a sphere new to me in great part, how much forbearance I should need from those whose hearty co-operation and confidence were absolutely necessary, if the solemn task so unexpect- edly confided to me were at all to prosper in my hands. It was not long, however, before I learned that, whatever difficulties might be in store for me, I should be spared that hardest and pain fullest of all, namely, how to assuage suspicion, to overcome pre- judice, to reconcile j'ealousies, to disarm opposition. Of none of these did I find the slightest trace. So far from this, my difficulties seemed to spring from 3 exactly the opposite quarter — not from any unfavour- able prejudgments, only to be removed after long years, if removed at all, but from judgments so favourable that it became most hard not wholly to disappoint them, not to fall utterly beneath the kind expectations of those who so welcomed me among them. I have only referred to this, because I should be wanting in gratitude to you, my reverend brethren, who have made so pleasant, even with all its cares and anxieties, that which might have been so pain- ful ; — above all, because I should be wanting in thank- fulness to Him who turns and disposes all hearts according to the good pleasure of His will ; — if I did not thus openly recognize the manner of reception which I have met, first and chiefly from you, but at the same time not from you only, from all my fellow-countrymen in Ireland. There was, indeed, one difficulty before me, which all your kindness and confidence could do nothing to diminish or remove. It was impossible for me to forget that I was here succeeding one, whose place it was easier for another to succeed to than to fill. Those eminent mental powers, that common sense, in him rising to genius, with those other intellectual gifts which will probably obtain for Archbishop Whately a permanent place and name in the litera- ture of England, it could not be expected that another should inherit. But the singleness of eye, the disinterested nobleness with which he admin- b 2 4 istered the affairs of this diocese ; the manner in which he thoroughly identified himself with the Church of his adoption ; the lively affection with which he regarded the great institutions among us, whether for the setting forward of Christ’s kingdom or for the relief of human suffering and woe ; the large and oftentimes magnificent hand which he ex- tended to their support,— these were before my eyes as graces which, however hard to attain, it would ill become a successor to fall short in altogether. To follow after such, to be in these things an imitator of him, might well be a worthy ambition to any who should come after him. To me, at the very longest, a far briefer tenure of my solemn office will be allotted than was to him ; but when that tenure is over, I could ask of my fellow-men no fairer lot than to be so followed to the grave, with the same affection and honour which accompanied him to his ; if at any time I had been exposed to detraction or mis- interpretation, to have out-lived these as he had done, and to leave behind me, on the minds of survivors, the same convictions which he has left behind, that, with whatever mistakes, whatever short-comings of human infirmity, I had yet sought, and so far as I knew it, loved and served the truth. I believe, my reverend brethren, we all of us gladly recognize that such gatherings together as the present are very much more than official ; that whatever official business may be transacted at them, they are 5 yet intended to serve much higher objects and aims. We, who assemble here to take or to give some account of the past of our ministry, can hardly fail to take counsel together, how that ministry may be more effectually exercised in the future. Our account of the past, as rendered to a fellow man, will be at best superficial and perfunctory, a few figures and a few formal returns. But if we at all understand the significance of such a time, we shall also ask ourselves in the sight of God, what we have been doing in the interval which has elapsed since last such a coming together as this found place ; what faces familiar once we miss to-day ; who among us have since that time finished their course, and ren- dered their account to the Great Head of the Church ; — out of our own little company ten have passed from us since my brief Episcopate began, and one of these, Alexander Pollock, a standard-bearer among us ; — we shall ask ourselves by what paths of sorrow or joy our God has been leading us during these years, and training, or graciously meaning to train, us so to higher things for our own souls and thus for the souls of our brethren ; over what in our work we may rejoice (this indeed even with trem- bling); over what we must mourn and humble our- selves in the dust ; what weaknesses, faults, flaws in the character of our work might be remedied and removed by more of watchfulness, zeal, love, labour, wisdom, prayer, upon our parts ; what of 6 these will probably remain a part of the subject- matter of that infinite forgiveness which, when all is done, each one of us will need to claim through the blood of the Lamb. If, in attempting a rapid oversight of some aspects of our present condition, I go over matters to you more or less familiar, you will not fail to remember that to others they are not so familiar, and that a Charge is intended for a larger circle than that of its immediate hearers, even while it should always keep them the foremost in view. Our many friends in England, who watch with deepest soli- citude us in our post of honourable danger, demand from us some such account of our work. We can only gain, the more widely this, and indeed every thing about us, is known. All that is against us, this is well known already. This, often with exaggerations inconceivable, has found utterance again and again within the walls of Parliament, is ever being repeated in the current literature of the day. Let that which is for us also be told, Such an account of our work, of that portion at least of it which I have the means of knowing, which it is my duty to know, can come from none more authoritatively than from myself. I need not remind you how nearly it concerns Christian honour that nothing should go forth distorted, exaggerated, or which, keeping the letter of the truth, violates the spirit. I therefore ask of you, if I shall have fallen into any mistakes, as, from my comparative newness to the things about which 1 speak, I easily may have done, you will help me, before my words go forth to a wider public, to correct them. The average number of persons attending public worship in the churches of the diocese of Dublin on the Sunday morning amounted, by the returns of last year, to 40,065 ; on the Sunday afternoon or even- ing to 19,173. These numbers do not include the congregations of the two Cathedrals, from which I receive no official returns. In Kildare, the numbers are respectively 3,565 and 1,127. Besides the two Cathedrals, there are four churches in this City in which there is daily service ; while a large number in the diocese have services on one or two days during the week, and on the greater festivals and holy days. These last are kept in very many churches that have no ordinary week-day services, or only at special seasons of the year, as during Lent or Advent. Some who had not hitherto included the Circumcision, Ash Wednesday, and Ascension Day, among these holy days, have willingly undertaken that they will do so henceforth. It is gratifying to note how successful the restoration of St. Patrick’s Cathedral has proved in that kind of success which its large- hearted and large-handed restorer must most have desired. I have before me the returns of the number of the week-day congregations, from June 8 12 to Sept. 8, of the present year. These returns give an average attendance of 148 a day, or 74 at each service, — congregations, of course, somewhat swollen by the many sightseers who have passed through the City during this summer, but satisfactory after every abatement has been made. Certainly our people, when opportunities of week-day worship are offered to them, are not slow to avail themselves of them. I rejoice to observe that the rare celebration of the Holy Communion, only four times in the year, which used to be so common in the country districts of England, and has by no means yet disappeared, is almost unknown in these dioceses. In the diocese of Dublin there is in 101 churches a monthly cele- bration ; in 15 churches the celebration is twice a month ; in three it is three or four times a month ; while there are weekly celebrations in seven. In very nearly all of these churches there are also cele- brations on the chief festivals ; though what the chief festivals are, is interpreted very differently, and sometimes, though indeed rarely, they are accounted to include no more than Christmas Day and Easter. In most, though not in all, of seven cases of a rarer celebration which remain, there is something which explains, and more or less accounts for the rarity. In the diocese of Kildare there is a monthly celebra- tion, generally with the chief festivals added, in every church but five. In four out of these five there 9 is a celebration eight times, in one six times, in the year. These Communions too, for the most part, are well attended. When we seek to measure, not merely the extensive, but the intensive energy as well, of the spiritual life of our people, we turn with especial interest to the actual attendance at the Table of the Lord. For, making full allowance for whatever there may be of formality in this attendance — for guests, as there will often be, merely ceremonious— there are few sights which more gladden a faithful pastor’s heart than a great company of communicants ; while, on the other hand, there are few sadder and more disappointing, than, after Common Prayer apparently not slighted, a sermon attentively listened to, to see nineteen -twentieths of the congregation pouring out of the sanctuary, and leaving a little handful behind them, scattered sparsely here and there, to com- plete and conclude the service of Almighty God. I am thankful to say that the attendance at Holy Communion, very far short as it falls of what it would be in that ideal Church toward w T hich we must yearn and labour and strive, and in which seldom any but unconfirmed and excommunicate would withdraw, is for the most part satisfactory. I take Christmas Day and Easter Sunday as the days which yield the largest returns, and I find that on Christmas Day, 1863, (I have not been able to sum up the later returns), there were in the diocese 10 of Dublin 13,861 communicants, and on Easter Day last year 13,575 ; single churches yielding such contributions on the two days put together as the following : St. Stephen’s, 830 ; St. Matthias’, 1,133; the Molyneux Asylum, 905 ; St. Anne’s, 685 ; Monkstown, 838, with other churches in proportion. In the diocese of Kildare there were on Christmas Day 1,357 communicants, on Easter Day 1,438. As the Church population of the diocese of Dublin does not, according to the latest Parliamentary Returns, much exceed 1 00,000, as that of Kildare is less than 13,000, an attendance such as this, not indeed as compared with what we desire, but with that which we actually see elsewhere, cannot be accounted small. A word or two on the subject of our Communions I would fain say, before finally leaving it. In some of our churches the vast number of communicants to which I have thankfully borne record, leaves no choice to the clergyman, who perhaps has only one to assist him in the distribution of the elements, but to administer these to two, or perhaps to even more at the same time. The service would not otherwise be concluded for many hours, and many, from weakness or other causes, would find it impossible to remain. But this manner of distribution is sometimes adopted under no such constraining necessity. I have known it in use in churches where there were less than forty communicants. To very many of our laity it is one 11 which, when manifestly unnecessary, is extremely distasteful, which robs that spiritual feast for them of much of its solemnity, of much of that joy which otherwise they would derive from it. It is a depar- ture from the strict letter of the Rubric, which certainly contemplates distribution to each by him- self — a departure in certain cases justified, because unavoidable ; but which, when gratuitously adopted, seems to suggest a desire upon our part to get over the service of God at the least possible expense of time and trouble ; than which mischief there is none needing more carefully to be watched against, and to be checked by us in its faintest beginnings and in its subtlest forms. Should this be the custom in your church, I will ask you to consider whether yours is one of those cases in which it is imperative. In the summer of last year I held the usual triennial Confirmation through the whole of the two dioceses ; and again, during Lent in the present year, the annual Confirmation, which I also found established, for the City of Dublin, and for one or two of the more populous places in its immediate vicinity. There were, at the general Confirmation, a few more than 3,000 confirmed (an oversight in my manner of keeping the lists, due to my inexperience, hinders me from saying exactly how many more, but 100 would more than cover the excess), and at the special Con- firmation, although it followed on the other with an interval of hardly more than eight months between, 12 there were 759. On going over the numbers of the confirmed during the last ten or twelve years, it is satisfactory to find a steady and marked progress. At the General Confirmation of 1853 there were 1,283 confirmed; at that of 1855, 1,542; in 1858, 1,878; in 1861, 1,793; while at the City Confirmation of 1854 there were confirmed 855 ; in 1856, 1,163 ; in 1857, 959 ; in 1859, 1,069 ; in 1860, 987 ; in 1862, 1,275. The diminution of the present year is abun- dantly accounted for, first by the large sweep of the previous one, and then by the fact that some new arrangements which seemed to me desirable caused this Confirmation to follow upon the last after an interval, not of a year, but, as I have noticed already, of only eight months. I was glad to observe that there was no such serious disparity between the numbers of one sex and of the other, as I have sometimes remarked elsewhere — a disparity which must always be noticed with regret, seeming, as it does, to say, that an earnest dedication of themselves to God may be a very proper step for young women to take, but that young men count it altogether needless, or at all events premature, for them. On the contrary, the numbers of one sex and of the other, if not quite, were nearly on an equality. In all parts of the diocese so much in the participation of the rite as came under my eye was satisfactory, the arrangements well considered and good, the outward demeanour of the candidates 13 serious and reverent. You, my brethren, know much better than I can know, how much of this in those whom you severally brought forward was super- ficial ; how much of earnest intention to yield them- selves to God and to his service these outward tokens on their part represented. You know this, for you know how much of thought and toil and prayer you bestowed on the preparing them for this ordinance, and, in the main, you know what amount of success attended these efforts of yours. You too can judge how far the impressions made on them in the time of preparation are likely to be durable, for you know with what amount of care you have sought, and are seeking, to follow up these the newly confirmed among your people; not content with seeing them once, on the Sunday following, at the Holy Table, but endeavouring to keep them regular communicants, and in other ways to make them conscious of their Church-membership, and of all the bfessed privileges, and not less blessed duties, which this Church-membership involves. I know nothing which for the bringing of this about is likely to be more profitable to them, and, at the same time, to the whole body of your people, than to enlist the fittest and most promising among them in the immediate service of the Church, as teachers in your Sunday schools, as district visitors, or in other labours of love ; for it is very deeply im- planted in our nature that we love that for which 14 we labour, that which makes claims upon us, that which demands sacrifices from us ; that we care comparatively little for that which ignores us, which leaves us alone, which says plainly that it sees no service which we are worthy or able to render to it. Make your people work for the Church, if you wish to make them love it. We can look with less satisfaction at some other features of our work. In the diocese of Dublin there are 20 churches in which there is only one service on a Sunday, and 20 more in which there are two services only during the summer months ; while in the small diocese of Kildare there are 14 -churches in which there is only a single service on Sundays, and nine more in which the second service is only main- tained during the summer months. As one person, at least, must in every house stay at home, — in large houses often more, — one service on the Sunday is for many of our people no service at all. I am not ignorant of the difficulty in many of our wide country parishes, scantily furnished with Protest- ant inhabitants, and these often with long miles to travel from and to their homes, of at all getting together a second congregation upon a Sunday ; and yet I would ask you, my reverend brethren, seriously to consider, each in his own case, whether a reason sufficient is thus furnished for reducing the stated service of God to a minimum ; whether it is not well that the worship of God’s House should go 15 forward, and that, be they few or many who attend it ; how far the love of ease, or any other such motive, may have helped to lead you to the conclusion that it was impossible to find room for a second service, or to get together a second congregation. Possibly a better arrangement of times might in many places render feasible that which now seems impracticable. For instance, how many difficulties and embarrassments we entail on ourselves by the custom, which seems in some parts of the country well nigh universal, that the morning service on the Lord’s Day should commence at 12 o’clock — that is, in the afternoon. What, I sometimes cannot help asking myself, must our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen think of us, of our zeal for God, of our love of His House, who cannot come together for His worship and praise upon His own Day, until that Day is in good part spent ? I rejoice that in many of the Dublin churches service has been put back during the last year to half-past 11. Half an hour thus gained, in addition to other profit which it would bring with it, would often render a real afternoon service possible, where now the only alternative is an evening service, — most inconvenient to many during the long dark nights of winter, — or else no service at all. It is, as you are aware, competent to the Bishop, wherever he thinks it desirable, to require a second service. I had much rather, in parishes where it is so, — and I have recently heard 16 of some where its absence by the laity is much deplored, and counted an abridging of their just rights, — that it should be the free and unconstrained offer- ing of the pastor to the spiritual needs of his flock. Some Special Services, so called as having a special purpose in view, have found place during the past year. It has always seemed to me that where the promoters of so-called revivals err, is not so much in the premisses from which they start as in the methods which they use for giving effect to the conclusions which they draw from these. That Churches alike and single souls need to have the work of God revived within them ; that spiritual fires, though not extinct, may yet, unless stirred from time to time, burn very low and yield very little of vital warmth or light ; that there are seasons when the ordinary use of the means of grace may profitably give place to extraordinary, brought to bear with the force of accumulation on the soul ; this, I think, no one who has ever so little acquaintance with his own heart, or of the hearts of his fellow-men — with the spiritual history of congregations or of Churches — will deny. Then only the mischief begins, when the means employed for this reviving of a flagging interest in spiritual things become merely sensational, appeals to the feelings alone, and not to what is deeper, more abiding, and more regulative in man,; — the kindling as of a fire among straw, to blaze up for an instant, and then to leave nothing but black ashes 17 behind it, — when, instead of seeking to fill the everlasting ordinances and sacraments of the Church with a new life and power of the Spirit, these are set aside altogether, and inventions of men adopted in their room. In themselves these revivals, for I will not be afraid of the name, present themselves to me as good and profitable, I had almost said necessary. With these convictions, I ventured upon an eight days of Special Services in the summer of last year, taking Bray for a centre, and including, so far as possible, the neighbouring parishes in the scheme. During this period 16 sermons were preached in the churches of Bray, in the surrounding churches 17, the Holy Communion was celebrated daily, and at the four early Communions addresses to the communicants delivered. Besides this, two Conferences of the Clergy, very numerously attended both by those within the diocese and without, were held during the week, and some matters intimately concerning the welfare of the Church in the friend, liest spirit discussed. I record with thankfulness the hearty readiness with which both the Clergy of the diocese and those whom I invited from without, responded to my appeal, and took their share in this work, as they did no less in the series of sermons during Lent, delivered last year in St. Peter’s, this year in St. Mary’s and St. Anne’s. The work at Bray had so many encouraging features about it, that, although one cause and another c 18 hindered during the present year any attempt at the same, I trust next year, so far as one may ven- ture to speak of purposes so remote, to repeat the experiment in some other part of the diocese, with such alterations and, I hope, improvements, as the experience which we have now gained will suggest. The returns in respect of schools are not so complete as I could desire ; and we do ourselves an injustice when we omit duly to make these returns. Making no allowance for deficient returns, I find that in Sunday schools under the superintendence of the Incumbent there were, in the diocese of Dublin, 12,560 Sunday scholars, while of day scholars attend- ing parochial schools, 7,903 ; of these last 760 were Roman Catholics. In the diocese of Kildare the children in our Sunday schools amounted to 1,205, while those on the roll of the daily parochial schools were 988, of whom 86 were Roman Catholic. I have not included in these numbers the children in Infant schools, nor yet in schools non-parochial (generally private), although these were superintended by the Incumbent ; and as little the Protestant children attending Vested National Schools, even in cases where the school was one visited by the clergyman. My reverend brethren will allow me to urge upon them the extreme importance of themselves taking a share in the teaching of the school ; above all, in those portions of it which must always remain our proper work. Satisfy yourselves that all whom you 19 admit to the privilege of assisting you in your Sunday schools are not merely pious, but truly and heartily well affected to the Church and her doctrines. A young person who has conscientious objections to teaching the Church Catechism may have many merits, but certainly is not fit to be admitted as a teacher in our Church schools. See that the Catechism is thoroughly taught, and, at least to the higher classes in the school, teach it yourselves. The returns which I have received assure me that you do so ; but the importance of the subject is so vast, that I will not the less urge it upon you. Let us never forget that the Reformation established itself at the beginning quite as much or more through catechizing than through preaching ; that preaching is not the way to lay foundations, but to build a superstructure on foundations already laid, and that if these foundations have been slightly laid, or not laid at all, the super- structure itself will always remain insecure. Excel- lently well did an illustrious predecessor of mine, who has in so many ways left his mark on the diocese, urge this. 1 refer to Archbishop Narcissus Marsh, who, in his Primary Triennial Visitation, 1694, presses this duty of catechizing in these weighty words : — “ Unless the parishioners be first of all firmly grounded in the principles of Christianity (which is to be done by expounding the Catechism to them so plainly that it may be understood by all, and by inculcating it so frequently and importunately that it can be forgotten c 2 20 by none) your preaching will be almost lost upon them ; at least they cannot profit at all so much by hearing the Word preached as they might do, if they were well principled in religion beforehand.” I take this opportunity of observing how much to be desired it is that a gap in our system of education should be stopped, that a class too often overlooked in our various schemes should be considered. Having myself borne a personal share for many years both in the management and also in the teaching of Queen’s College, London, I am confident to say that there could be no greater boon to this City than an insti- tution of the like kind in it ; one, that is, for the liberal education of young women of the upper middle class, — and not exclusively of these, but of all, up to the highest, whom the excellency of the tuition given should induce to attend. How to meet the present want is a question on which I would gladly take counsel with such of my brethren as feel with me how urgent it is, and how blessed a thing it would be to supply it. Such a College, to succeed, should, as I conceive, know no other religious teaching but that of the Church, but at the same time should freely admit and invite those of other communions to profit by as much of what it offered as conscien- tiously they could. A grateful evidence of the activity of church-life in the diocese of Dublin is the number of new churches which are being built in it, or of old which, in whole 21 or in part, are undergoing a process of renewal ; although it must be owned that the costly and often- times beautiful chapels and cathedrals w r ith which the Roman Catholics are everywhere covering the land might well provoke us even to a livelier jealousy, and to a more earnest effort not, in this matter, to be left wholly behind. In a period of less than two years I have had the satisfaction of consecrating seven new churches — six of them additions to those already existing, the seventh an old parish church rebuilt. I have also licensed for divine service an eighth, newly erected by the Duke of Leinster, the consecration of which has been postponed for the present. Besides these, other churches, as that of Castleknock, have been re-opened, after renewals and restorations which amounted to very little short of rebuilding. Entirely trustworthy returns acquaint us that in the diocese of Dublin there were 82 churches in 1791, and 91 in 1826. It is satisfactory as far as church-building is concerned, to have made in less than two years very nearly as much progress as was made half a century ago in 35. Not to speak of others in contemplation, or which have not yet advanced beyond the preliminary steps, there are at the present moment three new churches building in the diocese, and another rebuilding, or nearly so. In one of these, namely St. Bartholomew, the church of a parochial district formed out of St. Mary’s, Donnybrook, and St. Peter’s, the very interesting 22 and important experiment will be tried of a church with seats altogether free and unappropriated, the Incumbent being willing to rely on the free-will offerings of the Christian people who worship there for his own support and for that of the service of God’s House. Should this experiment prove suc- cessful, as it has proved in so many places in England, no doubt the same attempt will be made elsewhere ; and a great step will have been taken toward that freedom of worship which, however we may be embarrassed now by the complications of another system, we must all so earnestly desire. St. Andrew’s, destroyed by fire in 1860, is slowly but steadily advancing to completion, and when finished, will present the gratifying spectacle of a church on which something more of cost has been bestowed than the bare necessities of the congrega- tion who are to worship there would have required ; while St. Peter’s, one of the meanest and poorest churches in the City, while the parish is one of the richest and most important, is in process of trans- formation, which will leave it, not indeed all that we could desire, but something very different from that painful and offensive eye-sore which hitherto it has been. While recording what the last year or two have seen of advance in those material fabrics, which are as the outer shell, under the protection of which the inner kernel of a true religion may be formed and 23 cherished, I must not leave unnoticed by far the most remarkable event in this kind which has signalized the past year ; one which may wait long before it finds its parallel or rival here or elsewhere. It will long be recorded in the annals of this City, and, as “ deep calleth unto deep,” it may stir up many rich men to a wholesome emulation in respect of the objects to which they dedicate the wealth with which God has entrusted them, that what the whole Church might almost seem to have shrunk from, as a task too hard for it to undertake, — I mean the restoration of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, threatening as it did to become, within a few short years, ruinous heaps, — this task one private citizen of Dublin undertook and accom- plished, giving back to this City its noblest monu- ment, to the Irish Church its dearest house of prayer ; while, almost as valuable in its kind as the gift itself, has been the embodiment in the manner of its giving, of the apostolic precept — “ He that giveth, with sim- plicity.” May he who showed this kindness to the House of the Lord find comfort, consolation, and strength from that same Lord in every hour of trial and distress ! A word or two here may fitly find place concerning some of the externals of public wor- ship, reserving for a later part of the Charge what concerns more nearly the inner life and spirit of our ministry. I believe that, during the last thirty years, a vast im- * 24 provement has taken place, one which it is almost im- possible to measure, in the whole manner of the public performance of the Divine Offices both in England and Ireland. Who, for example, that is old enough to remember what the Psalmody in our churches then was, and what it often is now, but must acknow- ledge the marvellous transformation which this portion of our worship has undergone ? But of course, as in England, so also here, instances of carelessness and negligence will still survive. My reverend brethren, with the many eyes which are upon us, and even if no eyes were upon us but the eyes of Him whom we serve, how desirable it is that the service which we render, that all these Divine Offices in which we lead the worship of our people, should be reverently and accurately performed, with that careful and exact handling of Divine things so well expressed by the Greek ev\a(3eia , and this no less in the remotest vil- lage, and in the presence of half a dozen worshippers, than in the populous Cathedrals of our metropolitan City, — that a decent comeliness should everywhere prevail, — that much more than this, where it may fitly be had. I mean not that we should attempt, even where we had the power, any rivalry with Rome in the elaborate and scenic splendour of her worship. This is her proper domain, and it is an ambition as unwise as it is poor to endeavour to contend with her here. She, whose whole worship has run so much to the surface, sensuous and not spiritual, will 25 always in these things excel us. We may well rejoice that she does so ; and she, I think, must not a little marvel when she beholds us abandoning the true sources of our strength, and entering into competi- tion with her on ground and in matters where she is sure to outdo us. But, because the preaching of the pure word of God, and the ministration of those sacraments which Christ has ordained and in the manner in which He has ordained them, is the true glory of our assemblies, there is no need, therefore, that all, or any thing, should be mean and sordid and repulsive about His House and the service of His House. The extraordinary unsightliness of many of our churches, indeed of almost all that were built in the last century or during the first decades of the the present ; the un ecclesiastical character of their arrangements ; the huge wooden fortress rising up in the centre, blocking out all view of the chancel ; the Communion Table safely nestled under the pulpit ; — all this, a legacy from past times, we must accept, labouring indeed to see it gradually reme- died and removed ; and meanwhile thanking God that His presence and His power in the midst of us can turn the meanest shed into a gate of heaven ; yea, make the unsigh tliest structure in which we ever worshipped as the Beautiful Gate of that Temple not made with hands, in which we hope to worship for ever. But it is not necessary in addition that the Font should be absent ; that neglect and slovenliness 26 and squalour should every where be visible ; that the furniture of the chancel should be so worn and torn that we would not endure it in our own houses for a single day ; or, generally, that our waiting upon the King of kings should be less punctually performed, and with infinitely less of reverence, than many a fellow-man would obtain at our hands.* The comparative fewness of glebe-houses, such as in these dioceses one must note with regret, is not to be traced to the troubles of the seventeenth cen- tury ; but, as all evidence goes to prove, we have here the results of an originally imperfect planting of the Church, such residences having been wanting from the beginning. It was only at a very late date that any serious attempt was made to supply this want. The Irish Upper House of Convocation, in 1710, complains that there are “ no glebes in one parish in ten while Dr. Woodward, Bishop of Cloyne, writing so late at 1787, speaks of the u almost universal want of glebes’’ as one of the hindrances to the spread of the Protestant faith.t F our years later, in 1791. the entire * How much to be regretted it is, that the church which English visitors, who spend, perhaps, only one Sunday in Ireland, and that at Killarney, pro- bably accept as the normal type of a church of our Establishment, should be one of the very meanest and unsightliest of all ; its wretchedness being the more apparent, seen as it is in the light of one of Pugin’s most beautiful buildings, the Roman Catholic Cathedral at the same place. Could not the church which we wait for, now after the throes of nine years some how or other come to the birth ? The Present State of the Church ; containing a description of its precarious situation , and the consequent damage to the public. Fifth Edition. By Richard, Lord Bishop of Cloyne. Dublin , 1787. 27 number of glebe-houses in Ireland amounted only to 355 ; by far the larger number of these being found in the northern Provinces ; indeed at the beginning of the present century there were only 97 in the Pro- vinces of Dublin and Cashel together.* The number had more than doubled in 1826 ; there were then 771 in all. Ten years later they were 829 ; the enormous disproportion between the number in the northern and the southern Provinces having also considerably diminished, the former owning 466 to 363 in the latter. The condition of things in this respect has thus been gradually mending ; but still very much remains to be done to remove the excuse, or sometimes the too valid plea, for non-residence, which the absence of such a house supplies. Thus in the diocese of Kildare there are only 19 glebe-houses in all — that is, about as many parishes are without as with them. In Dub- lin, if the City were left out of account, the state of things would be much the same. There are 45 glebe- houses in 88 parishes. But it is much more unfavour- able, when the City is included. In it there are not above four or five which, by the widest interpretation, can be accounted as such, among more than 50 bene- ficed Clergy. At the same time in a great city like this it may be sometimes a question whether the sums laid out on a glebe-house would not be more profitably Fourth Report of Ecclesiastical Inquiry , Ireland , 1837, p. 6. 28 added to the endowment, leaving the Incumbent to rent such a house as best is suited to his requirements. In the country, however, the glebe-house should no- where be wanting. The state of things which I have been describing contrasts very much to our disadvantage with that at present existing in other dioceses. Thus in the diocese of Armagh there are 65 rectories or vicarages, and only five of them without glebe-houses ; 37 perpetual or district curacies, 29 of which have glebe-houses ; while in Clogher diocese, united with Armagh, there are 41 rectories or vicarages, and all ex- cept four have glebe-houses. We are left behind also, though not to the same extent, by the dioceses of the south. Thus, in the united dioceses of Cork Cloyne and Ross the benefices are 156, the glebe-houses, built or actually building, 85. Still it is an improvement on the past. In the diocese of Kildare there were only nine glebe-houses in 1791 and 13 in 1826, against the 19 that are now ; in Dublin, 35 in 1791 and 40 in 1826, against the 50 of the present day. Since the abolition of the Board of First Fruits we have no fund in Ireland answering to Queen Anne’s Bounty ; while the terms on which money for the building of glebe-houses may be obtained from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are not such as have encouraged many to apply to them for assistance. I should rejoice to see these terms made easier, which they might be, and the Commissioners still obtain 29 the same interest for their money as they now obtain in the public funds. Let me say, however, in jus- tice to them, that they are not competent of them- selves, and without an Act of Parliament, to make any alteration in these terms. It is also much to be desired, in the case of such amended legislation, that the actual Incumbent, from whom alone the work of building can proceed, and who ought by all fair means to be encouraged to undertake it, should have more favour, or rather less disfavour, shown him in the matter of repayment. It seems desirable, at all events in the case of smaller benefices, that it should be lawful to borrow three instead of two years’ income of the benefice ; that the repayment should be spread over a longer period, some five, or even ten years, being added to the thirty that are granted now ; and that in this repayment no distinc- tion should be recognized between capital and inte- rest, but such a sum, always the same, annually paid, as at the end of the term should have extinguished both; putting thus on equal footing him who pays the first instalment and him who pays the last. As matters now stand, the causes which I have enumerated, together with the clumsy and costly machinery of our dilapidation commissions, and much uncertainty in the interpretation of the law relating to dilapidations — leading as it does many a clergyman almost to fear to possess a parsonage- house, lest he should bequeath he knows not what 30 damnosa hcereditas to those he leaves behind, — work as serious drawbacks to the multiplying of glebe houses in this, as, no doubt, in other dioceses as well. Yet some have been lately built, and others are building ; and some of our laity have assisted in this good work ; and many, I feel confident, if it were found advisable to invite their assistance upon a larger scale, would respond to such an invitation. I am persuaded, my reverend brethren, that you will agree with me, when 1 say, that there are few questions which offer so many practical difficulties as the right adjustment of our relations to our Roman Catholic brethren, — the due fulfilment of the duties which, as Christ’s witnesses and ambassadors, we owe to them. We are bound to believe, — we do, I trust, from our hearts believe and are sure, — that we have treasures in possession, which, as they have made us rich, so would make rich no less all who became partakers of them ; but how to induce those in the midst of whom we live, with whom we buy and sell, and exchange daily all the common cour- tesies of life, to receive these at our hands — this is the question which we find so difficult to solve. In the way of this there are, first, the obstacles growing out of our own indolence, our fear of men, our imperfect acquaintance with the points really at issue between the Churches, our insufficient hold in our own hearts of those precious truths which are pecu- liarly our own, our too inadequate sense of the price- 31 less value which these truths possess. And then, as there are these hindrances on our own side, so upon theirs, prejudices which have been carefully instilled into them from infancy, with an immense ignorance in respect of what we really hold. This ignorance, any- how difficult to overcome, is every day becoming more difficult, through those lines of non-intercourse be- tween them and us, which those in high places in the Roman Catholic Church are ever drawing sharper and stronger and more defined — prudently, it may be, even though they thus reveal the alarm with which they contemplate any coming in contact of their people with ours. Nor may we leave out of sight, when counting up these obstacles, that if, even in man’s present fallen estate, there are aspects of the truth which attract and allure him, so also there are others which irritate and repel, which stir up the pride, the self-righteousness of the old man, and which rouse to active resistance against that truth and against those who bring it. With so many hindrances within and without, it is only too easy for us to acquiesce in doing nothing, in not so much as attempting to do anything for our Roman Catholic brethren ; and forgetting, in part at least, the vow of our ordination, to persuade our- selves that not merely our primary, but our sole, com- mission is to those of our own communion. And yet can we of the Church of Ireland admit that this is the case ? For myself I must rejoice in such a visible 32 protest against this doctrine as, for example, our successful missions in West Connaught present. It is, indeed, a matter to me of sincere regret that, many hindrances intervening, I have not as yet seen with my own eyes that remarkable work of con- version in West Connaught, which has now stood the test of some five and twenty years. The reality and extent of other works of conversion have been some- times called in question, few or none have ventured to call in question this. Visitors out of number have inspected, some among them have jealously scruti- nized, the work ; and, this done, have given their well weighed, not a few their authoritative, testimony to its genuine character, — -have not unfrequently declared how far it exceeded any expectations which they had formed, that not the half, or nearly the half, had been told them. The West Connaught Endowment Society, ren- dered necessary by the very success of this mission, has earnest claims on the liberality of Churchmen. I say this, hoping my words may reach a much wider circle than that of my immediate hearers. Let them form what opinion they may on Irish Church Missions in general ; let these, and the method of conducting these, commend themselves to them or not, here is a simple fact, — that multitudes have been brought from the obedience of Rome into the communion of our Church, that their numbers have far outrun the means of grace which had been before provided, or 33 which they out of their deep poverty could provide for themselves. They may justly claim from us that they should not be left destitute of these.* But eminent as that success was and is, it stands too much alone, in some sort the circumstances under which it was obtained were too exceptional, to assist us much in determining how our relations to our Homan Catholic fellow-countrymen shall be most fruitful in good to them, how we shall so bear our- selves toward them as shall most tend to bring some of them to be partakers of like precious faith with ourselves. It is very little which on this matter I can say, and yet I would not willingly leave that little unsaid. I need not, of course, remind you of that which must underlie all other efforts which we make, that without which we shall throw down far more than ever we can hope to build up, namely, the winning of those on the contrary part, so far as this may be done, “ without the word f by that silent, and yet, at the same time, most eloquent preaching of all, the bringing about of that in our own lives, and in the lives of our people, which shall compel those who behold us and them to confess that God is with us of a truth. This before everything else : but what more we shall do, and how fulfil that witness for Christ as sole and supreme King and Priest and Prophet in 11 is own * See Note A (Appendix). D 34 Church, which we are set in this land to bear, I rather ask you seriously to consider yourselves, than attempt to make, with my brief experience, any dis- tinct suggestions of my own. Only I would say that should you at any time think good to challenge to controversy, or should you be challenged to it (this last, as things now stand, is most unlikely), there are two or three points which in the conduct of it ought never to be forgotten. And first, if dispute we must upon the mysteries of our faith (and there are times when this cannot be avoided), let us give good heed that holy things, the proper subjects for awed meditation and devout prayer, be not dragged as in the mire, tossed backward and forward in debate which, without meaning to be profane, hardly escapes, if indeed it does escape, from becoming so. I need not remind you what wisdom, what self-restraint, what a con- stant and awful sense of God’s presence, of His majesty, are required, if we would escape a mischief which lies so near to all earnest debates by eager disputants on the higher mysteries of our faith. Then, secondly, let no excesses of doctrine which they of the contrary part may have run into upon one side drive us into corresponding excesses on the other side, as though the furthest from Rome were itself, and of necessity, the nearest to the truth. The Church of Rome holds far too much of Divine truth, however miserably overlaid with human error, to 35 make this any other than a course of extreme danger. Because she has set a false emphasis on works, mixing them up with the grounds of our justification, and making them a causa regnandi , let us not he afraid to lay a true, and affirm of them that they are the via regni. Because she has taught a carnal presence of Christ in His sacrament, let us not deny altogether the mystery of His presence there. And, thirdly, let us never forget how delicate at once and perilous a task it is, to disengage an error in the mind of another from the truth around which it clings. The ivy which has twined round a tree may impede and stunt its growth ; yet better this than that in the heedless violence of a rude attempt to detach it, both should perish together ! It is a task not lightly to be undertaken, the denying to be worthy of reverence that which is held in reverence by any other soul, lest we kill the reverence out- right, while we meant only to transfer it from an unworthy object to a worthy. To intrude into that which for another man is his only sanctuary, and to cast down, if we can, what he worships there, may be sometimes a task and office most necessary to be done, most blessed for both ; yet it is always a most awful one ; lest the sanctuary itself should have been laid waste for ever, no other occupying the vacant pedestal, but all things henceforward for that man common and profane. A heathen moralist could feel and teach as much, using, as he does, a memorable d 2 36 comparison, to wit, that it is here as with ruinous houses of men which adjoin temples of the gods ; which need therefore to be carefully and cautiously pulled down, lest, in pulling down what was man’s, that which is God’s be drawn into the same ruin as well. But one thing more: if words of this wisdom are needful, what still more need that they be also words of love. How easy it is in religious controversy to speak cutting words — words which shall rankle like barbed arrows in the heart of an opponent ; the sacred ness in his eyes of that which we assail, its preciousness to him, the honour in which, whether rightly or wrongly, he holds it, making triumphs of this kind only too easy to obtain. But, when we have won these triumphs, have we thereby won them to our truth whom we desired to win, or are we nearer to the winning ? With much which is worst that we have thus roused in their minds, have we not also roused something which is best, and that best, in an indignation natural and not altogether unjust, arrayed more resolutely, I may say more fiercely, against us than ever ? Oh for that forbearance of love, which, without weakness, without keeping back one word which may require to be spoken, shall yet refrain from every needlessly provoking word, from all which would thus enlist at once what is worst and what is best in those whom we desire to win, against us and against the truth to the obedience of which 37 we would bring them ! Whether the deep wounds of Christendom will ever be healed, is only too doubtful ; but they certainly will not be healed till a mightier spirit of forbearing love is poured out on all the Churches ; and those which have most of the truth ought also to have most of the love. But perhaps I am addressing some, who have other forms of opposition, and from quarters where they had less right to expect it, with which to contend ; those brought up within the Church’s own bosom, of her own household, making divisions, and unsettling the minds of her children, even where they have not drawn them quite away. Should so great a trial as this be ours, the first thing, as it seems to me, which it demands of us, is earnest heart-searching and enquiry, whether and how far we have drawn it upon ourselves by any coldness, carelessness, negligence, or omissions in our own ministry. I speak not here of total neglect, but of that which may fall very short of this. Have time, and routine, and custom, and the slow but steady action of the world, little by little dulled and abated the edge of our spirits ? Is it that our words, still true as in time past, are not lively any more, not words of life and power, not words evidently steeped in prayer, coming from the heart, and so going to the heart ? Our people may have been longing for such, longing under the sense of sin and of sin’s intolerable burden, for more about Christ, for a ministry which should make Him more its sun and 38 centre, while we have only too partially satisfied their desire. If it has at all been thus, surely what we have first to do is, less to find fault with others, than to humble ourselves, to acknowledge that if the sheep are being scattered, if strange doctrines, perilous at the least, are finding favour with them, very much of the guilt of this is ours. But this done, and having made due and unre- served confession of our fault in this matter, having, so to speak, renewed our vows, how shall we keep those who are still with us, faithful to that spiritual mother who is so much better able than any other to bless them ; how hope to bring back, after a little while, those who have wandered from her ? It is too large a subject to enter upon here in any detail. Only I w’ould make one general observation, namely, that as all experience shows, the errors which exercise the mightiest attraction, which are the strength of the sectary, are almost always the exaggeration of truths, the pushing of these so far, with the leaving out of the compensating truth upon the other side, as to transform truths themselves into errors, or at least to give them the operation of such. When such is the case, there is a mistake only too common on the part, of those who are seeking to redress the disturbed balances of the truth; which let us beware of falling into. We do fall into it, when, because others drive a truth too hard, exaggerate, caricature it, we therefore, on our part, make only a grudging and niggardly admission of it, subtracting from it as much as we dare, and keeping it as much in the back ground as we can. It is unwisely so done. Rather let us magnify that very truth, only magnifying it aright, presenting to men the whole body of Christian doc- trine, not presenting one limb only and calling it the the body. It is the inestimable value of a theological training that it teaches us the relative value of truths, the proportions of the faith. They who have drawn some of our people aside, speak much, it may be, of the joy and peace in believing. What more true ? l)o not let us deny or grudgingly admit it ; rather let us magnify the same, only not allowing our people to forget that there are other Scriptures such as this, “ If ye call on the Father, who, without respect of persons, judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear.” They tell their hearers of the Christian’s freedom from the law. A glorious freedom indeed ! But if we would proclaim it as St. Paul did, we shall not fail to add that the end of this very freedom is, that the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us ; that we, to use the fine distinction of Augustine, not any more sub lege , should yet move henceforward cum lege and in lege , with the law as the inseparable companion of our life, in the law as the sphere of holy walking appointed for us. I approach a subject now, which if I approach with apprehension, it is yet, I hope, with no 40 unworthy apprehension — not mainly fearing lest words that I speak should prove unpopular and un- palatable to some whose good opinion I greatly prize, whom I honour so much that I cannot dissent from them without pain ; but, as I trust, fearing above every other fear, lest any suggestion of mine should work otherwise than for the profit of this Church, for the honour of God, and for the welfare of those precious souls which have been by Him com- mitted to its training. What the difficulties are, which at this day beset for us the question of Education, how hard it is to determine in the present entanglement of things, what course the Church ought now to pursue, — who can be ignorant of this ? Who, too, can remem- ber without sadness for the past, without something of misgiving for the future, that the question on which we are entering is one which has arrayed upon oppo- site sides, partially estranged from one another, gathered almost into hostile camps, some of the noblest spirits of our Church ; that it is a question which now for more than the third part of a century has divided and weakened us, who, with so many enemies without, have such urgent need to be of one mind among ourselves. In dealing with the subject of National Education, one who has only recently had his lot cast in Ireland labours under some serious disadvantages, but pos- sesses at the same time some advantages which may in part compensate for these. To speak of his advan- 41 tages first. He has committed himself to nothing. Whatever course he adopts or recommends, it can- not be contrasted to his disparagement with any previous course which lie has taken, with any previous opinions which he has uttered. He has given no pledges in the past to embarrass him for the future. He has but the perplexities of the present to deal with. But his disadvantages also are great and many; above all, if, as in the present instance, the subject- matter on which an opinion must be expressed is a com- plex one — having passed through several phases — with nothing short of a history of its own, with Concordats attempted, negotiations carried to a certain point and then broken off, and all the shifting incidents which attend a protracted struggle. All this history, which is familiar to those who have lived through the conflict, which has insensibly and without an effort become a portion of their knowledge, he has to learn at once — probably to learn imperfectly at the best ; failing to realize always the relative value of events, or fully to enter into the feelings which animated and pervaded struggles in which he did not share. Not for these reasons only, but as knowing that I must move among fires, which, though they may not now burn as once they did, are burning still, I have been sometimes tempted to avoid this subject alto- gether. Well-wishers have advised as much. Yet 1 could not satisfy myself so doing. I ought to have some opinion on a subject with which the dearest 42 interests of our Church are so inextricably inter- woven ; and having, I ought not to shrink from avowing it. And first, while I can enter to the full into the feelings of the clergy of Ireland, who saw, in 1831, the whole education of the people of Ireland suddenly taken out of their hands ; while I can quite under- stand their inability at once to realize and to adapt themselves to a new condition of things, in which their part was so limited and so subordinate, I ought not at the same time to shrink from saying that, so far as I can judge, I should have accepted the assist- ance of the State with the conditions which it imposed ; that I should not have counted this a sin, any more than I should now be acting against my conscience in accepting the same assistance ; which, were I the minister of a parish, where I could not support a thoroughly good school from other sources, I should certainly do. I have been the more con- firmed in this conclusion, the more familiar I have become with the narrow ill- ventilated room, the insuffi- cient educational appliances, the inadequately trained master, which oftentimes in our poorer parishes are all that the minister who has refused this help, with all his efforts, has been himself able to provide. So doing, I should then have hoped, though the hope would be much feebler now, — for much which was then fluent and plastic has since assumed fixed and rigid forms, and there may be as much to pay for the 43 three Sibylline books at last as would have bought the nine at the first, — that such parts of the system as galled and offended might little by little be modified bv those working within it, while the same persons would be altogether powerless, merely protesting against the whole scheme from without. But while thus accounting the policy of standing aloof and pro- testing a mistake, it is quite another thing to esteem the system of education then established the best which, under the conditions of Ireland, could have been introduced. I do not urge here that it has failed to obtain the confidence of the larger body of our clergy ; for, as I have myself considered that it might have obtained their adhesion, even though it failed to secure their full attachment, I have debarred myself from this. But leaving this aside, I am per- suaded that the system which Parliament has sanc- tioned as the best for England, and according to which it there distributes the funds which it allocates to national education, would have been the best also for Ireland; assistance, that is, to all religious bodies in the measure and degree of their own exertions, the State not interfering in any way in the conduct of the schools, and only requiring their managers in each case to satisfy it that all the elements of an effi- cient secular education, and one which should train loyal subjects to itself, were imparted ; but this done, leaving to them uncontrolled power to bring every part of the instruction which they gave within the 44 sphere of religion, leaving to us unrestricted use of the Scriptures and Church formularies, to the Roman Catholics whatever corresponding privileges would justly be theirs. It may be urged, and it is urged by some whose opinion is entitled to the greatest weight, that any such system of grants would leave unprovided with means of education our poorer Protestant children, in parishes where they exist in numbers too small of themselves to constitute a school. It would be manifestly out of the question, as these justly urge, to expect the aid of the State for half a dozen children ; if obtained, it would go but a very little way; not to say that this number, or twice this number, would be too small for any efficient education in common. I cannot shut my eyes to this difficulty, the seriousness of which appears to me hardly apprehended to the full by some advocates of a change in the manner in which grants are made ; nor do I myself see any entirely satisfactory way of escape from it. And yet the difficulty, so far as it is one of money, might be overcome. The liberality of Protestant Church- men, — relieved as in good part they would then be, through sharing in the national grant, from charges which they now voluntarily incur, — might very well create a fund to meet these cases ; which cases, let it also be remembered, would not then for the most part be first created. They exist already, in many parishes of exactly this character, through the refusal of the clergy, and of those whom they influence, whether that refusal be wise or unwise, to make any use of the National Schools. It might, too, be very well worth the considering, whether it would not be possible to turn to account here some endowments already existing, which, devoted to Protestant educa- tion, and tied to no particular locality, are doing very little efficient work where they are now employed. Moreover, such an embarrassment in respect of some of our own children in the three Provinces, and, possibly, here and there of Roman Catholic children in Ulster, would altogether fail to arise, if the pre- sent system were maintained in its integrity in all parishes or districts where there was not a sufficient number of each communion, of Protestants on one side, and of Roman Catholics on the other, to main- tain two schools ; and if grants to religious bodies, as such, were only made, where a sufficient number, not of one communion, but of both, were to be found to constitute for each a separate school of its own. The Committee of Council on Education appear, as regards England, to be now adopting in their Con- sciences Clause exactly such a course as this. Where there is evidently in a district only room enough for one school, they will not make a grant to the reli- gious body which may be numerically the superior, without engagements upon its part that the school shall be so conducted as to allow those that are in the 46 religious minority to avail themselves of it. What- ever hardship there may be in the insisting upon this condition, it is one which, on the other side of the Channel, falls mainly, I believe exclusively, upon the Church of England. Here the Roman Catholics would probably count themselves the most aggrieved by it. But if the imposition of this condition of assistance is equitable on one side of the Channel, it must also be equitable on the other. It must be freely owned that such a modification of the National System as would follow even upon the adoption of this last suggestion, would constitute a serious encroachment on the principle of mixed education; although one not at all so serious as the proposed endowment of a purely Roman Catholic Queen’s College, with the same privilege as the three Queen’s Colleges already existing, of obtaining degrees from the Queen’s University, — a step which can hardly fail to draw after it, whether for good or ill, an abandonment of the whole system. But, indeed, mixed education exists already much more in name than in reality, however little this may be recognized in England.* The great hold which our present system of National Education has upon the English people, and through them upon the House of Commons, with which virtually the decision of this, as of * See Note B (Appendix). 47 every other important question, ultimately lies — so that even a partial modification of it according to the wishes of the Church, has hitherto been inex- orably denied — is the wide-spread belief in England, that it is a system of united education : — that is, that Protestant and Roman Catholics, in very large numbers, and in all parts of the country, learn at the same schools, and, thus brought together in childhood and early youth, gradually unlearn the prejudices, antipathies, mutual injustices in regard of one an- other, which a separate education might engender, or at any rate suffer to continue to exist ; that there is thus bringing about a wholesome fusion and gradual blending with one another of the mem- bers of the two Confessions. Adopting, as England has done, a system of denominational grants for herself, — believing, therefore, that this in itself is the best, she has yet maintained a different one in Ireland ; as seeing, I cannot doubt, in our unhappy religious divisions, and in the neces- sity of using all lawful means for the abating of these, exceptional circumstances which warranted this exceptional treatment. It was the hope and expectation of bringing about such a blending together and fusing of all our people which animated the original founders of this system. Despite of limited and partial successes here and there, this grand hope of theirs has been defeated, and every day it is becoming more impossible to conceal the fact of a defeat. Step by step the Board have been compelled to modify the system, to give ampler and still ampler scope to the religions con- victions of the patrons of the schools or of the great majority of those who attend them ; till their schools are more and more becoming denomi- national schools in fact ; though, at the same time, hampered and embarrassed with innumerable restric- tions, which the conscientious endeavours of the Commissioners to prevent them from becoming such altogether, still to preserve them as places of possible education for all, have imposed upon them. Thus, in many of our towns, there are two schools within a stone-throw of one another, both in connexion with the Board, one under a Protestant patron and without a single Roman Catholic, the other under a Roman Catholic patron, and without a single Protestant in it ; but both alike hampered and embarrassed by rules and restrictions which effectually hinder their managers from carrying out their ideal of education, from putting their whole heart and soul into that part of the education which they count immea- surably to surpass in importance all the remainder, from making this, and the spirit of this, to inter- penetrate all. Such a compromise as has been here suggested, namely, separate grants where there is room enough for two schools, grants on the present system to con- tinue where there is not, would, T am well aware, 49 thoroughly satisfy nobody, for it would give a com- plete triumph to nobody ; but it is by such compro- mises, by such temperaments between two extremes, that struggles and controversies of long standing are commonly brought to a close. In the late Session, many matters were discussed in Parliament, and some measures passed, which affected very nearly the well-being of the United Church of England and Ireland ; nor were there wanting those in which we of the Irish branch claimed the nearest interest of all. To speak, first, of those which were common to us and to the sister branch of the Church in England: — A Bill was introduced by a Roman Catholic mem- ber of the Lower House for the relief of Roman Catholics from the Oath by which they now engage themselves not to use any powers which they may acquire by their admission to a seat in Parliament, or to any office from which they were excluded before the passing of the Relief Bill, for the injury of the Established Church ; and this Bill, having passed through that House, was brought into the Upper. There was no attempt on the part of the advocates of this measure to controvert the statement that this Oath was one of the so-called Securities offered by the Relief Bill, and one without which it could never have become law. As little was it denied that those who framed this Oath, now proclaimed so insulting to Roman Catholics, were themselves Roman Catholic E 50 theologians of highest standing in their Church; that the Oath itself, or a similar one, had been in fact by them suggested as a means of finally removing from the minds of Protestants any suspicion tha^t they desired to turn the power which they should thus acquire against the Church, indeed for ever to pre- clude them from so doing. I could have been well content to see removed from this Oath everything which might justly be regarded as offensive,— which, calling on Roman Catholics expressly to disclaim certain monstrous opinions, seemed to imply that they could possibly hold them. But I did not see any reason why we should deprive ourselves of the protection, whatever that may be worth, which this engagement on their part affords. Of some value it undoubtedly is, seeing that if not a majority, yet several Roman Catholic members have so interpreted the Oath as to prevent them from voting in favour of any measure which in their judgment might injuriously affect our Establishment. The Bill, as you are aware, was rejected, and I felt it my duty to be one of those who voted for its rejection. Another measure, the Clerical Subscription Act, simplifying this Subscription, abating what seemed to some the extreme and undue rigidity of the form in which it had hitherto been required, and making one and the same the Subscription in England and Ireland, thus legally recognizing the Church in Ireland as an integral part of the United Church, 51 received the royal assent during the last Session. It had a double interest for the Irish branch of the United Church — one interest which we shared in common with ojir English brethren, another which was peculi- arly our own. As regarded the first, we could only desire heartily to join with them in helping forward a measure, which had united the suffrages of so many well-wishers of the Church ; with which those who had long complained of an unnecessary stringency in the terms of the Subscription hitherto demanded, declared themselves satisfied ; in which those who were most jealous of the Church’s faith, and that none should minister at her altars except such as heartily accepted her doctrines, could see no dangerous laxity. But while this measure was thus in itself accept- able to all prudent Churchmen, there was that in the manner of the passing of it against which your representatives in Parliament felt themselves bound to protest. To the English Convocations there was given an opportunity of altering and amending their Canons, so to bring them into harmony with the new legislation. No such opportunity was offered to the Irish Convocation. As soon as it became evident, from an answer of the Lord President of the Council to a question which I felt it my duty to put to him, that Her Majesty’s Ministers had no inten- tion of conceding to us such an opportunity, your representatives in Parliament found themselves not e 2 52 slightly embarrassed in regard of the course which it behoved them to pursue. Even had the Govern- ment been willing to advise Her Majesty to grant to the Irish Church, by her lawful Assemblies, privileges similar to those accorded to the English, this at that late period of the Session, would have involved either the deferring of the entire measure to another year, or an immediate legislation for the English branch of the Church alone, leaving the case of Irish Subscription to be dealt with at some other day, and by a separate enactment. The latter course was regarded by many of the best friends of the Irish Church with great alarm, as a precedent fraught with extreme danger for the future. On the other hand, any endeavour on our part to delay in toto the passing of a measure, accepted on all sides as a happy settlement of difficulties which at any moment might become serious and troublesome, would have been most unwelcome, and have placed us in a very false position indeed. It was impossible to shut our eyes to this ; above all when our brethren on the English Bench in- formed us with all plainness that they could not sanction or support, but must oppose, any course which would involve the postponement of the English Bill. While I mention this, I at the same time thankfully bear witness to the cordial assistance which by their counsel they gave us, which by their votes (had it been advisable to push matters to 53 an extremity) they were prepared to give us, in claiming for our branch of the Church that in this and in all other matters it should be dealt with on exactly the same footing as their own. I am am confident to affirm that no greater injustice can be done to those who occupy the foremost places in the English Church, than to suspect that they have any desire to separate their fortunes from ours, and to seek their own safety in this separation. The significance, the importance, the perils of our position, thrown, as we are, into the forefront of the one great conflict which is before the Anglican Church — the conflict with Rome — they recognize to the full ; and whatever dangers may await us in the future, we have not to fear, I am sure, any unworthy abandonment upon their parts. Under the conditions which I have just related, we did not count it advisable to offer our fruitless opposition to the passing of the Bill, contenting ourselves with a protest against the unequal treatment of our branch of the Church in the manner of the passing of it, a protest which was afterwards entered by us in the Journals of the House. The Endowment and Augmentation of Small Benefices Amendment Act, assimilating the law of church-building and of church-endowment in Ireland to that in England, will, I trust, be found a useful measure, and give an impulse to the erecting and endowing of new churches with parochial districts 54 attached. Under 23 & 24 Viet., cap. 7 2, provisions were made for the augmentation of Small Benefices in Ireland, and for the acquisition of the patronage of the same, by enabling ecclesiastical persons possessed of the patronage to vest that patronage in Trustees, in consideration of the perpetual endowment of such Benefices. This Act, however, was only applicable to cases where there was already an existing Benefice capable of being endowed, and a fund ready prepared for its endowment; but failed to meet the class of cases in which it was proposed to constitute a new Benefice, provided an endowment could be procured for it ; and where parties were willing to subscribe to a fund for endowment, provided the patronage of the Bene- fice, when constituted, were ensured to them or their nominees. The ecclesiastical patrons of small Bene- fices are now, by the Amendment Act, enabled to enter into binding contracts with parties desirous of endowing and obtaining the patronage of such Bene- fices, in all cases where the proposed arrangements cannot be immediately carried out. What occurred in Belfast will show the necessity of such a measure as this. The Ecclesiastical Com- missioners having consented, in order to meet the want of church-accommodation there, to build five new churches, one in each year, for five successive years, upon condition of sites and endowments for the churches being provided, a Society had been formed, and funds raised for these purposes, one of the fundamental rules of the Society being that the patronage of each church endowed by the Society should be vested in trustees nominated by it. The Commissioners would not commence building, unless the Society unconditionally bound itself to endow the church when built, which the Society could not do, unless the patronage were absolutely assured to it. Under 23 & 24 Viet., this could not be legally effected, as the transfer of the patronage could not take place, or be secured, until the church was built ; while, on the other hand, the Vicar of Belfast, in whom the patronage, in the first instance, vests, was unable to bind his successor ; and it was of course uncertain whether the present Vicar would be Vicar, or the present Bishop would be Bishop, when the church had been built and the Benefice constituted. A most important work for the spiritual welfare of a town which contains upwards of 30,000 Episcopalians, had thus been brought to a standstill, but now that this Bill has become law, is again vigorously proceeding. The first stone of one of these churches has been already laid. Before leaving this part of the subject, I may just mention that a Bill was introduced into the Upper House toward the close of the Session, to alter the manner of estimating the Tithe Rent-charge. Many will share the surprise which I could not but feel, that, in a matter so nearly affecting the temporal interests of the Irish Clergy, (I understand the operation of the 56 Bill would have been unfavourable to them,) no com- munication whatever was made either to the Primate or to myself, or, so far as I can learn, to any one of the Irish Bishops, to acquaint us that such a Bill was proposed — had indeed been actually brought in. For myself, I did not discover such a Bill to be in progress, till it had been already read a second time in the House of Lords. At that time the close of the Session, which was so near as of itself to forbid any further advance, rendered any other opposition superfluous. The Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries Acts (Ire- land), 1864, gave power to the two Archbishops to frame Rules and Orders, which, after they had been approved by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, should henceforth govern the procedure and practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries in Ireland. The Primate and myself committed the preparation of these Rules and Orders to Dr. Stephens, as to one whose thorough acquaintance with the Ecclesiastical Law of Ireland, and well-proved interest in the prosperity of the Irish Church, fitted him better than any other for this task. By these Rules and Orders innumerable inequalities of fees, which, justifiable by no reason, had gradually grown up, have been removed. Twenty-six separate Courts and Registries, all inde- pendent of one another, with no machinery to bring them into unison, have been reduced to 12. The procedure and practice in these Courts has been 57 rendered uniform and simplified, and the fees greatly reduced in favour of the clergy and laity. Checks to frivolous litigation and suits merely for the pur- poses of annoyance have been introduced. Hitherto the Clergy have been frequently subjected to great expense for the attendance of Registrars to ad- minister oaths and other mere formal matters. To prevent such an abuse it is now provided that any episcopal act, not required to be done in Court, but at which the presence of a Surrogate, Registrar, or any other officer is required, may at the discretion of the Bishop be done in the presence of a priest in holy orders, or a solicitor, on the spot. Again, in lieu of all other fees, costs, and charges for Letters of Orders of Priests or Deacons, there will only have to be paid to the Registrar a fee of ten shillings. I spoke just now of the inequalities of fees. They were in fact, in their little sphere, nothing short of enormous injustices, such as, I think, every right* minded man must rejoice to see redressed, the richer livings often paying little and the poorer much. Let me instance a few cases in point : — In the diocese of Derry, the visitation fees of the Incumbent of Maghera, with an income for stamp duty of £1,214 17s. 6d. (and, after all deductions made, of £846 18s., as in Captain Stacpoole’s Return) were only 7s. 8d. ; while the fees payable by the Incumbent of Carndonagh on a like income of £317 11s. lid. (after all deductions made, of 58 £269 15s. 2d.) were £3 6s. 9d.* In the diocese of Armagh, the Incumbent of Mansfieldstown with a net income of £191 10s. 3d. was liable for £1 13s. lOd. ; while the Incumbent of Termon McGuirke with an income for stamp duty of £995 10s. lOd. (and, after all deductions made, of £803 Is. 3d.) was only liable for 13s. 8d. In the diocese of Cloyne, the Incum- bent of Garrycloyne with an income for stamp duty of £1,097 Is. lid. (after all deductions made, of £806 11s. lid.) was only liable for 9s. 4d. ; while the Incumbent of Mallow upon a like income of £400 9s. 7d. (and by the same deductions reduced to £349 9s. 8d.) was liable for £3 10s. In the diocese of Limerick the Incumbent of Croom, whose income for stamp duty is £904 Is. (or after the deductions, £708 3s. 5d.) was only liable for 16s. 4d. ; while the Incumbent of Dysart with a net income of £52 16s. 9d. was answerable for £1 9s. ; and other examples, in like kind, might be multiplied ad infinitum. It was the same in respect of fees for Institution. These things being so, I am content to wait for the time when these Rules and Orders shall be better understood, their substantial justice recognized, and the manifold ways in which they constitute a relief and boon to the Clergy, practically felt. Nor will I add more than a single word before quitting an un- grateful theme. If in the adjustment of a complex * See Note C (Appendix). 59 and difficult matter any unintentional wrong has been inflicted upon any, or unnecessary charge imposed, I have the Primate’s authority for saying, and I add to this my own assurance, that we shall hold our- selves prepared, on this being shown, to use the power we possess, before another year comes round, for the redressing of this wrong, or lightening of this charge. There seems a general expectation that in the next Session of Parliament the direct attacks upon our Church, suspended during the last, will be renewed. F or myself, I hardly anticipate that in it there will be more than slight and desultory assaults. The pulse of the new Parliament will be felt, the temper of its new members ascertained, and from these and other symptoms auguries will be drawn of the likelihood of success which will attend a more serious attack, and from what quarter and in what shape it will be advisable to make it. But though the regular assault may thus be delayed a little, it will assuredly arrive. In the prospect of this there are certain courses for us which prudence and duty seem alike to dictate. And first, as I have said already, we cannot, I think, be too desirous that everything should be known about us, or give too much diligence every- where to diffuse this knowledge; and this, I would venture to hope, not always in the shape of apology and excuse; of which, as it seems to me, we have had quite enough. Many weak points, many anomalies in our condition will thus no doubt be revealed ; but 60 these as nothing compared to those with which ignor- ance, or sometimes malice, credits us now.* Thus, what room is there for misunderstanding in the very natural confusion which those unversed in our eccle- siastical affairs continually make between the civil parish and the ecclesiastical Benefice ; what room for misstatement on the part of those who know better, but are eager to make the worst possible case against us. The Church Institution has already done us excellent service in diffusing this information in England, and is only desirous to know in what ways it can render to us the most effectual help. The organization of the Society, let me add, is fully sanctioned by all the Archbishops and Bishops of England and Ireland. And then, further, we should testify our willing- ness — and this not in word only, but in act — to see things set right which are really amiss in our condition, which are hindering us from effectually ful- filling the objects 'for which we exist; not allowing little selfishnesses and private aims and ends to lead us to oppose measures which would be manifestly for the general good of the Church. In every insti- tution of long standing anomalies will grow up. Time is so great an innovator, shifts and changes so much, that what perfectly fitted a past age, will often very imperfectly fit our own. The only wisdom, and indeed the only safety, is to recognize this betimes, See Note D (Appendix). 61 and the duties which it imposes. Thus, among anomalies which it were well if they were mitigated, — w r e cannot hope to see them quite removed, — earnest Churchmen might seriously consider whether it would not be possible hereafter to transfer the occasional too much of income in some of our parishes as com- pared with the work to be done, to other places where our people are many, but the endowment too little, indeed miserably inadequate to the spiritual neces- sities of the case. I am well aware of the immense danger which would attend any attempt upon a large scale to remove tithe, or the rent- charge which represents tithe, from the place where it accrues, and to transfer it somewhere else. To chop the old up. small, and to fling it as into Medea’s cauldron, in the hopes that a new creation will come forth, is a hazardous experiment, which has not always suc- ceeded, which might not succeed here. But keeping altogether aloof from the rashness of such experi- ments, something might with caution be effected for redressing cases of extreme disproportion between the work and its temporal reward. Again, we ought not to resist a legislation, which should have for its object a doing away in the future of some of those superfluous titles which convey the notion of a wealth, splendour, and extent in our Establishment, quite foreign to its real poverty and depression. A member of Parliament, in an attack upon our branch of the Church a year or two ago, 62 rounded off one of his periods by a reference to the “ Deans and Chapters ” which an Irish Bishop possessed, to help him in the oversight of the 5,000 Protestant souls which, as he informed the House, was the average number that an Irish diocese con- tained ! The “ Deans and Chapters” were no exaggera- tion. All our Bishops have “Deans some have three ; Cashel and Killaloe have four ; nearly all have not a Chapter only, but “ Chapters.” A plain Englishman, however, well affected to us, will count that under present circumstances we are carrying too much sail, when he hears that, while in England 29 Deans of Cathedrals or Collegiate churches suffice, our Esta- blishment includes 32 Deans, an average of nearly three to each Bishop, and 293 other dignities and pre- bends. With Deans he instantly associates a Deanery, a Cathedral, a Chapter, Minor Canons, Vicars- choral, capitular estates, a considerable income, and whatever of dignity and position the office carries with it in England. You know, my reverend brethren, what the realities are ; how the Cathedral has often been for two centuries in ruins, how it is often the poor parish church of some decayed hamlet, with no single circumstance to distinguish it from any other village church ; how merely titular, in many cases, the dignity is.* Surely, the maintenance of such titles as these in such needless profusion, is but as * See note E (Appendix). 63 the spreading of an idle canvas for the adverse winds to play in ; and we should do wisely and well against the approach of the storm, cheerfully to consent to see some of it taken in. But it needs not for me to remind you how idle all setting of our house in order will prove, if we do but occupy ourselves with a putting to rights of the things external of it. It is not the house empty, even though it be swept and garnished, but the house dwelt in by the presence and power of the Holy Ghost, which we may hope to keep as an inviolate fortress against those who would assail it. A rough justice is ever finding place even in this present time, and, for the most part, that which deserves to subsist continues to subsist ; that which does not deserve to subsist any longer, after a certain day of grace, sooner or later (and who will not say the sooner the better ?) is removed out of the way. Salt that keeps its savour is not cast out, is not trodden under foot of men ; but where a carcass is, — a Church, a State, or any other Society, abandoned by its proper spirit of life, — there the eagles, the ministers of doom, are presently as by a sure instinct gathered together, to rid the earth of that which is nothing now but an offence. Who can wish it otherwise, or count it an unrighteous decree, that only what is alive lives on, that what is dead is somehow or other buried out of sight? See we then to the spiritual life of our Church, never forgetting (for this will bring the 64 matter home to each one of us) that the life of the whole is only the aggregate life of the parts ; to our own life therefore first, and then to the life of those committed to our charge. If the Protestants in our parish are few, they have a right to claim that they shall be only the more diligently watched and tended by us ; that they shall have that special pastoral care bestowed upon them, one by one, which in more populous parishes it may be sometimes difficult to afford. Let there be no room for any to ask of us — amusing ourselves at a distance during the week, only appearing among our people for a brief and hurried visit on the Sunday — “ With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness ?” The public preaching of the Word, that most precious ordinance of God, is yet no substitute for pastoral superintendence. However zealously fulfilled, it can never make the visitation of our people from house to house superfluous. I urge this the more strongly, because there is always a temptation to lay a stress on that portion of our work, which may be pleasant not merely to the spirit, but to the flesh ; and at the same time to find reasons for a more slight performing of that which, with all its rich rewards even now, has yet no little share of painfulness, disappointment and toil. We, the ministers of Christ’s Church in Ireland, ought never to forget the special obligations which in this matter are imposed upon us from the mere fact that in 65 many districts of the land our poorer Protestant brethren are not merely in a minority, but in a very small minority indeed. Peculiar dangers beset them from this. Even if no very harsh pressure, nothing which deserves the name of persecution, is brought to bear upon them, still they cannot but feel every day that life would be smoother, that the course of things would run easier with them, if they went with the multitude, and were altogether as their neighbours were ; not to say that it requires no little strength of mind and earnestness of conviction, still confidently to hold fast and believe that which all around us are denying, perhaps ridiculing to boot. What danger, then, lest these, the scattered of our people, where they have no very strong root in themselves, where their faith may be as yet rather a tradition of men than a living grasp of God’s truth, — lest, I say, these should be seduced from their allegiance to it. How urgently they need that moral and spiritual support which we, their pastors, can better than any other give them, which we are set to give them. What need have they to be diligently looked after, and to know that they are so ; that there are those who rejoice at their stedfastness, who would mourn over their falling aAvay ; what need that one by one they should be brought, if they are not there already, into that inner sanctuary of the faith, from whence it would be well nigh impos- sible for any cunning craftiness of men to pluck them away. Look to it, I beseech you, that these our F G6 scattered ones, the hacntopa of our little Israel, do not insensibly disappear, swallowed up and lost in the larger mass around them, as, alas ! in some in- stances they already have disappeared, through the carelessness of those who should have watched, and shall have to answer, for their souls. And as part of such a watching I cannot but think that we should be very plain with the young people of our flocks, both in private ministrations and in public, on the evil and sin of mixed marriages. I speak not now of the unhappiness which even in the present time they are almost sure to entail ; not seldom a life-long misery ; when they who should he heirs together of the grace of life, and have all things in common, are separated from one another in the highest matter of all, and have not that in common ; when the children, who should have been the closest bond between them, prove an element of discord and division introduced into the very heart of the family. But there are reasons more potent yet, why we should deprecate these unions. Too often it happens that the higher is drawn down into the region of the lower, and the man or the woman, who, to gratify some pass- ing fancy, or enticed by some worldly advantage, has shewn in how little comparative esteem the pure faith of the Gospel was to them, has ended, by a just judgment of God, in forsaking it alto- gether ; and even if this should not prove so, ex- perience has abundantly shewn that, despite of any 67 stipulations to the contrary, the children of these ill-omened marriages will in all likelihood be lost to the Church. There is in this way a drain upon our numbers which, if not great, is yet constantly going forward, and which we are bound to arrest if we can. Where such marriages have already found place among your people, I can only urge watchfulness upon you, that the Church may retain those who rightfully are hers, and whom she can bless as no other can. It would indeed be a shame and a reproach to us, if we showed ourselves careless to lose them whom others show themselves so earnest to win. I have just now hinted at the temptation to indo- lence which the fewness of our people may sometimes and to some suggest. But if this to some, the same fewness, as I well know, is to others a sore trial from quite an opposite and a nobler side. I can well understand how fretting a trial it must prove to be conscious of energies which find almost no room for their exercise, to be longing for work in the Master’s cause which is not given, to see life passing away and the opportunities of winning souls and of building up Churches not afforded, or only in scantiest measure afforded ; for one to be bidden to stand and wait, who would fain be running and working for that dear Lord who redeemed him. To such I would venture a word, still keeping in view the means by which oux Church may be strengthened the most. I have some- times thought that this unwelcome and enforced f 2 68 leisure might here and there, by those who were duly equipped thereto, be turned to a golden account in the production of some work which should be a possession for eyer to the Church, a new bulwark raised up against the encroachments of superstition or infidelity. I know very well that this which I suggest is not every man’s vocation ; but I also know that nothing has so effectually wrought to win for us the attention, the sympathy, the regard of our English brethren, as those great books in theology, which in these latter days our Church has produced. Only let proceed from us a few more such works as his — too early lost — the young Marcellus, for so we might call him, of our Irish Church, who showed so well what was the true development of doctrine in the Church, when one would have found in this development an argument for every superaddition to the truth which Rome had made or might make ; only let proceed from us a few more to place on the same shelf with this, or with that other, On the Nature and Effects of Faith ; or with yet a third, On the Inspiration of Scripture , its Nature and Proof ; and, not to speak of higher good so done, we should secure for ourselves an amount of respectful attention, of honourable sympathy, which would be invaluable in every future hour of difficulty and danger. I sometimes seem to see tokens among us of a theology, whereof these, and other works most worthy to be named, even though they may not 69 attain to these first three, shall be only the first- fruits. Ask yourselves, my reverend brethren, above all you who, in the midst of enforced leisure, are yearning to do more for Him who has done all for you, whether patient toil, and thought, and prayer, with a longing desire to profit your brethren, and to benefit the Church, and to bring glory to God, might not enable you to accomplish something here. In the course of my Charge, which is now drawing toward a close, I have spoken more than once of dangers which are before us ; yet not, my reverend brethren, as taking that desponding view of the future of our Establishment, which some are dis- posed to take ; who count that it has now little more than to draw its robe about it, that so it may fall with decency. I cannot, of course, shut my eyes to the many dangers which surround it, the open enemies who assail it from without, the weak and wavering hearts of many of its professed defenders within ; not to say that there are too many warnings in Scripture against crying, “ Peace and Safety,” when, indeed, there is no peace, and when safety is far otf, to allow one to be very confident, while prophesying of these. But with all this it seems to me that, amid much apparent, and not a little real, weakness, we have sources and secrets of strength which only the day of trial will reveal. The late abortive conspiracy, in its display of 70 material forces most ridiculous, but in its moral aspects suggestive of very sad and serious thoughts, has not been without its gains for us, little as we could have desired to improve our position by so dear an experience as this has been. No one can henceforward affect to regard the chronic discon- tent — disloyalty, I fear, we must call it — of certain portions of our population as deriving its motive and aliment from any grievance, real or imaginary, which they feel by our Establishment to have been inflicted upon them. We have been made partakers of the inmost thoughts of these men ; their most secret deliberations have been laid bare ; and the movement presents itself as purely socialistic, in nothing re- ligous, the question of our Establishment apparently not so much as having once presented itself to their minds. Of course with their success this, as every other institution of the land, would have gone to the ground ; and a war against rent would have been a war against rent-charge as well ; but of hostility to the Church of Ireland as such, there has not been the slightest trace. And this can as little be affirmed to exist among the great body of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen ; so that one can only smile and wonder when an English Peer rises in Parliament and denounces the Church as a constant source of irritation and anger to the Irish people, mentally comparing this picture of his imagination with the reality of things. Those among our English assailants 71 (and whatever energy there is in the assault on the Irish Church is in England, and not here) are, at any rate, more accurately informed, who upbraid the Irish people with their patience and their apathy under what they would fain persuade them is an ever- present insult and wrong. But why should they feel it such ? AVith what object in view should they desire its overthrow ? In temporal matters, there are no points of unfriendly contact or collision between it and them. They know it chiefly by the presence of one in their midst, who, if nothing more to them , is a country gentle- man, bound to almost constant residence among them; often, indeed, with most moderate means, but dispens- ing these on the spot ; bound by the very decencies of his profession to dispense them with a certain regard had to the needs and distresses of those around him ; interested in all that promotes the well-being of those, rich and poor, among whom his lot, probably for life, is cast. In him they behold one on whom they have a certain claim ; to whom, not indeed on matters directly spiritual, but on all others they freely resort, and this sometimes in preference to any other, seeking from him that advice or that assistance which they are sure that, to the best of his ability, he will give. Whether it would be possible, by artificial means, to arouse in this people so well disposed to us now, feelings of ill will, I can- not venture to say ; but the most timid politician 72 could not at the present draw an argument for the abolition of the Establishment from the expediency of removing a source of irritation to the numerical majority of the people of this country. To a few of the higher Roman Catholic ecclesiastics it may probably be such, but to the mass of the population nothing of the kind. There are questions on which they feel deeply, which stir them in the very depths of their souls, — that, for instance, of the tenure of land ; but of such question this is not one, and I do not fancy that it would be easy to make it one. Then, again, our Church is strong, in the convic- tion of all the wisest among English statesmen, that in this ofttimes distracted land it is well there should be at least a portion of the population, who, short of that allegiance which they owe to Almighty God, know of no other allegiance whatever, save that which they owe to the Monarch on the throne ; whose very existence, in any tolerable condition, is inextri- cably bound up with the maintenance of the English connexion, their dearest interests, no less than their strongest affections, urging them to the drawing of that connexion ever closer. Slowly, but surely, the essentially anti-national character of Romanism, its necessary antagonism to the State, oftentimes more or less latent in Roman Catholic countries, but in Protestant manifesting itself plainly, has forced itself* upon their minds. They have fully understood that this antagonism is not the accident of the system here 73 or there, but necessarily inherent to it, growing as it does out of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church finds for all its members a centre, out of and beyond the nation ; in the midst of which nation, as an empire within an empire, it exists. Many, too, by the experience of the last forty years, have been disabused of the expectation that, till all is conceded to her, Rome will accept anything of place or pre- eminence in the land, save as a vantage-ground for more effectually demanding and obtaining some- thing further. Again, the Church is strong, (I am speaking here but of the sources of earthly strength which it possesses,) in the fact that the great English people, despite of all disappointments of the past, are not prepared finally and for ever to resign the hope that the Reformation, source of such countless blessings to England, shall yet be accepted by the whole Irish people, and that through it they shall be partakers of the same. And even if that grand hope is not to find its fulfilment, they are resolved, I believe, so far as in them lies, to do their part for the main- taining in Ireland an abiding witness, although it be that of a minority, to the truths which have made England great and happy and free. And then, once more and lastly, amid all its weak- ness, the Church is strong in that, which even in a world of violence and wrong often proves at last the strongest of all. It is strong in its rights. 74 I speak not here of mere legal rights, of engage- ments made to it at the Union and the like, all which have more or less value, but of higher rights than these, which are so bound up with the duties of the State, — being, in fact, the correlatives of those duties, — that the State must put itself in contradiction with itself, must abandon its own standing-ground, when it violates or ignores them. When, indeed, we claim to be rightfully established in the land on the ground that our Church is the true one, adversaries are wont to retort that this is a begging of the whole question at issue. But put the assertion in another and correcter form, namely, that we claim this on the ground that ours is the Church which the State believes to be true , and there is no room for any such retort. For, will any deny the fact, that the State is committed to the faith of the Reformation quite as unreservedly as the Church ? Some may regret, others rejoice, that it is so ; but the fact itself is not to be gainsaid or denied. The State proclaims as much when it requires that its supreme Head and Ruler shall always be a Protestant ; when it withdraws from all other but Protestants certain places of chief pre- eminence in the realm ; when it gives to the office- bearers of a Reformed Church, as such, seats in the highest Council of the nation. In the Oath of Supre- macy, in the Coronation Oath, in a thousand other ways, that State of which we constitute a component 75 part, renounces a position of neutrality in matters of religion ; avouches that it does believe one form of Christian faith to be truer than another ; arid, counting itself bound to act upon this conviction, has invited the Church which embodies this, the truest form, to closest alliance with itself, granting to it some privi- leges, and receiving from it benefits infinitely greater in return. We are the Established Church, because we are the Church which the State believes to be true, and because the State, having a conscience just as really as an individual has a conscience, being capable of right acting or of wrong, has considered it a duty to associate with itself for objects which it desires, but which are beyond its own reach, the Church which holds the faith that it holds, and which therefore it believes most capable of fulfilling these its desires for the highest welfare of its members. But, my reverend brethren, whether this Establish- ment of ours is to stand or to fall, for ourselves, as ministers of a Church which Christ has founded on His own word and promise, which Parliaments and people cannot unmake, as they did not make, the course before us is clear :• — to seek to approve ourselves not altogether unworthy of those great hopes which are placed in us by our fellow-churchmen in England, of that high vocation as witnesses for His truth in this land to which God has called us. In many things we inherit the mournful results of the sins, shortcomings, 76 negligences, (and they were great,) of other genera- tions ; as it is only too certain that those who come after us will inherit the mournful result of ours. Let us set ourselves manfully to repair and make good those of the past, not to leave our own a load to overwhelm them who shall succeed us. And to these ends give we all diligence, first, to the strengthening, deepening, purifying of the life of God in our own souls, remembering always that only as we ourselves, by the power of the Holy Ghost, rise to higher things, to a closer knowledge of Christ, can we hope to draw others with us, onward and upward, nearer and closer to God ; and as little forgetting that as we decline, our people will decline with us, and, ter- rible thought ! if we perish, it is not given to us to perish alone. Alive ourselves, we shall then be fitted to quicken the life of others. He that has salt in himself, the salt of God’s grace, he, and he only, can hope to salt others ; as one said of old, “ He whose life lightens, his words thunder” (Cujus vita fulgor, ejus verba tonitrua). The future of that beloved Church which we serve is with God, wrapt up in the secret counsels of His will. But whatever day, my brethren, may overtake us, who are now serving our brief service within it, be it the day of our death, or the day of the Lord Jesus, or some day before either of these, which shall rudely withdraw from us such place and position as we now enjoy (more it cannot take away), be sure of this, that it will not come amiss, if only it find us in 77 our work, doing that work not deceitfully, but with our might. And that it may so find us, let us pray to Him who is the Giver of every good gift and grace, that He would give to us an ever-increasing sense of the shortness of time, of the value of souls, of the excellency of Christ, of the dignity of our office who have to proclaim this excellency to our brethren ; that He would make us more to under- stand its dignity at once and its danger ; the dreadfulness of the doom of the unfaithful pastor ; the greatness and the glory of his reward, to whom the Chief Shepherd, merciful and gracious, shall pronounce His great Well done ” in the day of His appearing. APPENDIX. Note A, p. 33. I append here an extract from a late “ Appeal from the Lord Bishop of Tuam “Palace, Tuam, January, 1865. u The Bishop of Tuam would earnestly call the attention of all who desire the welfare of the United Church of England and Ireland, to the very great work of the Church Extension which has of late years, through the blessing of God, taken place in the District of West Connaught. This District comprises those portions of the counties Galway and Mayo which more immediately border upon the Atlantic. It is about 100 miles in length, and from 20 to 30 miles in breadth. “Five-and-twenty years ago, the greatest number of congregations in connection with our Church which could be found within that District was thirteen. The number of churches in the District was seven ; the number of clergymen eleven. “ Within the same district there are now fifty-seven separate congregations, thirty churches, and thirty-five clergymen. “ There has, therefore, taken place within that district, DURING AN INTERVAL OF TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, A TOTAL INCREASE OF FORTY-FOUR CONGREGATIONS, TWENTY-THREE CHURCHES, AND TWENTY- FOUR CLERGYMEN. “ The Church revenues of the District, which have always been miserably disproportioned to the extent of the parishes from which they are derived, have been subdivided to the uttermost, in the hope of meeting the increased demand for pastoral supervision, but 79 in vain ; and the result is, that there are now in West Connaught a large number of important districts, each requiring the care of a separate clergyman, which are dependent for pastoral superin- tendence solely upon the precarious supply of anual contributions. “ In the year 1859, a society entitled the West Connaught Church Endowment Society, was formed, under the patronage of the late Lord Primate of All Ireland, the object of which was to convert these new fields of labour into separate parochial districts (or what in England are called ‘ new parishes’) and to provide each district with such an endowment as might ensure to it the premanent services of a resident minister. “ The Bishop of Tuam is happy to say that, since the formation of that Society, five of the most important districts of West Connaught (Moyrus, Sellerna, Derrygimla, Castle-kerke, and Ballycroy) have been provided though its means, with an endowment of <£75 per annum each. ***** * “ The Bishop of Tuam would now earnestly invite those members of our Church, both in England and Ireland, who may not hitherto have known of the existence of this Society, to assist it by their sympathy, their prayers, and their alms.” Note B, p. 46. As this statement has already been called in question, and is likely to be called in question again, I have no choice but to support it by a few figures, drawn in every case from the Reports or Returns of the Board. Whether the Non- Vested Schools, as they now exist, were an afterthought (and cer- tainly there seems no room for them in the terms of Lord Stanley’s Letter) ; whether or no they were allowed as a safety-valve to give room and expansion to energies and convictions which would have totally refused to be shut up within stricter limits, — of this there can be no question, that 80 they were an immense step toward the denominational system. This will be sufficiently clear even to those not familiar with our matters, from the following authoritative description of them. “ In schools not vested, and which receive no other aid than salary and books, it is for the patrons or managers to determine whether any, and, if any, what religious instruc- tion shall be given in the school-room ; but if they do not permit it to be given in the school-room, the children whose parents or guardians so desire, must be allowed to absent themselves from the school, at reasonable times, for the pur. pose of receiving such instruction elsewhere.” These schools now constitute the very large majority of those in connexion with the Board, and, I believe, are ever constituting a larger majority ; in December, 1863, the Vested schools were 1,155, the Non-Vested, 4,5*24. But it may be urged, that in more than half the schools con- nected with the Board, and, therefore, in many Non-Vested as well as Vested, united education is actually going for- ward. The last Return of the Commissioners makes the number to be 54-1 per cent. — not in itself a very encouraging statement, but very much less so when analysed a little. “ One swallow does not make a summer and as little does one Protestant pupil in a school containing two or three hundred Roman Catholic, constitute it a school where, with any jus- tice, it can be affirmed that mixed education is going forward. As the Board, in their Annual Report, while they return the percentage of Schools “ exhibiting a mixed attendance of Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils (namely, in their last Return, 54T per cent.), give no table to show the pro- portions in which they are mixed, we are obliged to recur to a most important Return obtained by Mr. Butt in 1861, and ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 13th March, 1861, “ specifying the number of Schools in connexion with the National Board of Education, in which Protestant 81 and Roman Catholic children were jointly receiving educa- tion, and the number of Protestant and Roman Catholic children in each such school respectively.” This Return has the disadvantage of not bringing up the matter to the latest date ; but if United Education has made progress since that date, and later Returns would shew a more favourable result, it will be easy to produce them. The number of such schools in all Ireland were by this Return 2,898, the Return referring to the year 1859 ; in which year there were 5,496 schools, in all, in connexion with the Board. These schools of mixed education numbered 295,250 children on the rolls ; but as the whole number of children on the rolls in that year amounted to 806,510, it will follow that 511,260 were to be found in schools where united education was not going forward. But how were these 295,250 distributed? In very many parts of Ulster, so far as these schools reached, there undoubtedly was a fair and real blending of the children of one denomination and the other ; although certainly this has not been followed there by any notable abatement of sectarian jealousies. And yet by no means in all. In the county of Antrim there were 285 such schools; but if those were substracted in which one Communion has it so entirely its own way, that only five, or fewer than five, in many cases only one of the other Com- munion attended, these schools of mixed education will at once be reduced to 149, nearly one half. The same process will reduce the 144 of the county Cavan to 71, more than one half. But the results are far more remarkable when we leave the Northern Province. Of course, we must not forget how far more numerous are the Roman Catholics than the members of our Communion in the three other Provinces, how far more numerous, therefore, we may expect to find them in the schools. Still, this fact is quite insufficient to explain the remarkable phenomena which present themselves to us. In the county of Louth 24 schools of mixed education are G 82 returned; these, under the same process which I have just described, will dwindle to four. Or take the county of Tipperary; has the school at Tipperary itself, with one Pro- testant and 256 Roman Catholics ; or that at Cashel, with one Protestant and 392 Roman Catholics ; or in the county of Waterford that at Tallow with, respectively, one and 200; or that at Tramore with one and 458; or that at St. John’s Square, county of Limerick, with one and 353 — any proper right to swell these returns ? And these, let me observe, are selected almost at random from innumerable others of like character. But most instructive of all will be a column taken in bulk from the return of the county of Cork. I select this county because it is one where our people are by no means few. They were by the last Census 50,666, as compared with 494,146 Roman Catholics, or somewhat more than one to 10. It is as follows:— NAME OF SCHOOL. Number of j Children on the Rolls, for the Quarter ending 31st Dec., 1859. i NAME OF SCHOOL. Number of Children on the Rolls, for the Quarter ending 31st Dec., 1859. Protestant, of all Denomina- tions. Roman Catholics. Protestant, of all Denomina- tions. Roman Catholics. Carried over... 97 5542 Glenville 3 61 1 Dromagh 6 99 Forside 8 94 Ditto 1 101 New Glanmire 1 94 Grange 4 103 Clonpriest 1 97 Cove of Kinsale ... 4 100 Whitegate 5 106 j Glandore 5 78 Kilbarry 3 98 Baltimore 1 97 Killeagh 2 115 ; Lysheen 1 158 Clonakilty 4 286 Killavillen 2 108 Macroom 1 93 Ditto 1 78 Midleton 2 761 Ballykerwick 2 83 Ahandur 2 115 Dunbeacon 2 113 Old Chapel 3 169 Glengariffe 4 93 White Church 1 80 Ballymakeera 3 159 Ditto ! i 82 Cloyne 1 206 Sundayswells i 115 Sundayswell 2 215 Ballytibbet 3 150 ! Kilmacdonagh . . . 3 154 Kilbolane ] 75 i Knocks Keagh .... 3 85 Glandore 1 118 Hawlboline Island 4 36 Charleville 4 217 Glenville 3 69 Midleton 1 321 Ballygraddy 1 114 County Gaol, No 1 2 37 Skibbereen 1 102 Cove 1 330 Inch 1 50 Mallow 3 235 Dungourney 2 149 Rathcormack 1 144 Laharn 2 77 Ballydahob 10 92 Dunmanway 3 16 Kanturk 2 249 Ballynora 3 232 Ballydahob 2 79 Castleview 1 112 Castlelyons 3 70 Cnox 1 115 Kilworth 2 136 Britway 1 110 Rathcormack 1 132 Cullen 1 170 Kilworth 4 120 Clonpriest 1 86 Paddock 2 77 Lemlara 2 76 Kanturk 9 274 Scart 2 84 Goggin’s Hill 5 160 Lowertown 33 116 Skull 1 101 Doneraile 1 414 Knockraha 1 59 Bally vonier 5 ] 25 Over... 97 5542 Total.. 210 9825 84 The result of all will be, that, while 141 schools of mixed education are returned for this county as “ schools in which Protestants and Roman Catholics were jointly receiv- ing education,” if the schools in which one Protestant pupil only was on the rolls were subtracted, there would remain only 91 ; if, further, those in which only two, there would remain but 56 ; if those in which only three, there would then remain 33; and if those in which only four, the original 141 would have dwindled to 23. I sometimes cannot help asking myself whether such schools ought to figure in the Annual Reports of the Board among those “ exhibiting a mixed attendance of Protestant and Roman Catholic children,” with no explanation given of the extent to which they are such. Note C, p. 58. I have not thought it necessary to withdraw this state- ment, notwithstanding that in a Memorial addressed to the Lord Primate by “ Clergy of the Diocese of Derry,” a copy of which Memorial was also transmitted to myself and to the public newspapers, the following passage occurs : — “We distinctly deny that the liability- of this diocese at any time reached this sum. Any comparison, therefore, between the present charge and previous fees made on this estimate, was erroneous and calculated to mislead your Grace. Of this there is a striking example in the case mentioned by Dr. Stephens, in his Analysis of the Rules and Orders, and quoted by his Grace the Archbishop of Dublin in his late Charge. It is there stated that the fees payable by the parish of Carndonagh were £3 6s. 9d. In no parish in the diocese did the visitation fees ever amount to so large a sum. In that parish, including the fee to the diocesan school- master, they only amounted to £1 3s. Id. The statement with regard to all the other parishes is equally incorrect .” 85 I have not withdrawn this statement for these reasons : — The Incumbent of Carndonagh, who is one of the memorial- ists, was appointed to Carndonagh in 1851, in which year he made a return to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of the gross value of his living as being £435, and claimed , among other deductions, £3 6s. 9d. for visitation fees, and 12s. for the diocesan schoolmaster. In 1854 his valuation was ascer- tained at £297 4s. 7fd., after deducting , among other things, these visitation fees , viz. £3 6s. 9d. If they had not been deducted, his income would have been ^300 11s. 4fd. and he would consequently have been liable to an annual tax of £7 10s. In 1855 his valuation was £298 17s. 2|d., and would have been £302 3s. lljd. and as such liable to an annual tax of £7 10s. if he had not in writing claimed £3 6s. 9d. to be deducted for visitation fees. All these documents, and those also which bear out the entire accuracy of the amount of visitation fees in all the other cases instanced by Dr. Stephens from the diocese of Derry, and quoted by me, but by the memorialists proclaimed to be “ equally incorrect,” I have myself examined and verified at the Office of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Note D, p. 60. One example for many of the wonderful things which are told about us may suffice. In Fraser's Magazine , October, 1865, p. 419, the following passage occurs: — “For this fraction of a people, these 678,000 souls, no less than 2,265 clergymen are maintained. There is a clergyman for every 36 souls, and, in three dioceses, a Bishop for every 1500.” With the extraordinary statement of the second sentence, it is hardly worth while to pause at the first, and to substitute 86 693,357 (the Census Return) for 678,000 as the number of Church people, nor yet to observe that the total number of the Clergy, as stated above, is only reached by including School- masters, Fellows of Colleges, and gentlemen of estate in Holy Orders. A withdrawal of these would reduce it to 2,172. But this is a small matter. That which is indeed surprising is the statement that there is a clergyman in Ireland for every 36 souls ; in other words, that about every eighteenth male Protes- tant whom one meets is a clergyman. Suffering the author’s own figures to stand, and dividing 678,000 by 2,265, the quo- tient yielded is not 36, but 299 and a fraction, or more than eight times more, while the corrected figures would give a quo- tient not inconsiderably larger. But quite as surprising as this is the assertion which follows, namely, that “ in three dioceses there is a Bishop for every 1,500 souls,” although, to prevent any possible misgiving on the mind of the reader, a reference in proof of this assertion is made to the Census of 1861, part 4, p. 20, s. 99. There is no diocese in Ireland .with fewer Church people than 13,853, while two have more than 150,000. With such assertions as these passing current in our popular literature, it will scarcely be superfluous to add to this Appendix, which I do with the permission of the compiler, a most useful and accurate Tabular Digest of Irish Church Statistics , drawn from the latest authorities. Note E, p. 62. For others who may not know, I will briefly sum up the actual facts of the case. Thirteen of the Cathedrals are either parish churches which have been made Cathedrals under stat. 39, George III., c. 19, or Cathedrals which were made parish churches under stat. 21, George II., c. 8. Thirteen of the Deans and Chapters are without any corpo- 87 rate revenues whatsoever. In 20 of the so-called Cathedrals there is no foundation for the support of Vicars-choral tg perform the Cathedral service. Twenty-four of the Deans derive the whole of their incomes from the Benefices with cure of souls, in which they officiate as parish ministers. And of the Dignitaries and Prebendaries, 199 have no other revenues than those belonging to the parishes of which they are Incumbents. (See Second Report on Ecclesiastical Revenue and Patronage , Ireland , 1834.) TABULAE DIGEST A ccording to the Parliamentary Returns moved for by Ca] 1 Number of Churches in each I. ARMAGH AND CLOGHER *■ 17 II. MEATH - - 10 III. DERRY AND RAPHOE - 11 IY. DOWN AND CONNOR, AND DROMORE - 15 V. KILMORE, ELPHIN AND ARDAGH - - 13 1 ' VI. TUAM, KILLALA AND ACHONRY - - 7 | VII. DUBLIN AND GLANDELAGH, AND KILDARE 17 ! VIII. OSSORY, FERNS AND LEIGHLIN - 17 ; IX. CASHEL AND EMLY, WATERFORD AND LISMORE 9 i X. LIMERICK, ARDFERT AND AGHADOE - 8 XI. CORK, CLOYNE AND ROSS - - 15 XII. KILLALOE AND KILFENORA, CLONFERT AND ) KILMACDUAGH ] 8 Total number of Churches in Ireland Total Church Population of Ireland Total number of Livings in Ireland Average number of Livings in each Bishoprick Average Church Population of a Living in Ireland Total number of Non-Resident Incumbents in Ireland Total number of Curates in Ireland Total number of Clergy in Ireland Gross value of the Livings in Ireland - Average gross value of a Living in Ireland tSOH«OOW TABULAR DIGEST OF IRISH CHURCH According to the Parliamentary Returns moved for by Captain Stacpoole, and ordered by the House of} By W. MAZIERE BRADY, D.D. :stics, be Printed, 4th May , 1864. Number of Churches in each United Diocese. | Church Population of j each United Diocese. Average Church Popula- 1 tion of Livings in each 1 United Diocese. Number of Livings (or of [ Incumbents) in each United Diocese. Number of Non-Resident Incumbents in each United Diocese. Number of Curates in each United Diocese. Total Number of Clergyj| in each United Gross Value of the Livings in each United Diocese. Net Value of the Livings in each United Diocese. Average Net Value of Livings in each United Diocese. Gross Value of each Bishoprick. Net Value of oach Bishoprick. I. ARMAGH AND CLOGHER - 179 150778 886 170 12 75 245 £ 67246 £ 50275 j £ 295 £ 15758 00 1 03 1 | II. MEATH ------ 108 16289 155 105 12 27 132 30717 24504 233 4308 3664 III. DERRY AND RAPHOE - 113 65951 605 109 3 48 157 49248 36769 337 13628 5939 IV. DOWN AND CONNOR, AND DROMORE 159 153467 1058 145 13 56 201 40071 32616 224 4988 3524 V. KILMORE, ELPHIN AND ARDAGH - 136 53196 450 118 10 84 202 40656 29944 ; 253 | 6851 5939 j VI. TUAM, KILLALA AND ACHONRY - 76 17157 238 72 6 29 101 22488 17409 241 5265 4038 | | VII. DUBLIN AND GLANDELAGH, AND KILDARE - ; 171 112766 683 165 20 88 253 43413 33568 203 8249 6569 j VIII. OSSORY, FERNS AND LEIGHLIN 171 35663 208 171 27 83 254 57324 43851 256 4630 3867 IX. CASHEL AND EMLY, WATERFORD AND LISMORE 94 13853 129 107 32 45 152 37841 31009 289 5190 4402 | | X. LIMERICK, ARDFERT AND AGHADOE 83 15103 162 93 23 33 126 27545 21676 233 4612 3961 i XI. CORK, CLOYNE AND ROSS - - - - 157 43228 254 170 41 71 241 62093 48799 287 2697 2304 | XII. KILLALOE AND KILFENORA, CLONFERT AND ) KILMACDUAGH / 87 15906 187 86 6 23 108 24402 20154 237 3880 3261 j Total number of Churches in Ireland Total Church Population of Ireland Total number of Livings in Ireland Average number of Livings in each Bishoprick Average Church Population of a Living in Ireland Total number of Non-Resident Incumbents in Ireland Total number of Curates in Ireland Total number of Clergy in Ireland Gross value of the Livings in Ireland - Average gross vahie of a Living in Ireland 1534 - 693357 1510 125 459 205 662 2172 - £506368 335 £ Net value of Livings in Ireland 393833 Average net value of a Living in Ireland - - - - - - 260 Total gross value of Bishopricks in Ireland ------ 80059 Average gross value of a Bishoprick in Ireland - 6671 Total net value of Bishopricks in Ireland ------ 55110 Average net value of a Bishoprick in Ireland - - - - 4592 Aggregate amount of the gross Revenue of the Established Church, (including Bishopricks and £1776 of Trustee Chapels, and £1433 of Ministers’ Money) - 586428 Aggregate amount of the net Revenue of the Established Church, (including Bishopricks and £1741 of Trustee Chapels, and £1433 of Ministers’ Money) - 448943 DELIVERED TO TIIE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S, at Si's Nintf) Fisitation, OCTOBER, 1866. BY CONNOP THIRLWALL, D.D. bishop oe st. david’s. PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLERGY. Honiton, RIVING TONS, WATERLOO PLACE ; HIGH STREET, ©ifotlr. trinity street, ©amfcr&ge. 1866. A CHARGE, SfC. My Reverend Brethren, On this occasion of my ninth Visitation my thoughts are almost necessarily carried back to the beginning of the period, now more than a quarter of a century, during which I have been permitted to fill this chair, and to the view which I then took of the state of things around me, and the feelings with which I looked forward to the future which now lies behind us. In this retrospect I find one ground of satisfaction, on which I may dwell without the slightest temptation to self-complacency. Though I am sure that the estimate I then formed, and which I indicated in my first Charge, of the difficul- ties which beset the Church’s work in the Diocese, was not at all exaggerated, it was certainly far from cheering ; and the very moderate expectations which it seemed to warrant, were hardly liable to much disappointment. Much brighter hopes might, as the event has shown, have been safely indulged by one of more sanguine temperament or larger foresight. I was able, indeed, to point to many gladdening signs of growing vigour and expansive energy in the Church at large ; but I could not discover any clear a 2 4 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY evidence that this spirit had penetrated into our corner of the field, or any sure ground of confidence as to the degree in which it would overcome the manifold obstacles it had to encounter there. I should be still more loth to fall under any illusion of an opposite kind, however agreeable ; but I do find much cause for thankfulness when I compare the present state of the Diocese, in many important aspects, with my recollections of the past. I need not scruple to express this feeling, whether the pro- gress which has been made be great or small, be- cause in the efforts by which it has been brought about, I can claim no share but that of a sympa- thizing and encouraging spectator. It is, under Providence, to the clergy and the faithful laity, though not without large help from without, that the whole is due. I look in the first place to the condition of our sacred buildings, as the most important of all out- ward aids to religion, and the surest sign of the interest it excites. The records of the Church Building Society furnish a measure of the activity with which the work of church restoration has been carried on among us within the last half century. Between 1818 and 1865 it has made grants to this Diocese in 183 cases. Of this number two-thirds belong to the latter half of the period. This list, indeed, is far from representing all that has been done in our time. It omits many of the under- takings which have been accomplished by private, unaided, unostentatious munificence, to which we owe some of the goodliest of our churches, among them seven due to the munificence of the late and the present Earl Cawdor. And, I may add, that there are at this moment more than thirty parishes 5 OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. in which new or restored churches are in various stages of progress, from the first step, to immediate readiness for consecration or re-opening. I do not expect to see all of them completed. They must more or less interfere with one another. But this simultaneous movement in all quarters of the Dio- cese is a gratifying sign of healthy life h I may also observe, that this increase in the number of our churches has been accompanied by a great improve- ment in their architectural character. The contrast between the earlier and the later buildings in their style, would in general be sufficient to mark the date to which they belong. This indeed is a benefit which, in common with the whole Church, we derive from the awakening of a better feeling, and the diffusion of more accurate knowledge and more en- lightened taste in these matters. And much as we have reason to congratulate ourselves on this happy change with regard to our new churches, it is still more important with regard to some of those which had fallen into decay. A new church in the style which would have satisfied those who saw it fifty years ago, would now offend all who try it by a higher and more correct standard. But this evil is very slight, when compared with that which we have to deplore, when a venerable monument is irreparably defaced by a mis- named restoration. It must therefore be deemed a happy coincidence, that in the case of some of the most precious remains of ecclesiastical architecture which have been handed down to us, the work has been reserved for our day, and for skilful and tender hands, by which they will be not only preserved from further decay, but renewed in their original fresh- ness. 1 See Appendix A. 6 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY Among these our Cathedral unquestionably occu- pies the foremost place, as well for its historical associations, as for its architectural beauties, still surviving all the injury it has undergone through the violence and neglect of ages. I cannot lament that the imminent and growing danger of total ruin with which it was threatened, rendered it absolutely necessary to devote a large sum to the single purpose of warding off that disaster, without any change in the outward appearance of the building. For it followed, almost of course, that this occasion should not be allowed to pass by, without an effort, both to preserve whatever else was ready to perish, and to restore the mutilated features of the original design. I was aware, indeed, in common with all who engaged in this undertaking, that the peculiar disadvantages with which it had to contend in the raising of the requisite funds, precluded all hope that it would be brought to an early completion. The obscurity of its position — known by actual inspection only to a few occasional visitors, while out of Wales its very existence, as any thing more than a mere ruin, is by no means generally received as an unquestionable fact — not only debars it from the sympathy which it seldom fails to excite in those who see it, but with some passes for an argument against the undertaking itself. We have, therefore, cause to be thankful, that, by an extraordinary exertion of mechanical skill and ingenuity, which has reflected some additional lustre on the name of Mr. Gilbert Scott, the most important and difficult part of the work, that by which the stability of the fabric was to be secured, has been achieved. Still, after every allowance for unfavourable cir- cumstances, I must own that I have been somewhat OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 7 surprised and disappointed by the tardiness of the response which has been made to the appeal of the Dean and Chapter. I had hoped — not I think un- reasonably — that the object would have roused a more general and lively interest throughout the Principality, as well as among lovers of art and students of archaeology elsewhere. At a time when archaeology is so zealously cultivated — in Wales by a special Association — it might have been fairly ex- pected that, even if the Cathedral had no claim on the public but as an ancient monument, this would have sufficed to secure a much larger amount of support to the undertaking. On Churchmen it has the further claim of being at once the Cathedral of the Diocese, and the only church of the large parish in which it stands. I have therefore been grieved to hear murmurs, calling in question the usefulness of the undertaking ; suggesting a doubt, whether it would not have been better to let the building sink into utter ruin, and to make some less costly provision for the spiritual wants of the con- gregation. I cannot deny that there is a dispro- portion between the scale of the building, and the want which it actually supplies. It is a dis- proportion of superfluity, not of deficiency, and may, it is to be hoped, hereafter become less sensi- ble, while the room remains the same. But is any one prepared, either in theory or in practice, to accept the principle, of exactly adapting the pro- vision for the worship of God to the need of the worshippers, and to condemn all further outlay as waste ? I will not ask whether the earliest example of such parsimony among Christ’s disciples is one which we should wish to follow. But if the prin- ciple was consistently applied, how many of us must 8 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY stand convicted of waste, like that which excited the indignation of Judas ? How many costly churches have we built, when four walls, roofed over, with a few holes to let in the light, would have served the purpose of public worship ? Even if, in ordinary cases, we had acted on such a principle, there would have been one which would have had a right to be treated as an exception — the Cathedral of the Diocese. Surely this ought not to be the exception, where the cheerful sacrifice of worldly things for God’s honour is the rule. I rejoice that it is no longer a question, whether we shall abandon or preserve a sacred and precious deposit, bequeathed to us by the pious munificence of former ages, and that I may before long be permitted to see the work carried to within a few stages of its final completion. For this happy change in its prospects we are indebted to the arrangement into which the Dean and Chapter have just entered with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I must, however, observe, that their grant, together with the fund previously raised, will not cover more than about two-thirds of the estimated cost, and that it will still be to private liberality that we must look for the remainder. Let me add that, even if we should descend to lower ground than I think we are at liberty to take, I am persuaded that the outlay is likely to yield a large return, in the impulse which this great work may be expected to give to the progress of church restoration throughout the Diocese. To return for a few moments to the general sub- ject. By far the larger part of the funds with which the work of church building has been carried on in the Diocese within my own experience, has been supplied by voluntary contributions. In one point 9 OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. of view tins is a cheering fact, as it shows that the movement has not been checked by the difficulty which besets the collecting of Church Rates, and therefore is likely to advance, even if they should be entirely abolished. But I am far from thinking that therefore we can be indifferent to the state of the law on the subject, either as regards others or our- selves. It is true that, even where the rate appears to be hopelessly lost, active exertions on the part of the clergyman have almost invariably succeeded in accomplishing the restoration of his church. But in many of these cases a light rate, made in time, would have prevented the building from falling to decay, and have spared the congregation the inconvenience of assembling in it, while in a condition painful to devout feeling, if not perilous to health, or of trans- ferring their attendance to some private room, of scanty dimensions, rudely fitted up for the temporary purpose. No doubt the privation often purchases a much greater benefit : the exchange of a very un- sightly building for a new one of more becoming character. But frequently the only difference is, that what has been done at last with great difficulty, cost, and inconvenience, would have been done earlier, more easily, and cheaply. The Church Bate question has been left on its old footing. The clergy were almost universally op- posed to the measure by which an attempt was made in the last Session of Parliament to provide a sub- stitute for the compulsory Bate. It appeared, I believe, to most of them, that, if they were to be thrown entirely on the voluntary principle, they might as well, if not much better, act upon their own judgment as to the mode in which they availed themselves of it, without any legislative regulations, 10 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY which might as often fetter and weaken, as promote its operation. The loss to the Church was clear and certain : the gain confined to one class of society, which has no more right to it than any other. And if there were any who had ever imagined that the loss would be compensated by the removal of a con- stant cause of strife and bitterness, these had been long undeceived by the candid avowal of the Libera- tion Society, that they set no value .on the abolition, except as a step which would give them vantage ground or leverage for further assaults on the Esta- blished Church. The general object of the Bill was one which most Churchmen would have agreed in regarding as highly desirable. They were quite willing that Nonconformists should be exempted from the Rate. It was by the Dissenters themselves that Mr. Hubbard’s Bill, brought in for that purpose, was rejected, on the singular ground, — which throws a very instructive light on the character of their conscientious scruples, — that they did not like to be ticketed , or recognized as Dissenters, though on other occasions they glory in the profession of their principles, and of their hostility to the Established Church. It almost looked as if they did not like to part with a grievance which they had found to be not only harmless, but useful. The Government Bill of last Session met this objection, so as to satisfy the representatives of the Dissenting body, who required nothing more than the abolition of the compulsory Rate. But as the compulsion of which they complained was that which was exercised on themselves, while Churchmen, as far as they them- selves were concerned, did not object to it, but desired its continuance, it would have seemed enough if those who complained of it had been relieved OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 11 from it, all things in other respects remaining as they were. But the Bill went much further than this. It swept away the whole system, both with regard to Dissenters and to Churchmen, and only permitted voluntary contributions to be levied in the form of a Bate, but without any power of enforcing payment. It might be open to question, whether such a power should exist : but the right of entering into a volun- tary engagement, with the liberty of eluding it, could hardly be considered as a very valuable boon by those for whose benefit it was designed. I will take this occasion to remark, that a wish has been expressed in some quarters for the esta- blishment of a Diocesan Church Building Society. There are, no doubt, Dioceses in which this institu- tion has produced very beneficial results. My only objection to trying the experiment in ours, is my fear, that the only certain appreciable effect would be to add to the burdens of the clergy. It can hardly be expected that the laity would take even so lively an interest in the promotion of church building as in the diffusion of education; and the state of the funds which they contribute to that object does not encourage reliance on their aid toward one in which they would not feel themselves so nearly concerned. Still, if it should appear that the clergy are generally desirous of making such an effort, I should be quite ready to comply with their wishes, and to second it to the best of my ability. Before I pass to a different subject, I must say a word on another point of purely Diocesan interest. The Augmentation Fund, which I founded in 1851, has now yielded 24,000Z., of which very nearly 12 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY 17,000?. has been already expended, almost entirely in the building of parsonage houses. As no part of this sum has been granted unconditionally, and the larger part has been met with grants of equal amount by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, it may be considered as representing a sum exceeding 30,000?. already applied to this object, which, when the remainder of the 24,000 ?. shall have been dis- pensed in like manner, will be increased to upwards of 40,000?. The number of the livings which have hitherto shared the benefit of the Fund is thirty-four. I still intend to apply the remainder now at my dis- posal and whatever may hereafter accrue to the Fund, in the same way. But though it will be equally beneficial to the livings augmented, I am sorry to have to inform you that it will not be so to the present incumbents who receive the benefaction ; for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have found themselves compelled, in order to provide for the still more important object of putting an end to the renewal of leases on payment of fines, to substitute permanent annuities for capital sums ; and the only way in which their grants can be made available for the purpose of building is by loan from Queen Anne’s Bounty, entailing a charge of interest on the living. Future applicants must bear this in mind. I hope indeed, though with no great confidence, that means may be found to enable the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners to revert to their original practice. But I must also express an earnest wish that they would modify their requirements as to the scale of building, which is too often in excess, not only of the wants, but of the means of the clergy in this Diocese, and would, if it had been lower, have rendered my Fund or THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 13 somewhat less inadequate to the object ; and there are still more than two hundred benefices destitute of glebe houses. I am sure that I shall be borne out by the expe- rience and observation of my reverend brethren in this and in every Archdeaconry of the Diocese, when I say that the progress made in the work of popular education has been not less steady than that of church building and church restoration during the same period. Many of you can witness to that which is mainly your own work, — the fruit of heavy pecu- niary sacrifices, as well as of much labour and anxiety, — the founding of new schools, the erection of new school-buildings, or the adaptation of the old to the requirements of a higher standard. I may also point to the foundation of our Training College, as having marked a great epoch in the history of education in the Diocese, and as the origin of an impulse which has never slackened, but has been strengthened by the institution of our Archidiaconal Boards, which has, I hope, ensured its permanently progressive action. But we must not disguise from ourselves, that this progress is apparent only in places which may be considered as centres of a more or less considerable population. The Returns which I have received from you continue to exhibit a sad blank with regard to day schools in the more thinly inhabited rural districts. I find no less than 120 parishes in which it does not appear that any provision has yet been made, through the instru- mentality of the Church, for the education of the poor. I cannot, of course, undertake to pronounce with regard to all these cases, that more might not have been done to cover this grievous blot. But knowing what I do of the general character of these 14 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY rural districts, on tlie one hand, and, on the other hand, of the difficulties which beset the founding and support of schools, even in more favoured neigh- bourhoods, I may venture to say that the fact of the absence of a day school is by no means in itself con- clusive proof of culpable remissness, indifference, or want of energy in the clergyman, and also to express my conviction that, under the present system, and without more effectual public aid, there is no prospect that this state of things will ever be materially amended. Sharing, as we have done, in the benefits derived from the distribution of the Parliamentary Grant for Education, we have also suffered, in common with others, from the changes which have taken place in the principles or maxims on which it has been administered, and which, however reasonable they may have been in themselves, have certainly been far from purely beneficial in their consequences. We have no right indeed to complain, because the dis- pensation of the grant is regulated by a more rigid economy than when it was comparatively small. The more firmly we are convinced that there is no worthier object to which the wealth of the country can be applied than the intellectual and moral train- ing of the great mass of the people, the more we must desire that no part of the funds destined to this purpose should be wasted, and that, if there had been any superfluous, though it may be not abso- lutely useless expenditure, this should be retrenched, and the saving reserved for the supply of real needs. Such retrenchment was one object of the Revised Code. But it is much to be feared that it has been carried too near to the quick, has increased the diffi- culties of the promoters of schools, and has tended OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 15 to discourage all who have engaged or were ready to engage in the work of education. Such a result, though no doubt wholly undesigned and unforeseen, must be deeply deplored by all who believe that the present system, in which private undertakings are seconded by the State, and animated by the prospect of that assistance, is on the whole best suited to the circumstances of our mixed society; because in the same degree in which it impairs the efficacy and shakes the credit of that system, it favours the views of those who wish to see that system superseded by one more comprehensive and more nearly adequate to the wants of the nation : though with the inevitable, at least partial, sacrifice of much which the promoters of schools mostly consider as of supreme importance. It cannot be denied that the present system needs, not contraction, but expansion; that it does not reach all for whom it was designed ; that this country is still, with regard to the diffusion of elementary education, in a position of humiliating inferiority to other States, to which it is far superior in wealth. The Revised Code has certainly gained no step in this direction. It has not only been attended with serious losses to the managers of schools through causes beyond their control, for which, therefore, they could not justly be made answerable; but it has driven some, and those among the ablest teachers, from their profession into other walks of life, and it has so reduced the average amount of reward for their services, and rendered it so precarious and uncertain, as to lower the value and credit of the profession, and to deter the rising generation from entering it. We have thus the pros- pect that many schools depending on the Parliamen- tary Grant will be closed, and that in those which are 16 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY able to maintain a struggling existence, at the cost of hard sacrifices and painful anxiety to their mana- gers, the work will be continually passing into less and less competent hands 2 . Thus one of the most precious fruits of the old system — the training a great body of well-educated teachers — will have been lost. And I cannot help thinking that this unhappy result is due, not only to an excessive and misdirected parsimony, but in part to a mistake, which can never be quite harmless, and may become a serious evil — I mean the committing the administration of a system to persons who are notoriously and avowedly hostile to it, as was very conspicuously the case with one at least who for five years held a high office in the Committee of Council on Education 3 . To the same cause may be still more distinctly traced the offensive and no less absurd and unjust imputation on school managers, with which the Revised Code was intro- duced. Men who had made the greatest personal sacrifices for the promotion of education, found themselves charged with selfish motives, because they opposed a change, which in their view threat- ened the very existence of their schools, and which has been attended with effects which few who do not desire the abolition of the Denominational System, can view without sorrow and uneasiness. 2 See an article on the Revised Code in the Fortnightly Review, May 15, 1866, p. 75. The last Report of the Committee of Council on Education states (p. xiii.) : “ The introduction of the Revised Code has been followed by a great diminution in the number of pupil-teachers, especially of male pupil-teachers ; the total number of pupil-teachers in 1862 (December 31) was 15,752, against 11,221 in 1865, showing a diminution of 28.7 per cent.” 3 See the evidence of Mr. Lowe before the Select Committee on Education, pp. 38, 39, and Professor Plumptre on the Conscience Clause, in the Contemporary Review, April, 1866, p. 5S0. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 17 It was to be expected that the Training Colleges should feel the effects of the revised system, and that to many of them it should have proved fatal, while as to the remainder, it is impossible to foresee how long they may survive. Our own has hitherto endured the crisis, but has not passed through it. Perhaps we have more reason to be surprised that any of them should have been allowed to subsist. I always indeed thought that there was an enormous and almost absurd disproportion between the variety and difficulty of the branches of knowledge cultivated in these establishments, and the extent of proficiency required, on the one hand ; and, on the other hand, the character of the schools and the capacity of the scholars for whose instruction this multifarious and profound learning was supposed to be acquired. While complaints were heard on every side of the early age at which most of the children were taken away from school, and which rendered it almost hopeless that they should retain even the first rudi- ments of knowledge, the training of their teachers was carried nearer and nearer to a point not far below the average conditions of a University degree. Still, under the previous system there were oppor- tunities, though comparatively rare, of imparting this knowledge to some of the elder scholars. It was found, indeed, in many cases, that an undue share of the master’s time and attention was bestowed on the favoured few, while the many were abandoned to the care of his young assistants, without any effectual security for their instruction in the first rudiments of the most necessary knowledge. That was the ground alleged, I cannot help suspecting with some exaggeration, for the revolution effected B 18 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY by the Revised Code. But now that all motive supplied by the dispensation of the Parliamentary grant for any instruction beyond the arts of reading and writing and a few rules of arithmetic has been withdrawn 4 , it seems clear that such elaborate culture of minds to be employed in this very simple task, is altogether superfluous and out of place. The Train- ing Colleges do not really belong to the system of the Revised Code, and if it was to be considered as the final phase in the history of the subject, might almost as well cease to exist. But it appears to me that such a state of things would be a very lamentable and humiliating issue of all the thought and work that have been spent on the subject. I think there ought to be, in schools for the labouring classes, a large demand for that higher training which the Normal Colleges were intended to give, though perhaps with some modifi- cations, calculated to increase their practical useful- ness. To the principle, indeed, on which the Revised Code was based, we cannot but give a most hearty assent. No one can deny the right and duty of the State to demand results, where they may be obtained, as the only sure test of real and honest service, and the indispensable condition of remuneration granted out of a public fund. Nor can it be doubted that the elementary knowledge required by the present 4 “The Revised Code has tended, at least temporarily, to dis- courage attention to the higher branches of elementary instruction — geography, grammar, and history.” (Report u. s.) This is the concurrent testimony of thirteen School Inspectors. On the authority of three others it is added : “ There are however signs of recovery ; and those schools do best in the elementary subjects where the higher are not neglected.” OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 19 regulations is equally needful and profitable for all, and for a very large, perhaps the largest part, of the labouring class, both sufficient for their wants, and as much as, under the narrow limitation of their school years, they are capable of receiving. But there remain in the upper and more important divi- sion of the labouring class, a very great number whose existence is ignored in the Revised Code, which makes no provision for their wants, but leaves and almost forces them to seek the education which they need to fit them for their probable future occupations, from private adventurers, utterly destitute of all real qualifications for the duty they undertake, and who look to it only as a gainful speculation by which they exchange empty professions for solid if not perfectly clean lucre. The question has been asked, “ Do our National Schools provide education for all whom they ought to train 5 ?” and it has been proved beyond a doubt, both that they do not make such provision, and that the tendency of the Revised Code is to prevent them from so doing. The National Society has shown itself awake to the importance of the question, and has announced its intention of taking steps with a view to the supply of this great deficiency. I can only commend the subject to the attention of those of my reverend brethren whose position may afford them the opportunity of practi- cally dealing with it. On the whole, I can only consider both systems, the present and the past, as experiments, each of which has been but partially successful, though neither has entirely failed. It is to be hoped that the experience which has been gained through both, at no light cost, both to 6 By the Rev. Robert Gregory, in a pamphlet with this title, addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury. B 2 20 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY individuals and to the public, may serve to prepare the way for a happier state of things. In the meanwhile, the attention of the Church has been much occupied by another question connected with this subject, which has been discussed with great warmth, and has caused an interruption in the relations which had for many years happily subsisted between the National Society and the Committee of Council on Education. It is most earnestly to be desired that those friendly relations and that har- monious co-operation should be restored, and I ob- serve signs which lead me to hope that this event is not very far distant, and that a change has already taken place in many minds favourable to the pro- spect of a better understanding between the parties. You will readily perceive that I am speaking of the Conscience Clause, which the Committee of Council have felt it their duty in certain cases to require to be inserted in the trust deeds of Church schools, as the condition of aid from the Parliamentary grant. I feel it incumbent on me to say a few words in explanation of my present views of the subject, be- cause they may appear not quite in accordance with those which I expressed, not indeed on this precise question, but on one connected with it, some years ago. It may be in your recollection that I had then occasion to contend against a proposal which had been made to supersede Church schools in Wales by others on the model of the British and Foreign Schools. I opposed this innovation, as proceeding on a partial and erroneous view of the facts of the case, as need- less for its avowed purpose, and as tending to sub- stitute a worse for a better kind of school. That opinion I retain entirely unaltered, or rather strengthened by subsequent inquiry. But it might OP THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 21 seem as if in that controversy I was taking common ground with those who resisted the imposition of a Conscience Clause. The agreement, however, was merely apparent and accidental. My own opportu- nities of observation led me to believe that the clause was unnecessary, and ought not to be imposed until its necessity was proved. It also appeared question- able whether the Committee of Council were not exceeding the limits of their lawful authority, when they introduced such an innovation without the ex- press sanction of Parliament. This last objection has been continually urged by the opponents of the Clause, though it is evidently quite foreign to the merits of the Clause itself. But it seems now very doubtful whether this is an argument which can be used without taking an ungenerous advantage of a forbearance for which the Church has cause to be thankful. It is now certain that the motive which withheld the Committee of Council from applying to Parliament for its express approval of the Con- science Clause, was the very reverse of an apprehen- sion lest it should not obtain the assent of the House of Commons. It was a fear lest they should be thought not to have gone far enough and should be forced to take steps which would drive many of the clergy to forego all benefit from the Parlia- mentary grant 6 . This, however, as I have said, is a formal and technical rather than a substantial and practical objection. It may not be an unfit argu- ment for a political debate, but it is not one which much concerns or raises a scruple in the minds of the clergy or the managers of Church schools. If 6 See the evidence of Earl Granville before the Select Committee on Education, p. 109. 22 A CHAEGE TO THE CLEEGY they decline to accept a grant on the condition of a Conscience Clause it is because they dislike the clause in itself, on grounds which would be just as strong if it had been imposed by the Legislature. It has indeed been so vehemently denounced by persons who exercise no inconsiderable influence on public opinion in Church questions, that it is not easy for it to gain a calm and fair hearing. It requires a certain amount of moral courage in a clergyman, whatever may be his private opinion, to take a step which he has been told by persons whom he highly respects is inconsistent with his duty to the Church, and tends to the most dangerous conse- quences ; above all, when he finds this proposition affirmed by a vote of the Lower House of Convoca- tion. I venture to say with the deepest conviction, that never has the truth on any subject been more ob- scured by passionate declamation, sophistical reason- ing, high-sounding but utterly hollow phrases, and by violent distortion of notorious facts, than on this : all, no doubt, completely unintentional on the part of the excellent persons who were betrayed into these errors, who were the first dupes of their own fallacies, and are perhaps of all men living the least capable of anything bordering on disingenuous arti- fice or wilful misrepresentation. It was the natural effect of the panic into which they were thrown by the suggestion of a danger threatening interests most justly dear and sacred to them, which pre- vented them from exercising a right judgment on this question, or seeing any object connected with it in its true light. But this deep earnestness, while it does honour to their feelings, renders their aberra- tions the more deplorable and mischievous. - I have OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 23 good hope, however, that the mist which they have raised is beginning to break and clear away. I am glad to see that the weakness of their “ reasons/’ and the groundlessness of their position, has been exposed, both in and outside of Convocation, by clergymen at least their equals in ability and attach- ment to the Church, though lower in official station 7 . I feel too much confidence in the moderation and practical good sense of the great body of the clergy, to believe that they will be long misled by any authority which will not bear the test of sober judg- ment, and I am sure that they will sooner or later be found on the side of truth and justice. The general ground of the opposition which has been made to the Conscience Clause cannot be more strongly expressed than when it is said to 4 4 under- mine the foundation of religion.” But if there is any force at all in the arguments which have been brought against it, the expression is not too strong, for in whatever terms they may have been couched this is what they really amount to and imply, though the vagueness of the phrase is better fitted to excite a blind bewildering alarm than to raise any clear and definite issue. In fact, until it has been ex- plained and limited it can only act upon the feelings 7 Though the argumentative force of Archdeacon Denison’s “ Seventeen Reasons ” has evaporated under Mr. Oakley’s analysis (“ The Conscience Clause, a Reply to Archdeacon Denison, by John Oakley, M.A.”) they will always retain a certain value, as examples of a great variety of fallacies, which once actually de- . ceived well-educated men. Perhaps I might have been content with referring to Professor Plumptre’s very able article on the subject in the Contemporary Review, if readers were more in the habit of consulting books to which they are referred. But I strongly recommend it to the perusal of every one who takes an interest in the question. 24 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY and the imagination, and presents no hold for any rational opinion. But when it is translated into plainer language, it appears that the mode in which the foundation of religion is thought to be under- mined by the Conscience Clause, consists in the interference which through it the State is alleged to exercise in the religious teaching of Church schools. This is an allegation which we can im- mediately compare with the Clause itself, so as to ascertain in what sense it is to be understood, and how far it is warranted by the meaning of the Clause. Here, however, I must remark a peculiar and very significant feature in this controversy : that, though it relates to a practical subject, those who describe the Clause as fraught with such dreadful consequences, have never appealed to experience, but rely entirely on their own sagacity for discerning the effects of a contingency which it is their object to avert 8 . And they do so, not because the question is beyond the range of experience, and confined to the region of theological speculation. There is experience to con- sult, and such as would, I believe, in most cases be considered a sufficient guide. In the present case it has been rejected or ignored by those who condemn the Clause, but only for a reason which does not in the least lessen its intrinsic value, namely, that so far as it goes, it happens to run counter to their views. The Conscience Clause is not an experiment which has yet to be made : it has been already tried in a great number of schools. First, in all those in which the 8 Evidence of Archdeacon Denison before the Select Committee on Education. 3727 : “ It is then an opinion unsupported by any actual experience ? — Yes, I cannot say that I have had any actual experience of the adoption of the Clause.” OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 25 principle was voluntarily adopted by the managers of Church schools. I have yet to learn that this has ever been attended with the slightest perceptible ill- effect. It may however be said, that this is imma- terial, and that the relaxation of the principle — the right and duty of the Church to inculcate every article of her doctrine on all children who are ad- mitted into her schools — is, independently of conse- quences, the worst of evils, a virtual “ undermining of the foundation of religion.’ ’ I do not expect that the excellent persons who hold this opinion, would ever consent to submit it to the test of experience. It is for them one of those transcendental verities, belonging to a higher sphere, which are degraded and profaned when they are brought down to earth, and tried by their application to the actual condition of things, and the real affairs of human life. I am quite content that they should be spared such con- tact with the world of reality. All that I wish is, that the world of reality should not be subjected to their influence, but should be regulated by the results of practical experience. But it has been contended, that the experience gained by such voluntary trials of the principle of the Conscience Clause, is not a satisfactory test : that the school which has flourished while governed by the principle, would begin to go to ruin, as soon as it became a matter of legal right. That is the ground taken by the Committee of the National Society in their last Report. And the way in which the subject is there treated, seems to me highly worthy of note in more respects than one. They state that they have always felt it their duty to object to the Conscience Clause as a condition of assistance from the Parliamentary grant. The fact indeed is 26 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY unquestionable. And when we consider that this opposition, carried on to a rupture between the National Society and the Committee of Council, has actually — which ever party may be responsible for it — caused a great amount of serious inconvenience, not to say positive evil ; perplexity in the minds of school managers, and obstruction to the work of education ; it was certainly to be expected that the Committee, when they stated the fact, would assign a reason sufficient to show that the course they had pursued had indeed been prescribed to them by an inflexible law of duty. But the ground which they assign is one which, to those who take the higher view of the inalienable prerogative and indispensable duty of the Church, must appear pitiably weak, and, when put forward alone, and therefore as the strongest, as amounting to little less than a treacherous abandonment of the cause, at least to a pusillanimous suppression of the truth. They say, “ No such provision is practically required for the protection of Nonconformists, for Nonconformist parents and guardians scarcely ever object to the religious instruction given in National Schools ; and when they do, the clergy and school managers almost invariably consent to some arrange- ment by which the objection is removed 55 (in other words they act on the principle of the Conscience Clause). “ If, however,” the Report proceeds, “an arrangement of this kind were made a matter of legal right, it may be feared that the peace and harmony which now prevail in parishes with regard to educa- tion would be broken — that parents and guardians might frequently be influenced to demand as a right what they seldom care to ask for as a favour . 55 No doubt, the Committee had very good reason for OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 27 taking this low ground, however it might dissatisfy and displease one section of their friends, who were most strenuous in opposition to the Clause. They were no doubt aware that the transcendental argu- ment might do good service in its proper place ; that it was well adapted for rhetorical effect, and, when wielded by an able speaker, might kindle a useful enthusiasm in a mixed assembly. But they probably felt that it was one which would not bear to be pro- duced in a Report dealing with real facts, and could not be supposed to have influenced the minds of a Committee, composed in great part of laymen, who, while warm friends of the Church, were also clear-headed men of business. The reason assigned therefore was such, as they need not be ashamed to avow. But it laboured under the disadvantage and defect of being drawn, not from experience, but from conjecture : and experience, as far as it has gone, has proved the conjecture to be mistaken. The Clause has been accepted without the consequences which it was feared would ensue, when that which was con- ceded as an indulgence should become a matter of legal right. I have been assured by a clergyman who has had practical experience of the working of the Clause in large schools in the neighbourhood of London 9 , that there are “ no practical difficulties whatever in carrying it out.” And one well authen- ticated case in which the Clause has not only been accepted, but acted upon, and the right which it gives has been actually claimed on behalf of some of the children, seems decisive. But even without such testimony, I own that I should think meanly of the administrative ability of a clergyman who, having the 9 The Rev. T. W. Fowle. See Mr. Oakley’s pamphlet, p. 33. 28 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY will, was unequal to the task of overcoming such a difficulty. For it must be remembered that the question can only arise in parishes where Dissenters are in a minority, and commonly a small one. But I readily admit that the more or less of difficulty that may be found in adjusting the work of a Church school to the operation of the Conscience Clause, is quite a secondary consideration, and that what has the foremost claim on our attention are the principles which are said to be at stake in this dispute. There are two which lie at the root of the Con- science Clause. One is, that every child in a parish has an equal right to a share in the benefits of edu- cation, for which a provision is made out of public money. The other is, that every parent — not labour- ing under legal disability — has a right to regulate the religious education of his children according to his own views. I am not aware that either of these propositions has been disputed, as a general prin- ciple, even by the most thorough-going opponents of the Conscience Clause ; but it has been denied that they can be properly brought to bear upon it. It is contended that there are other principles, irrecon- cilable with the Clause, which have a prior claim to rule the decision of the question, and so prevent the first from ever coming into play. The right of the child, we are told, cannot justly be allowed to over- ride one previously acquired by the Church : espe- cially as it is always in the power of the State to make a separate provision for the Dissenting minority, however small. Even if there be only half a dozen, a school may be built, and a master paid for their instruction. The opponents of the Clause are liberal of the public money, and would not grudge an ex- pense which it is to defray. But as outside of their OP THE DIOCESE OP ST. DAVID’S. 29 circle it would be universally regarded as a scan- dalous waste, it is morally and practically impossible. This therefore is not a real alternative. The choice lies between the exclusion of some children from all the benefits of the school, and their admission, on terms which are said to be a violation of compact betiveen Church and State ; to interfere with the reli- gious instruction of Church schools , to introduce a system of secular education , and thus to undermine the foundation of religion. How far the Clause is open to these charges, is the point on which, in the eye of clergymen, and of all faithful Churchmen, the question must ultimately turn, and on which it must depend whether they can justly or safely accept the Clause. It is to me satisfactory to find that little more is needed for the refutation of these statements, than to translate them into more exact terms, and to supply that which is wanted to make them fully intelligible. As soon as the light of truth and com- mon sense is turned upon them, they seem to melt into air. The question as to breach of compact , is, as I observed, irrelevant to the merits of the Clause. But yet the complaint suggests the idea of a wrong done to the clergyman, whose application for aid is refused, because he will not admit children of Dis- senters into his school without teaching them every doctrine of the Church. But it has not, I think, even been asserted, that there was ever any compact which bound the Committee of Council to forego the exercise of their own discretion in giving or with- holding their aid. It may be a question whether they have exercised it rightly or not, but this must depend, not on the supposed compact , but on the cir- cumstances of the case. We may imagine a corres- 30 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY pondence running in some such form as this. The clergyman writes : “ I ask for a grant toward the education of the poor of my parish. It contains a few Dissenters, Baptists, and others, who probably will not send their children to school, because my conscience does not permit me to receive any chil- dren whom I am not to instruct in all the doctrines of the Church.’ ’ The answer might be, u We are sorry that such should be the dictate of your con- science ; but, as stewards of the public purse, we have a conscience too. And we should think it a misapplication of the fund committed to our disposal, if we were to build either two schools for so small a population, or one school only, from which a part of the population was to be excluded. We offer no violence to your conscientious scruples ; we trust that you will respect ours. If you are resolved to admit Dissenting children on no other terms, we must reserve our grant until you shall have brought over all your parishioners to your own way of think- ing?” I must own that I do not see how this can be properly described as a compulsory imposition of the Conscience Clause ; language which suggests an idea of violence which has not and could not be used. It would be quite as correct to say, that the clergyman compelled the Committee of Council to withhold the grant, as that, in the opposite event, they compelled him to accept it on their conditions. But all that is important is, that it should be dis- tinctly understood in what sense the terms are used, and that, as between the clergyman and the Com- mittee of Council, there is no breach of compact whatever. It is true that many suffer from the disagreement. The children of the parish may lose the benefit of education. But it cannot be fairly OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 31 assumed that the fault lies on one side more than on the other. The principle on which the grant was refused, may have been quite as sincerely held, as that on which it was declined. In every point of view it is entitled to equal respect. Which of the two is the most just and reasonable, is a question on which every one must be left to form his own opinion. So again, if we inquire in what sense it is asserted that the Clause interferes with the religious instruc- tion of Church schools , it turns out that it is a sense so remote from that which the expression naturally suggests, and which it has probably conveyed to most minds, that any argument founded on its apparent meaning must be utterly delusive. It is not denied, that a clergyman who has accepted the Clause, not only remains at perfect liberty, but is as much as ever required to instruct all the children of his own communion in all the doctrines of his Church. So far the Clause does not in the slightest degree interfere with this branch of his pastoral office. But there is a sense in which it certainly may be said to interfere with his teaching. It interferes to prevent him from forcing that teach- ing on children whose parents wish that they should not receive it. This may be right or wrong; but certainly it is something of a very different kind; something to which the term interference is not usually applied. We do not commonly speak of interference as an intermeddling, when any one is prevented from doing a wrong to his neighbour. The clergy are used to such interference in other parts of their office, and never complain of it. It is both their right and their duty to instruct their parishioners in the doctrines of the Church. But 32 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY in the exercise of this right, and the discharge of this duty, they are subject to a Conscience Clause, which does not even depend on their acceptance of it, but is enforced by the law. They may teach all who are willing to learn from them; but they are not allowed to force themselves into the pulpit of the Dissenting minister, for the purpose of instructing his congregation, nor to drag that congregation into the parish church. They submit most cheerfully to this interference. I should be surprised if there was one who desired more liberty in this respect, or did not abhor the thought of the dragonades of Louis XIY. Where then lies the hardship of a like interference — if it is to be so called — when it limits their right of teaching the children of their schools, who, in case of danger, have still greater need of protection? Some distinction must be drawn, to show that what is so imperatively demanded by justice in the one case, becomes a wrong in the other. The distinction which has been drawn for this purpose rests on the assertion, that, although the religious instruction of the school may be pre- cisely what it would have been, if there had been none but children of Churchmen in it, the presence of one who is withdrawn from this instruction, as the child of a Dissenter, vitiates and counteracts the effects of the whole. The Church children are de- prived of all the benefit they would otherwise have gained from their religious teaching, while the know- ledge imparted to the Dissenting child, being, as it is assumed, divorced from religion, is worse than useless. I say, as it is assumed , because the argument rests on the wholly arbitrary and groundless assumption, that unless the child receives religious instruction in OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 33 the school, he will receive none at all ; whereas the far more probable presumption is, that the parent who withdraws his child from the religious teaching of the school on conscientious grounds, will be the least likely to neglect his religious education. The supreme importance of moral and religious training, as distinguished from mere intellectual cultivation, may be fully admitted, but must be laid aside as a truth wholly foreign to this question ; while the general proposition, that it is better for a child to receive no instruction of any kind than to attend a school in which it learns nothing but reading, writing, and arithmetic ’°, and that the moral discipline of the school, however excellent in itself, is utterly worth- less, is one of that class which it is sufficient to state. For those who are capable of maintaining it, it admits of no refutation ; for the rest of mankind it needs none. No doubt most Churchmen, and probably every clergyman, would greatly prefer a school, however inferior in other respects, in which religious instruction according to the doctrine of the Church occupies the foremost place, to the public schools of the United States. But that these are worse than useless, nurseries of diabolical wickedness, armed with intellectual power, and that it would have been better for those who have been trained in them if they had grown up in utter ignorance of all that they learned there, is an opinion held probably by few. I do not attempt to refute it. I only wish to observe that it is an indispensable link in the chain of reason- ing by which the Conscience Clause is made out to 10 “As to reading, writing, and arithmetic, I think that without religion ( subaudi , such as I would teach them) they are better without it.” Archdeacon Denison’s evidence before the Select Committee on Education, 37G4. 0 34 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY be an interference with the religious instruction of Church schools. But when we hear that the benefit of this instruction is neutralized by the presence of a child who has been withdrawn from it at the desire of his parents, and so the religion of the place damaged, we cannot help asking, If the religious principles of the Church children are cc poisoned 5 * when they find that some of their schoolfellows belong to the meeting-house, how are those principles to survive the inevitable discovery that this is the case with some of their young neighbours, though not admitted into the school ? And as this would imply incredible ignorance and more than childish simplicity, so, when it is intimated that they will infer from the fact that their own teachers are indif- ferent to religion *, this is really to charge them with an excess of intellectual perversity, and of calumnious misconstruction, of which childhood is happily in- capable, and which is reserved for riper years, and for minds that have undergone the baneful influence of long habits of political or religious controversy. After this, we shall not find it difficult to do justice to the assertion, that the Conscience Clause virtually insinuates the poisonous and deadly prin- ciple of secular education into the heart of the Denominational System. We must observe that, in- dependently of any Conscience Clause, this evil prin- ciple must be found in every Church school. In all, the education consists of three parts : the moral discipline — which the Clause does not in any way affect — the secular instruction, and the religious instruction. All the children may be said to be receiving secular education during one, and that the 1 See “ reason ” four of Archdeacon Denison’s seventeen. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 35 longest period of their school work. The effect of the Conscience Clause is, that some receive in the school secular instruction only. But the character of a school must depend on that which it professes and offers to give, not on the number of those who re- ceive all that it offers. A grammar school does not lose its character as such because all the scholars do not learn Latin and Greek, but at the wish of their parents are allowed to devote then* time to a different course of study. But I am aware how this view of the case has been met by the opponents of the Conscience Clause ; and it appears to me that a simple statement of their argument is sufficient to establish the truth of that which they controvert. It is argued that there ought to be no such thing as purely secular instruction in a Church school ; that all manner of knowledge should be “ interpenetrated with a definite objective and dogmatic faith ; ” and that “ the thread of religion should run through the whole, from one end to the other 2 . 5 ’ It may appear, at first sight, as if these phrases were utterly un- meaning, and could only have been used by persons who had never reflected whether they are capable of any application to the real work of a school. How, it may be asked, is a sum in the Rule of Three to be 64 interpenetrated ” with a definite, objective and dog- matic faith ? That may seem hard ; but I am afraid that it has been thought possible, and that excellent persons have believed they had accomplished it, by selecting examples of the rules of arithmetic out of Scripture. I leave it to others to judge how far this is likely to cherish reverence for Holy Scripture, or 8 Archdeacon Denison’s speech in Convocation on the Conscience Clause, pp. 16. 23. C 2 36 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY to imbue young minds with dogmatic faith. I only say this is the nearest approach I have yet heard of toward reducing the maxim into practice. I am not aware whether there are yet Church schools where all the copies in the writing-books are enunciations of dogma, and all the reading lessons extracted from treatises on dogmatic theology. But this appears to be absolutely necessary for the completeness of the system, as the completeness of the system is essen- tial to the force of the argument. It must be presumed that the persons who insist on this argu- ment enjoy a privilege which falls to the lot of very few clergymen, that of leisure, enabling them con- stantly to superintend the whole course of instruction in their parish schools, so as to make sure that every part, however nominally secular, is thoroughly “ inter- penetrated with a definite, objective and dogmatic faith.” It cannot be supposed that they would feel themselves at liberty to commit so very difficult and delicate an operation to the schoolmaster, who can hardly ever be capable of conducting it. Even in their own hands, it must always require infinite caution, and be attended with extreme danger of a most fearful evil. The practice of improving , as it is called, all subjects of study by the importation of re- ligious, particularly dogmatic, reflections, apparently quite irrelevant to their nature, seems much less likely to form habits of genuine piety than either to corrupt the simplicity of the child’s character, or to disgust him with that which is so obtruded on his thoughts, and to lead him to suspect the earnestness and sincerity of his teachers. And one can hardly help indulging a hope that, if we were admitted to see the ordinary work of the schools, which must be supposed to exhibit the most perfect models of such religious OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 37 education, we should find that they do not materially differ in this respect from others of humbler preten- sions, and that the practice falls very far short of the theory ; each being, in fact, applied to a distinct use ; the one serving as an instrument of rational and wholesome instruction, the other as a weapon for battling against the Conscience Clause. There is another aspect of the subject, which I cannot pass by in silence, because it is perhaps the most important of all, though I advert to it with some hesitation and reluctance. Unhappily there can be no doubt that a clergyman may be convinced that it is his duty to close the doors of his parish school against every child whom he is not at liberty to instruct in all the doctrines of the Church. He may firmly believe that, apart from this instruction, every thing else that is taught in the school is not only worthless, but positively pernicious, “ not a blessing, but a curse 3 ,” and therefore that kindness toward the child — if there were no other motive — demands that it should be guarded from this evil. To others, who quite as fully admit the supreme importance of reli- gious education, it may appear that this is straining the principle to a length which shocks the common sense of mankind. That, however, is no reason whatever for questioning the perfect sincerity of those by whom the opinion is professed. But it is not credible that any clergyman should not be aware that this is not the view commonly taken of the subject by fathers of families in the labouring classes. He cannot help knowing that, probably without exception, they regard the secular instruction — whether accompanied with religious teaching or 8 Archdeacon Denison, u. s. 38 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY not — as a great benefit to their children, one on which their prospects in life mainly depend, one therefore for which an intelligent and affectionate parent is willing to make great sacrifices. A Dissenter who knows that he can obtain these advantages at the parish school, together with a superintendence which may be urgently needed for the child’s safety, though clogged with the condition of its being brought up with the view of making it a proselyte to the Church, and severed from the religious connection in which he wishes it to remain, will be strongly tempted to purchase an advantage which he believes to be great, at a risk which, he may hope will prove to be small. He may know that the religious impressions which are commonly left on the mind of the child by the school teaching — especially that which relates to abstruse theological dogmas — are seldom very deep, and that unless they are renewed after it has left school, they will vanish of themselves, and will be easily counter- acted by parental authority. He may therefore con- sent to expose his child to the danger, though it will be with reluctance, in proportion to the sincerity of his own convictions. Few, I think, will be disposed to condemn him very severely, if he yields to such a temptation. But in the eyes of a clergyman, who attaches supreme value to a “ definite, objective, and dogmatic faith,” he must appear to be guilty of a breach of a most sacred duty ; to be bartering his child’s eternal welfare for temporal benefits ; to be acting a double part, allowing his child to be taught that which he intends it to unlearn, and to profess that which he hopes it will never believe. Can it be right for a clergyman holding such views, to take advantage of the poor man’s necessity and weakness, for the sake of making a proselyte of the child ? Is OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 39 he not really bribing the father to do wrong, and holding out a strong temptation to duplicity and hypocrisy, when he admits the child into his school on such terms ? And when he enforces them by instruction which is intended to alienate the child from the father in their religious belief, is he not oppressing the poor and needy ? I can understand, though I cannot sympathize with it, the rigidity of conscience which closes the school against Dis- senters : but I cannot reconcile it with the laxity of conscience which admits them on such terms. I must own that I have been sorry to observe the fre- quent reference which has been made in the discussion of this question, to what is called, “ the missionary office of the Church in educating the children of the sects 4 .” I do not much like to see the word mis- sionary used with reference to the “ sects.” I do not think it will tend to produce a happier state of feeling between the Church and the Dissenters, if they find that we speak of them as if they were heathen. It has indeed always been the policy of the Church of Rome to deny the right of all Pro- testants, Anglicans among the rest, to the name of Christians 5 . But this is one of the points in which I do not desire to see a nearer approximation to the Romish spirit or practice. But if the Church is to discharge her “ missionary office in educating the 4 Archdeacon Denison, u. s. 6 “ The Catholics,” writes the Spanish ambassador, “ your High- ness is aware, are also against her marriage with the Duke of Norfolk, not being assured that he is a Christian. The Earl of Arundel and Lord Lumley undertake however that the Duke will submit to the Holy See.” (Froude, Elizabeth, iv. p. 104.) Most persons who know something of Roman Catholic countries, would probably testify from their own experience, that this is still the language which expresses at least the popular view of the subject. 40 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY children of the sects,” this can only be done by placing them under the instruction of missionaries, who will bring them over to the belief, that the reli- gion of their parents — whether better than heathen- ism or not — is a false religion 6 . To do this against the will Qf the parents — and as long as they remain Dissenters it must be against their will, though they may have been induced by worldly motives to suffer the experiment to be made — appears to me a shameful abuse of an opportunity, which it was wrong to give, but far more culpable to take. We have been seasonably reminded 7 of an occur- rence with which Europe was ringing a few years ago — the foul deed by which, under colour of a sacri- legious abuse of the Sacrament of Baptism, a Jewish child was torn from its parents, to be brought up in the tenets of the Church of Rome. This outrage was sanctioned by the highest authorities of that Church. Much as it shocks our moral sense, we have no reason to doubt, that all who were parties to it acted accord- ing to the dictates of their conscience, and from motives of kindness toward the child. As much may be said for those who entice Dissenters into their schools, by opening the door to them, and then exer- cise the missionary office of the Church upon them 8 . There is indeed a difference between the two cases, but I am not sure that it is in favour of the Anglican " “No religion is true, except the religion of the Church of England.” Archdeacon Denison, evidence, 3881. It is the old maxim, which had not been thought over-lax, with a special restric- tion : Nulla salus extra Ecclesiam — Anglicanam. T Professor Plumptre, u. s. p. 593. 8 So Archdeacon Denison, u. s. 3823. “We may be obliged to do things sometimes which may appear to trench upon other people’s rights, but I do not think that there is necessarily un- kindness connected with it,” OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 41 mode of proceeding. Tlie Mortara case was one of sheer brute violence. There was no attempt to corrupt or tamper with the conscience of the parents. They protested against the abduction with all the energy of grief. It would have been far worse for them, if their consent had been bought : and the transaction, on the part of the purchaser, would have been not less unjust, but more dishonour- able. We are indignant, but not surprised, when we hear of such acts in the Church of Rome. We are too familiar with numberless examples in which she appears to have acted on the maxim, “ Let us do evil, that good may come.” But, that conduct which can only be justified by that maxim, should be avowed by clergymen of high position in our Church at this day, is both humiliating and alarming. There ought to be no need of such a provision as a Conscience Clause in this country. I at the time believed that it was not, and never would be needed. But when I find that some of the most honourable and high minded men among the clergy, may be betrayed by their professional studies and associations into a breach of morality, from which, if it had not seemed to them to be sanctified by the end, they would have instinctively recoiled, I am forced to the conclusion, that the protection afforded by the Conscience Clause can not be either justly or safely withheld. Even if it was not needed as a safeguard against a practical wrong, it would be valuable as a protest against a false principle. I do not myself think that the language of the Clause can be fairly taxed with ambiguity ; though both it and some explanations which have been given of it by the highest authority, have been strangely mis- understood. If, however, it be possible to make it 42 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY less liable to unintentional misconstruction, it would no doubt be most desirable that tbis should be done. But that, as long as the circumstances of the parish remain the same, that is, such that no second school can be founded there, succeeding managers should be enabled to release themselves from the clause, on refunding the Building Grant, and renouncing the aid of the State for the future, is a proposal to which the State could not consent, without giving up the whole matter in dispute, and admitting that it had no right to fetter the discretion of the managers. This indeed has been treated as a distinct grievance. Even, it is said, if a clergyman may accept such a restraint for himself, he can have no right to impose it on his successors. But those who most stren- uously protest against such a right of perpetuating the Conscience Clause, are the very persons who, a few years ago, applauded the Committee of the National Society, when it deliberately sanctioned a clause in a trust deed, which enforced the teaching of the Catechism to every child in a school, though in patent contradiction to its own repeated profes- sions, of giving the largest liberty to the clergyman in dealing with exceptional cases of Dissenting children 9 . I now pass to another subject. Not long after our last meeting an event occurred which caused very deep and wide spread agitation in the Church, an agitation which has by no means yet subsided, and of which perhaps the final conse- quences still remain to be seen. I allude to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of two of the contributors to 9 See the evidence of the Rev. J. Gr. Lonsdale before the Select Committee on Education, 1553 and 1844. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 43 the volume of “ Essays and Reviews.” The Judg- ment given in their favour was thought to sanction a new and excessive latitude of opinion with regard to the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and the awful mystery of future retribution. To counteract this effect some clergymen of high reputation and in- fluence framed a Declaration, expressing the belief that the doctrines which the Judgment seemed to leave open to question were doctrines maintained by the Church of England, and for this document they procured the signatures of a majority of the whole body of the English clergy. The value of this De- claration was indeed very much impaired by the ambiguity of its language, and it appeared to me consistent with the utmost respect for all who had signed it, to doubt whether it could serve any useful purpose, and was not more likely to create misunder- standing and confusion. It might be considered as a statement of the private belief of each of the subscribers in the doctrines which were supposed to have been unsettled. In this point of view it was indeed perfectly harmless, but as it was then only the exercise of a right which had never been disputed, it was not easy to see its practical drift. On the other hand, if it was taken as affecting to decide what was the doctrine of the Church on certain controverted points, and in opposition to the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal, it seemed to invest a fortuitous, self-constituted aggregate of persons pos- sessing no legislative or judicial authority, with functions for which, apart from all regard to their personal qualifications, they were manifestly utterly incompetent. If the promoters of this movement had any ground for congratulating themselves on its success, as 44 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY indicated by the number of signatures attached to the Declaration, it could only be with a view to some ulterior object for which it might prepare the way, and though no such aim was openly avowed, sub- sequent proceedings appeared to show what it either was or might have been. Such was the chief, if not the sole motive, of the wish which was expressed in both Houses of Convocation and elsewhere, for the renewal of Diocesan Synods. It was hoped that these assemblies might be made available for the promulga- tion of “ some declaration of faith as to matters which were thought then to be in danger 1 .” They might serve other purposes, but this was evidently that which was foremost in the minds of those who conceived the project, and I think I shall not be wasting your time if I make a few remarks on this subject. There seems to be no room to doubt that the convening of such Synods is perfectly within the power of the Bishop, and not subject to any of the restrictions which make the assembling and the action of Provincial Synods to depend on the au- thority of the Crown. No Boyal licence is needed for it, any more than for our present gathering. And it has been observed by a writer of high authority in these matters, that “ Diocesan Synods are represented among us at this day by episcopal visitations 2 .” There is certainly some degree of resemblance be- tween the two institutions. But there is also one material difference : that, with one or two exceptions, there is no Diocese in which the whole body of the clergy are assembled at the same place to meet the 1 See Chronicle of Convocation, April, 1864, pp. 1467. 1486. 3 Joyce, “ England’s Sacred Synods,” p. 80. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 45 Bishop on his Visitation, and the assembly which is held on that occasion in each Archdeaconry could not easily be converted into a Diocesan Synod. The proper character and special value of this Synod depend on the attendance of the clergy from all parts of the Diocese. In early times, when every part of the Diocese was commonly within an easy distance from the chief town where the Bishop re- sided, there would be no difficulty in the bringing of all the presbyters together, and they would seldom form a very numerous assemblage. In the present state of things the difficulty or inconvenience would in most Dioceses be considerable, and the numbers assembled, even of the clergy alone, would be so large as to be ill fitted to the purpose of united deliberation. Such, at least, was the opinion of some who advocated the measure. It was therefore proposed to guard against this inconvenience, as in our Provincial Synods, by a system of representation, which, however, has yet not only to be tried in practice but to be constructed in theory. Whether any such existed in the primitive Churches, though it has been asserted 3 , seems very doubtful, and hardly capable of proof 4 . In the Reformatio Legum the attendance of all the clergy is most strictly enjoined 5 . With regard to the clergy, indeed, it would no doubt be easy enough to devise a mode by which as -many of them as chose to forego the right or the privilege of personal attendance might be fairly represented. If there is to be a restoration of Diocesan Synods, that 8 Kennett on Synods, p. 198. Lathbury, History of Convoca- tion, p. 6. 4 Joyce, p. 44. 5 Cap. 20. “ A Synodo nulli ex clericis abesse licebit, nisi ejns excusationein episcopus ipse approbaverit.” 46 A OHAEGE TO THE CLEEGY right could not well be taken away from any of the presbyters, and the exercise of it, though it might be onerous to those who lived far away from the place of meeting, might not be disagreeable to those who lived near at hand. In either case the whole proceeding would be purely voluntary. No part of it could be enforced by any legal authority. But another new and prominent feature in the constitution of the restored Synod, and that to which the highest value was justly attached, was the ad- mission of the laity to a share in its functions. To awaken in lay Churchmen a livelier interest in the affairs of the Church, to bring them into regular and friendly intercourse with the clergy, to draw forth the expression of their views on Church ques- tions, was described as the chief permanent ad- vantage contemplated in the proposal ; one which would give these assemblies an importance superior to that of the Provincial Convocations themselves, from which the laity are excluded, as more faithfully or more surely representing the mind of the Church. This, though as it seems an innovation on ancient usage 6 , is quite in accordance with the directions of the Reformatio Legum , by which laymen selected by the Bishop are allowed to be present at his private conference with the clergy, though whether in any other capacity than that of listeners does not appear 7 . This is no doubt the most attractive side of the scheme. We all set the highest value on the presence and counsel of our lay brethren on 6 See Chronicle of Convocation, April 20, 1864, p. 1505. 7 The impression it leaves is decidedly for the negative. Cap. 22 : “ Ibi de qusestionibus rerum controversarum interrogabuntur singuli presbyteri. Episcopus vero doctiorum sententias patienter colliget.” OP THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 47 every occasion which brings us together for the carrying on of our common work. We are glad to learn their opinions, feelings, and wishes on all questions concerning the welfare of our common Church. An excellent person very lately taken from us (Mr. Henry Hoare) earned a title to the gratitude of the Church, which has been publicly acknowledged in Convocation, by the efforts which he made to promote such intercourse between the clergy and laity. The course prescribed in the Reformatio Legum would perhaps have been sufficient for this purpose. But that which is contemplated in the proposed revival of the Diocesan Synod is much more than this, and something very different. It is a system of representation similar to that which is proposed for the clergy. I believe that to organize such a system would in every Diocese be found very difficult, in most quite impracticable. It has been suggested that the election of the lay members might be entrusted to the churchwardens. I will only say that, until the churchwardens themselves are elected with a view to the discharge of this function, I can hardly conceive that such a representation would either be satisfactory to the whole body of the laity, or be regarded as an adequate exponent of their mind and will. These, however, are only practical difficulties which may be found capable of some solution which I do not now perceive. The more important question is that of the functions to be assigned to the new Synod. It seems to be admitted that the deliberations of the old Diocesan Synods were confined — as indeed might have been expected — to the affairs of the Diocese. And in the Reformatio Legum there is not only no intimation that they were intended to be occupied by any other kind 48 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY of business, but the enumeration there given of the subjects of discussion seems clearly to imply the same limitation. They relate indeed mainly to the state of religion, with respect to soundness of doc- trine and legal uniformity of ritual, but to both evi- dently no farther than as they came under observation within the Diocese. But the consultations of the Synod now proposed are intended to take a far wider range; one, in fact, co-extensive with those of the Provincial Synods, and, like them, embracing every kind of question affecting the interests of the Church at large. This is obviously implied in the peculiar advantage which is expected to arise from the pre- sence of the laity, whose views, transmitted to Convocation, are to inform its mind, to guide its judgment, and, where action has to be + aken, to strengthen its hands. I must own that I could not look forward without alarm to such a multiplication of Synods, if one is to be held every year in every Diocese. And, on the other hand, if only two or three Bishops were to adopt the plan, I should not feel a perfect confidence that the conclusions arrived at might not rather represent their private opinions than the general sense of the whole body. The presence of the pre- siding Bishop is, on every supposition, a most im- portant element in the calculation of consequences. His official station must always give great weight to his opinion, which, even if not expressed, is sure to be known. It may happen that his influence is so strengthened by his personal qualities as to be prac- tically irresistible, and that every measure which he recommends is sure to be carried with blind con- fidence, or with silent though reluctant acquiescence. But the opposite case is also conceivable. It may OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID* S. 49 happen that questions arise, on which the opinion and convictions of the Bishop are opposed to those of the majority of his clergy. I am afraid I may speak of this from my own experience. Such oppo- sition is no doubt always to be lamented ; but where it exists, it neither can nor ought to be kept secret. A frank avowal of opinion on both sides is most desirable for the interests of truth. But it would not, as I think, be desirable, but, on the contrary, a serious misfortune, if this divergency of views was to manifest itself in the vote of a Diocesan Synod on a practical question, so that either the opinion of the majority must overrule that of the Bishop, or the action of the Bishop contradict the express wish* of the majority. I may illustrate this possibility by reference to a controversy which has been recently stirred. There is a party in the Church which holds that a Bishop is bound, morally if not legally, to confirm every child who is brought to him at the earliest age con- sistent with the direction at the end of the Office for Baptism of Infants, and without reference to that which is implied in the language of the Preface to the Confirmation Office, which supposes the can- didates to have “ come to years of discretion.” On the other hand, there are Bishops who — having respect to the terms of the Baptismal Office itself, which requires instruction in the Catechism as a previous condition, to the highly mysterious nature of the doctrines set forth in the Catechism, more particularly in the concluding part, to the ordinary development of our moral and intellectual nature, and to the testimony of their own experience and observation, — I say there are Bishops who, consider- ing these things, have felt themselves bound to lay D 50 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY down a general rule, limiting tlie admission of can- didates to a later period, wlien the rite may be ex- pected to leave a deeper impression, and who believe that to rely on the grace which may no doubt attend the ministration at every age, or make up for the deficiency of ordinary capacity, is no proof of faith, but a presumptuous and profane abuse of the rite. By acting on this view of the subject, they have incurred much acrimonious censure, which however has not in the least shaken their conviction. But if the party to which I alluded was to gain the ascendancy in a Diocesan Synod, where the pre- siding Bishop took that view of his duty, and the question was raised, it would be decided in a way which, though the language used might be milder and more decorous, must in substance amount to a vote of censure on him, which the dictates of his conscience would compel him to disregard. I do not see how such an exhibition of discordant views would be likely to serve any useful purpose, or could be attended with any but very injurious conse- quences. For all purely Diocesan purposes, the conferences which I have always desired to see established in every Rural Deanery, appear to me to possess a great advantage over the Diocesan Synod, however constituted. They afford the means of a freer, more intimate, and confidential intercourse and inter- change of ideas, than is possible in a large assembly of persons who are mostly strangers to one another. The benefit which they yield is unalloyed, and free from all danger; and I must take this occasion to observe, that they seem peculiarly well adapted for the discussion of some of the questions which have recently occupied a large share of the attention of OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 51 tlie Church, relating as they do to matters of practice with which the Clergy have constantly to deal, and in which they are to a very great extent at liberty to act on their own judgment. Let me assure my reverend brethren — though many of them, no doubt, are fully aware of the fact — that many of these ques- tions, though of great practical importance, are by no means so simple as they may appear to any one who has looked at them only from one side, or under the influence of traditional associations. But, apart from any such special object, it is certain that a clergyman who lives in constant spiritual isolation from his brethren, meeting them only on secular or merely formal occasions, but, in the things which most deeply concern the work of his calling, stands wholly aloof from them, shut up within the narrow round of his own thoughts, reading, and experience, must lose what might be a most precious aid, both to his personal edification and his ministerial usefulness. If he was imprisoned in this solitude, as may happen to a missionary at a lonely station, by causes beyond his control, he would be worthy of pity. If the seclusion is voluntary and self-imposed, when the benefits of intellectual and spiritual communion with his brethren are within his reach, it can hardly be reconciled with a right sense of duty, or a real interest in his Master’s service. For such purposes no Diocesan Synod can super- sede the Buridecanal Meeting, while, for the purpose of ascertaining the mind of the laity on Church questions, and bringing it to bear both on Convoca- tion and the Legislature, another kind of machinery has been not only devised, but actually framed and set in motion, which, though its organization may be susceptible of great improvement, seems to me in D 2 52 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY its general idea far more appropriate, as well as much more easily applicable to the object, than a multitude of Diocesan Synods, subject to perpetual variation in their number, and depending on con- tingencies which cannot be foreseen, for their very existence, and still more for their capacity of furnish- ing an adequate or faithful representation of the whole body of lay Churchmen ; I allude to the asso- ciation founded by the late Mr. Hoare under the name of the Church Institution. It is now six years since I drew your attention to this subject in a Charge, expressing my sympathy with the general aim and spirit of the association, but at the same time stating some objections which had been made to its organization, as laying it open to the suspicion of reflecting a particular shade of opinion rather than the common feeling of the Church. Three years ago the subject was brought before the Upper House of Convocation, when the usefulness of the Church Institution was fully recognized, and its fundamental principle unanimously admitted, but with the same qualification as to the precise form of its organization, which however has not, as far as I am aware, been yet altered ; perhaps because expe- rience has shown that the danger apprehended from it is not very serious, and does not practically affect the working of the Institution. But there is a purpose for which the Diocesan Synod, in its primitive form, as a full assembly of all the clergy of the Diocese, with the addition of as many of the lay members of the Church as may be willing to meet them, is eminently well fitted, and just in the same degree as it is ill fitted for any decision which requires calm discussion and orderly deliberation. This is the purpose of proclaiming OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 53 any foregone conclusion, and of passing resolutions by acclamation, without a dissentient voice. This function of the Diocesan Synod is recognized by a highly esteemed writer on the subject, whose work appeared when the Church was deeply agitated by the Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the Gorham Case, as one main ground for recommending the revival of these Synods, with a “ close adherence to the primitive model 8 .” It would serve “ for the plain assertion of any article of the faith which may have been notoriously impugned.” And in the Diocese in which an article of faith was supposed to have been impugned by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the Gorham Case, such a Diocesan Synod was assembled, and did make “ a plain assertion” of the article. This example has not been forgotten. Soon after the publication of the Judgment in the more recent trials for false doctrine, by which other articles of faith were sup- posed to be impugned, a resolution was passed at a meeting of Rural Deans and Archdeacons in the Diocese of Oxford, declaring “ that the meeting would rejoice to see the action of Diocesan Synods restored in the Church of England,” and “that the circumstances of the present times peculiarly call for such a gathering for the guardianship of the faith 9 .” Such language inevitably raises the ques- tion, What is the precise object contemplated by those who desire to see Diocesan Synods restored for this purpose? We see at* once that it is some- thing more than the personal satisfaction which each member of the Synod might derive from the ex- Joyce, England’s Sacred Synods, p. 36. Chronicle of Convocation, April 19, 1864. 54 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY pression of an opinion which he holds in common with a large body of his brethren. The avowed object is far more practical and more important. It is nothing less than “ the guardianship of the faith which, if “ the circumstances of the present times peculiarly call for such a gathering” for that end, must be supposed to be in danger. And the nature of the danger thus signified is too clear to be mis- taken : it is that now again, as in the Gorham Judg- ment, articles of the faith are believed by many to have been “ impugned;” and hence “ the plain asser- tion ” of them is again considered as the most press- ing business of a Diocesan Synod. Now let us remember how the doctrines which are alleged to be articles of the faith have been impugned. They have been impugned in two ways : first, by the writers who disputed or questioned them, and who on that account were brought to trial ; and, secondly, by the solemn Judgment of the highest Court of Appeal, which, after the amplest discussion and the maturest deliberation, decided that those, writers had not, in the matters alleged against them, im- pugned any article of the faith, and were not liable to the penalties which they would have incurred if they had done so. It would have been possible, and quite as easy, to have taken the step now proposed when the writings in which the doctrines in question were assailed first appeared. Diocesan Synods might have been assembled, and have “ plainly asserted” that the propositions which the authors impugned were not only true, but articles of the faith. None can say what might not have been the effect of such a pro- ceeding. It is not impossible that the writers might have yielded to such a weight of authority, and have OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 55 retracted and abandoned opinions which they found to be opposed to those of an overwhelming majority of their brethren. On the other hand, as they have the reputation, and perhaps would not disclaim the name of rationalists, it is equally possible, and on the whole perhaps rather more probable, that they would have pleaded at the outset to the jurisdiction ; would have denied that the question ought or could be de.cided by a show of hands ; and that even the assertions of thirty Synods would have been as powerless as thirty legions, to produce the slightest change in their convictions. The question would then have remained exactly where it was before the Synods met. And not only would their decrees have made no change whatever in the ecclesiastical position of the writers whom they condemned ; but it is clear that they would not have been admitted as evidence in any Court which had to try the question. They could add nothing to the force of any proof which might be required to invest the controverted doctrines with the character of articles of faith; much less could they cause any thing which would not otherwise have been an article of faith to become' such. But if such would have been their impotence before the Judgment of the supreme tribunal had been pronounced, and therefore while it was possible that it might confirm their assertions, what efficacy can the decrees of such Synods, whether few or many, possess, when they contradict that Judgment ? How are they to “guard the faith” against any danger with which it is threatened by the Judgment P The danger is supposed to arise from the latitude of opinion allowed to the clergy on certain points. But as long as the law under which we live remains un- 56 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY changed, no number of voices, either of individuals or of clerical assemblies, can contract that latitude by a hair’s breadth. All this is too evident not to be thoroughly under- stood by the highly intelligent, sagacious, and well- informed persons who are promoting the restoration of Diocesan Synods. It cannot be supposed that they deceive themselves as to the intrinsic value or the immediate practical effect, either of Declarations endorsed by any number of signatures, or of Syno- dical resolutions proclaimed by any number of voices. If they attach any importance to such documents and proceedings, it must be with a view to some ulterior object. And I think there can be little doubt what that object is. It is, I believe, the same which has been only a little more fully disclosed by the efforts which have been made to bring about a radical change in the constitution of the Court of Appeal in ecclesiastical questions. It would pro- bably be generally admitted that this Court is capable of some improvements, both in its com- position and in the form of its proceedings. But those who are dissatisfied with the Judgment which gave occasion to this movement, would certainly care little about any change which did not hold out a prospect of reversing that Judgment, and of guard- ing against any like occurrence for the future. Various plans have been proposed for this purpose ; but it will be sufficient to notice two of them, which may be considered as including all the rest, inasmuch as the others differ from them rather in details than in principle. One is, to abolish the present Court of Appeal, and to transfer its jurisdiction to Convoca- tion, or to some purely ecclesiastical body ; the other would retain the present Court, but without any OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 57 ecclesiastical assessors, and would require it, when- ever the case before it involved any question of faith and doctrine, to send an issue on these matters to the spiritual body, which should be constituted for that purpose, and to let its Judgment be governed by the answer it receives. There is one advantage which the first of these proposals must be admitted to possess over the second : that it more distinctly and completely em- bodies a principle which lies at the root of both ; the exclusion of the laity from all share in the decision of questions touching the doctrines of the Church. There are not a few estimable persons — perhaps I might say a not inconsiderable party in the Church — who hold that the present constitution of the highest Court of Appeal is utterly vitiated by the admixture of the lay element : that this is in itself, irrespectively of its practical consequences, an in- tolerable grievance, a badge of an “ ignominious bondage.” It has been represented as a violation of the law of Christ, and as “a breach of compact between Church and State,” by which functions, now exercised by laymen, were reserved to the clergy 1 . The divine origin of the prerogative thus claimed for the Spiritualty, depends on an interpre- tation of a few passages of Scripture, which to many appear no more conclusive than that which is alleged in proof of the Papal supremacy. The history of the ages and countries in which the claim was most generally and submissively accepted by the laity, would hardly recommend it to any one who does not regard the Reformation as at best a lamentable error ; but it sufficiently explains the language which 1 Joyce, Ecclesia Yindicata, pp. 11. 13. 58 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY continued to be used after our separation from Rome, while the Spiritualty was still identified with the Church 2 , and the tenacity with which the tradition kept its hold on men’s minds. And, independently of the notion of a Divine right, and of the pecuhar illumination which may be supposed to wait upon its exercise, there is a very solid and palpable ground of fact, which may at first sight appear to furnish an irresistible argument for assigning this function to the clergy. It is one for which they may seem to be pre-eminently, if not exclusively, fitted, though not by their calling itself, yet at least by the studies and habits of their calling. Whenever a question arises in any branch of human knowledge, those who are usually consulted upon it are the masters and professors of the art or science to which it relates. Wh.en a point is in dispute in the interpretation or application of the law, the only opinion which is ever thought to have any weight, is that of experienced jurists. Why should the maxim, “ cuique in sua arte credendum,” be less applicable to theology, or render it less fitting and necessary to submit spiritual questions to the exclusive cognizance of learned divines ? This question is treated by many as unanswer- able. Yet there is in one respect a wide differ- ence between the two cases, which at first sight appear most exactly similar, and it deeply affects the validity of the practical conclusion. We know of no such thing as schools of law, by which lawyers are divided into parties, holding the most widely diverging views on many of the most im- 2 24 Hen. VIII. 12, Preamble: “The Spiritualty, now being commonly called the English Church.” OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 59 portant principles of legal learning, and thus lead to directly opposite conclusions in all causes in which these principles are involved. When we consult our legal advisers, we feel perfect confidence, that they will approach the subject without the slightest bias from preconceived notions, and that, if they do not agree in their opinion, the disagreement will be the result, not of any conflicting doctrines, to which on one side or other they were previously pledged, but simply to a natural, unavoidable disparity in the capacity or conformation of their minds. I hardly need observe how far otherwise the case stands with regard to theology and its teachers ; how exceedingly rare and difficult it is for any of them to keep aloof from the schools and parties into which the Church is parcelled, and not to be, whether consciously or unconsciously, swayed by their influence in his views of Church questions, and the more in proportion to his earnestness and his sense of the sacredness of the subject. Probably there were few clergymen whose opinion on the Gorham Case might not have been safely predicted by any one who knew the school to which he belonged ; and the bishops who sat on the appeal, were certainly not an exception to this remark. The importance and interest of the case turned upon the fact, that the individual defendant was the representative of a strong party, whose position in the Church would have been shaken and imperilled, if his doctrine had been condemned. Hence the composition of a purely ecclesiastial tribunal, to be substituted for the present Court of Appeal in causes of heresy, is a problem beset with such complicated difficulties, as to render it almost hopeless that any scheme will ever be devised for its solution, which would give general satisfaction ; 60 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY even if there were not so many who would reject it for the very reason, that it appears to recognize a principle — the mystical prerogative of the clergy — which they reject as groundless and mischievous. If the Spiritualty is to have the final and exclusive cognizance of such causes, it becomes necessary to inquire, Who are the Spiritualty ? And the answer to this question will be found to involve most per- plexing difficulties both in theory and practice. By the proper meaning of the word, the Spiritualty would include all spiritual persons of every Holy Order. But as, according to the high sacerdotal view, the laity is for all purposes concerning the declaration of doctrine merged in the Spiritualty, so by some who most zealously maintain that view, the lower orders of the Spiritualty are for the like purposes held to be merged in the Episcopate, as invested with the fulness of Apostolical authority. It cannot be denied that this opinion may claim the sanction of antiquity, and of the whole history of Councils from the earliest to the latest times. But our own Church presents an exception to the general rule in the constitution of its Synods, in which the clergy of the second Order form an essential element. They, however, are only elect representatives of the body to which they belong, and by a fiction, which, however convenient, seems to be purely arbitrary, the third Order of the Ministry is for this purpose regarded as merged in the second. But though our two Convocations do legally, however imperfectly, represent our own branch of the Church, it does not appear on what principle either the Irish or any other branches of the Church can be rightly excluded from a share in deliberations which affect the .common faith. At present there are no means of OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. Cl assembling even a National Synod. A Synod of the whole English Communion, which has been recently proposed, would require machinery which it would be still more difficult to frame and to work, and it would be still more doubtful whether, as long as the relations of our Church to the State subsist, suck a Synod could answer the purpose for which it appears to be designed. But in this matter we are forced at every turn to choose between equal and irreconcilable difficulties. The larger and more comprehensive the Synod which may be brought together, at whatever cost, the more adequately will it represent, if not the Church, at least the Spiritualty. But in proportion as its numbers adapt it to this object, and so give the greater weight to its decisions, do they tend to unfit it for the discussion of controverted points of doc- trine, and so detract from its authority. On the other hand, the smaller the body which meets for deliberation, so much the better, no doubt, will it be suited for the full ventilation of the matters in dis- pute ; but in the same degree it will be liable to sus- picions of partizanship and prepossession, and will appear incapable of becoming the organ of the whole Church for the declaration of its faith. Even so small a body as the whole English Episcopate, has been thought too unwieldy for a theological dis- cussion, while every selection from it has been gene- rally condemned, as inconsistent with public confi- dence in its impartiality. It will also have to be considered whether, when the faith of the Church is at stake, it is possible to dispense with absolute unanimity among those by whom it is to be deter- mined ; or, if the vote of the majority is to prevail, whether the minority must not be held to stand self- 62 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY convicted of heresy, and if they refuse to recant, be excommunicated. This indeed would raise no diffi- culty in a Church unconnected with the State ; but under the present mutual relations of Church and State, such a proceeding would be as ineffectual, as for one Bishop to excommunicate another of a dif- ferent school, and, as a means of checking the growth of heresy, would be merely futile, and expose itself to derision. These objections are equally applicable to the second of the two proposals we are considering, that of retaining the present Court of Appeal, under the condition of referring all questions of doctrine which come before it, to an ecclesiastical council, which remains to be constituted. For the issue sent by the Judicial Committee would be just as grave, as if the cause had been originally brought under the cognizance of the Spiritualty. Yet it seems pretty clear that of the two this is the plan which has most voices on its side, and is commonly thought to look most like a practicable measure. But if I am not mistaken, there is another difficulty on which this project also must split. Either the lay judges must be governed by the decision of their spiritual re- ferees, or, after receiving the answer to their ques- tion, they will be still at liberty to exercise their own judgment on the whole case. That the members of the Judicial Committee would ever consent, or be permitted, to renounce their supreme jurisdiction, and exchange their judicial functions in this behalf for a purely ministerial agency, by which they will have passively to accept, and simply to carry into effect, the decisions of a Clerical Council — this is something which I believe is no longer imagined to be possible, even by the most ardent and sanguine OP THE DIOCESE OP ST. DAVIDS. 63 advocate of what he calls the inalienable rights of the clergy, so long as the Church remains in union with the State on the present terms of the alliance. But if they do not take up this subordinate position, the principle of the ecclesiastical prerogative in mat- ters of doctrine, which to those who maintain it is probably more precious than any particular applica- tion of it, is abandoned and lost. The Church will, in their language, continue to groan in “ galling fetters,” and “ an ignominious bondage 3 .” On the other hand, if the Judicial Committee retains its independence, and is not bound to adopt the opinion of its clerical advisers, it is quite certain that it will continue to act on the same principles and maxims of interpretation by which it has been hitherto guided, and will in every case test the answer it receives by these principles, and not the principles by the answer. For my own part, I heartily rejoice that this is so. I consider it as a ground for the deepest thankful- ness, as one of the most precious privileges of the Church of England, that principles which I believe to be grounded in justice, equity, and common sense, are still the rule of judgment in ecclesiastical causes. I earnestly hope that she may not be deprived of this blessing by the misguided zeal of some of her friends, from whom, I believe, she has at present more to fear than from the bitterest of her enemies. The present constitution of the Court of Appeal is essentially conservative in its operation. Every radical change, such as those we have been con- sidering, would be revolutionary and disruptive in its tendency, if not in its immediate result. A wrong 3 Joyce, u. s. p. 220. 64 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY decision of the Court, as it is now constituted, can only affect the position of individuals in the Church, but leaves the doctrine of the Church just where it was ; for it only determines that certain writings which have been impeached for heresy are or are not consistent with that doctrine, as laid down in the standards of the Church. But the very object of the proposed reconstruction or reform of the Court, is to enable an ecclesiastical council to pronounce a Declaration of faith, which, if it is to be of any use toward deciding the question in dispute, must be something more than a mere repetition of the formu- laries alleged to have been impugned, and will there- fore be a new, more or less authoritative, definition of doctrine; in other words, a new article of faith. It will be this really, though, of course, its framers will disclaim all intention of innovation, and will assert that the doctrine which they declare is that which the Church has held from the beginning; just as the Pope maintains that his dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a part of the original Christian revelation, though its definition, as an article of faith, was reserved for the nineteenth century. I observed that the definition of doctrine which might be put forth by our divines would be more or less authoritative, and in this respect it differs widely from that of the Papal dogma. No member of the Homan Communion is at liberty to question either the truth or the antiquity of the newly-defined article of faith. But an Anglican definition could not pretend to any such authority, grounded on the attribute of infallibility. Its authority would entirely depend on the reputation of its authors for learning, ability, and impartiality, and according to the degree in which they might be believed to OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 65 possess these qualities, might be great, little, or null. Another subject closely connected with the fore- going, and which on that account claims a brief notice, is the reform of Convocation, which has been lately proposed and advocated with much earnest- ness. No doubt, in one point of view, this is a question of the gravest importance. If the Convo- cation of the Province of Canterbury is, either by itself, or in conjunction with other bodies, to be invested with that judicial and legislative authority in matters of doctrine which some contend for as the inherent, inalienable, and exclusive right of the Spiritualty, it is most important that it should be so organized as to afford as full and fair a representation of the clergy as possible, and the remedying of any defect in its constitution would be an object on which no amount of thought or pains would be ill- bestowed. But for any purposes which lie within the present range of its powers and duties, it appears to be perfectly adequate, and not to need any change. It is now, I believe, as much as it could be made by any new arrangement, a trustworthy organ for giving utterance to the views of the clergy of the province on Church questions. There is, probably, no shade of opinion among them which it does not reflect. And I think no one would say that, if it were differently constituted, it would be likely to contain a greater proportion of learned and able men, the ornaments and strength of our Church. And I must take this occasion to own that I cannot at all concur with those who, either with friendly or unfriendly motives, speak of Convocation, some with bitter sarcasm, others in a milder tone of contempt, because its proceedings are almost entirely confined 66 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY to discussion, and so rarely terminate in any kind of action. I am not at all sure that this is an evil or a loss. It does not in the least prove that the discus- sion is useless ; and if it is in any way profitable, the profit is clear, and not counterbalanced by any dis- advantage. Not only have both the Debates, and many of the Reports of Committees appointed from time to time on questions generally interesting to Churchmen, a permanent value as exponents of opinion and results of laborious inquiry, but I cannot doubt that they exert a powerful and generally bene- ficial influence on the mind of the Church. And this is a purely spiritual influence, without the slightest intermixture of physical force or secular authority, working solely in the way of argument and persuasion on free judgments. It is, therefore, that which emi- nently befits a spiritual body, and it seems strange to hear this very spirituality of its operations treated as a mark of impotence, which deprives it of all title to respect even in the eyes of spiritual persons. While, therefore, I can easily understand that an extension of the ecclesiastical franchise may be de- sired by many, simply on account of the value they set on it, without any ulterior object, and can so far sympathize with their wishes, I cannot regard this as an object in which the Church has any practical interest, and am quite content with the existing state of the representation^ But so far as the demand for a reform of Convocation proceeds upon the sup- position that, by some change in its constitution, it may be fitted for some enlargement of its powers, and for some kind of work, which it is not now permitted to undertake, I consider the efforts made for this object as futile and mischievous : futile, because they can only issue in disappointment ; OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 67 mischievous, because, however undesignedly on the part of those who are engaged in them, they con- tribute to spread and to heighten an agitation which seems to me fraught with serious and growing danger. I feel myself bound to speak out plainly on this subject, though I know that the warning, in proportion as it is needed, is the more likely to be neglected. The various projects we have been reviewing — Diocesan Synods, General Councils, change in the Court of Appeal, Reform of Convocation — however independent of one another they may appear in their origin, are really parts of one movement, and are directed toward a common object ; and, when we bring them together, so that they may throw light on each other, it seems impossible to doubt what that object is. It is evidently to recover the position in which the Church, as identified with the Spiritu- alty, stood before the Reformation, in the period to which so many of our clergy are looking back with fond regret, as to a golden age which, if it were permitted to man to roll back the stream of time, and to reverse the course of nature and the order of Providence, they would gladly restore. It matters nothing how many or how few of those who are furthering this movement are conscious of its ten- dency ; if wholly unsuspicious, they would not be the less efficient instruments in the hands of those who see further, and with a more definite purpose. But the present union between Church and State, a union in which, happily, the Church is not identified with the Spiritualty, opposes an insurmountable obstacle to the attainment of this object. Pew, probably, even among the leaders of this movement, desire to see this obstacle removed by a rupture and e 2 68 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY separation between tbe two parties. But there may- be some wlio indulge a hope that, by continued agitation, they will be able to bring about a modifi- cation of the terms of the union according to their wishes, so as to free the clergy from the control of the State in ecclesiastical matters, while they retain all the advantages which they derive from its protec- tion and support. Buoyed up with this hope, they may use very strong language, and urge their fol- lowers into very rash counsels, in the belief that, even if they fail in their attempt, something may be gained, and no harm be done. But, as I just now observed, such agitation is not harmless because it is impotent and useless. It is not a light evil that men should be taught to consider themselves as living in “ galling fetters 5 5 and an “ ignominious bon- dage,’’ if this is not a true description of their real condition. But those who have been so taught, if they are conscientious and honourable men, will not be content to sit down and weep, but will strive with all their might to break their fetters and to regain their freedom. And it will be impossible for them, even with the example of their guides before them, long to forget that, after all, these fetters are self- imposed, and this bondage a state of their own choice; that they have only to will, and their chains will drop off, and their prison doors fly open. And while their old friends and fellow- sufferers are painting the misery and degradation of their house of bondage, and urging them to efforts for deliverance which experience proves to be utterly hopeless, there are voices enough on the outside, appealing to their sense of duty and of honour, bidding them to come forth, and inviting them to take refuge in that happy country where, among other bless- OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 69 ings, the Church is not confounded with the people, and her freedom is well understood to mean the rule of the clergy, culminating in the absolute power of the Pope. This, however, is not the only alternative. If old associations, or strong convictions should prevent them from going forth in that direction, they may find room nearer at hand for a new Church, in which they may enjoy the shelter without the control of the State, and may both prescribe any terms of communion they may think fit, and enforce the observance of them by any course of proceeding which may seem best suited to the purpose of suppressing all variations of private opinion as to the sense in which they are to be interpreted. There are persons who may be attracted by the spectacle now exhibited by one of our Colonial Churches, which has found itself on a sudden, without any effort of its own, severed from the State, and in full enjoyment of that independence which is so much coveted by some among ourselves. I think that its example holds out a very precious and seasonable warning. The unexpected release from the 44 galling fetters,” and 44 ignominious bondage ” of the Royal Supremacy, was unhappily accompanied by a no less complete emancipation from the rules and principles of English law and justice. The result showed how dangerous it would be to entrust a purely ecclesi- astical tribunal with the administration of justice in ecclesiastical causes : how surely the divine would get the better of the judge : how easily the most up- right and conscientious men might be betrayed by their zeal for truth, into the most violent and arbi- trary proceedings ; exercising an usurped jurisdiction by the mockery of a trial, in which the party accused 70 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY was assumed to acknowledge the jurisdiction 4 against which he protested, and was condemned in his absence, not for contumacy, but upon charges and speeches which had the advantage of being heard without a reply, though it was admitted by the pre- siding judge that they referred to passages which “ he had often felt to be obscure,” and which exposed him to the “ risk of misunderstanding, and conse- quently misrepresenting the defendant’s views 5 .” 4 Trial of the Bishop of Natal for erroneous teaching, p. 340. The Bishop of Capetown founds his claim to spiritual jurisdiction on the alleged fact, of which he thinks “ there can be no doubt,” that “ the Church, after long and careful deliberation, resolved upon the appointment of Metropolitans over Colonial Churches, and sent him out in that capacity the body dignified with the name of the Church being a private company of Bishops, who recommended the appointment to the ministers of the Crown. 5 P. 343 : “ A letter written two years ago, and the preface to which he refers me, very inadequately represents the kind of reply which doubtless he would have made to the charges which have been brought against him, and to the speeches of the pre- senting clergy.” One of these, the Bean of Capetown, had ob- served, that the letter read had been put in by the Bishop of Natal, “ in some degree as his defence.” And it was the whole that ac- companied the protest. The real nature of the proceeding is can- didly stated in the Guardian of July 4, 1866 : “ If the resolution (of the Upper House of Convocation) were to he construed as declaring that Bishop Colenso has been regularly deposed or de- prived by any tribunal or proceeding known to Church law, it would assert more probably than could be proved — more certainly than has been proved, either in Convocation or out of it. But that Bishop Colenso’s teaching is, as a matter of fact, dangerous and unsound to the extent of heresy — that he is a person clearly unfit to have the spiritual oversight of Churchmen in Natal, and that some one else ought to have that oversight ; that the South African Church, there being apparently no regular jurisdiction any- where competent to try and to depose him, has, regularly or irre- gularly, condemned and rejected him in such way as it could ; and that we ought for the sake of the faith to stand by the South African Church in this matter, though we may not approve all the grounds of the decision — these are propositions in which the great OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 71 This, though instructive, is melancholy enough : but it is still more saddening to think that such proceed- ings should have been defended by some among our- selves as a fair trial : though I am persuaded that this could not have happened, if the party in whose case justice was so outraged, had been less generally obnoxious, and I have no doubt that if the offence with which he was charged, had been one of a differ- ent kind — such, for instance, as the holding all Roman doctrine — the same proceedings would have appeared to the same persons in their true light, as an intolerable wrong. But I believe there are many who will learn from this example of the fruits of sacerdotal independence, among which might be numbered the danger of a permanent schism, better to appreciate the blessings we enjoy in the institu- tions under which we live, notwithstanding the opprobrious names cast upon them by some who rest and ruminate under their shade. One thing at least appears to me absolutely certain : that, if there had been previously any prospect of obtaining such a reconstruction of the Court of Appeal as would, either formally or virtually, transfer its jurisdiction to the clergy, that prospect would now be closed for ever. There is indeed an unmistakable indication that the general tendency of our time does not set in that direction, but in quite another, in the Clerical Sub- scription Act of last year. That the Report on which mass of English Churchmen would certainly agree.” These last words may be too true. But such a view of duty involves the principle that the end sanctifies the means, and may be pleaded for every coup d'etat. Violence openly avowed is less pernicious than when it puts on the mask of justice, and claims the sanction of religion. 72 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY that measure was founded, should have obtained the unanimous concurrence of so large a number of persons as composed the Royal Commission, repre- senting every party in the Church, is one of the most remarkable and the most auspicious events of our day. It marks the crowning result of a reaction, that of Christian wisdom and charity against the spirit and the policy which dictated the Act of Uniformity, passed amidst the narrow views and evil passions of the Restoration. The declared object of the new Act was to relieve tender consciences, by the altera- tion of forms which were designed to be as exclusive as possible, and which have no doubt excluded many from the ministry of the Church, and have perplexed and distressed many more within it. The principle of subscription is preserved, but its terms are so modified as to allow a much larger range to the free- dom of private opinion. This range indeed, is not, and, consistently with the general intention of the Act, could not be exactly defined. The stress is laid not so much on the subscription itself, as on the character of the formularies, to which the subscrip- tion is required, and which the subscriber is to use in his public ministrations. It was thought that, from conscientious men, this was sufficient security ; while with others more explicit language would be of no avail. I consider this as not only a generous, but a just and wise confidence, and one certainly not more likely to be abused than the old jealousy to defeat its own purpose. But I think that it does tend to increase the difficulty of prosecutions for heresy, and to lessen their chances of success. Whether this is a consequence to be dreaded, or may not be the happiest settlement of the question about the Court of Appeal, I will not now stay to inquire. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 73 But I believe that, whether good or evil, it was not unforeseen or undesigned 6 . It now only remains for me to state my views on the subject which for the last twelve months has occupied more of the attention of the Church than any other, and has been discussed with an earnest- ness and warmth which, while they show the deep interest it has excited in many minds, and so at least its relative importance, should admonish all who have to deal with it, of the great need of approaching it calmly and soberly, and as much as possible free from prejudice and passion. And to this end it is not enough that we should weigh arguments which may be opposed to our own preconceived opinions, with an even mind, unless we also try to place ourselves as far as we can in the point of view from which they proceed, and in some measure to enter into the feel- ings with which they are urged. You will have understood me to be speaking of that which for shortness I may call the Ritual question : and I trust that in the observations I am about to make on it, I shall not lose sight of the rule I have just laid down, and that whatever I shall say may tend to promote the common interests of truth, peace, and charity. And first a word as to the importance of the question. A relative importance, as I have observed, cannot be denied to a controversy by which the minds of Churchmen have been largely and deeply stirred. But I entirely differ from those who regard the dispute as in itself of little moment, and unworthy of serious attention, because it relates immediately to things so trifling as the form and colour of gar- 9 See the debate in the House of Commons on June 9, 18G3, upon Clerical Subscription. 74 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY ments to be worn, and ceremonies to be observed, in Divine service. No doubt these are things indifferent in themselves, always subject to the authority of the Church, and deriving all their importance from the degree in which they minister to the use of edifying. But they would not be decreed by the Church, if they were supposed to be utterly unmeaning : and the meaning which they are intended to convey may be of the gravest moment. And whether they do or do not serve the end of edification, is surely a ques- tion in which the well being, not to say the life of the Church, is deeply concerned. At the very lowest estimate, no man of practical sense can deem it a light matter, if a change is made in the externals of public worship, such as to give a new aspect to the whole. Such a transformation must needs be the effect of some powerful cause, and the cause of some important effect. Nothing less than the future character and destiny of the Church of England may be involved in the issue of the movement now in progress. I must also say a word on its past history, as this has been strangely misunderstood. It has been suggested, in the way of apology for those who might be thought to be advancing too far in this direction, that the recent development of Ritualism is intended as a pious protest against recent innovations in doc- trine, which are injurious to our Lord’s Divine dig- nity. But this explanation, while it implies an unmerited imputation on the orthodoxy of the great body of the clergy who have declined to take part in this protest , also involves a very gross anachronism. Nearly five and twenty years ago, Mr. Robertson opened his very useful treatise, “ How shall we con- form to the Liturgy ? ” with these words : “ Among or THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVIDS. 75 the consequences of the late theological movement (meaning that which had been some years before in- augurated at Oxford, and was then in full swing) has been the manifestation of a feeling more energetic at least, if not stronger, than any that had before been general, as to the obligations of the clergy in matters of ritual observance. We hear daily of the revival of practices, which from long disuse have come now to be regarded as novelties.” This revival continued to make its way; and in 1851 had gone so far that twenty-four Archbishops and Bishops of the two Provinces concurred in an Address to the clergy of their respective Dioceses, which began with the state- ment : — “ We have viewed with the deepest anxiety the troubles, suspicions, and discontents which have of late in some parishes accompanied the introduction of ritual observances exceeding those in common use amongst us.” Whether this Address produced any effect on those whom it was intended to restrain, I am not able to say. There were causes enough in the troubles and discontents of which it speaks, though not to stop, to retard the progress of the movement, and keep it within bounds : and it is not at all surprising that it should not sooner have reached the point at which it has now arrived. Its present phase does not in the least require or justify the conjecture of any new motives peculiar to our day ; nor is that conjecture warranted by the professions of the Ritualists themselves, who are too conscious of their own history to advance such a plea, and too well satisfied with the grounds which they have alleged for their proceedings to feel that they need it. Among these grounds that which used to be most 76 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY strongly insisted on, was the lawfulness of the ob- servances introduced. It was contended that though, in consequence of their long disuse, they presented the appearance of novelty, they were really part and parcel of the law of the land and of the Church, which had never been repealed, though, either through the fault of men or the misfortune of evil times, it had been neglected and disobeyed. It followed that those who revived these confessedly obsolete observances show themselves to be the true, loyal, and dutiful sons of the Church, and that those of their brethren who adhere to the long prevailing usage, though their conduct may admit of some charitable excuse, cannot be altogether free from blame. This is a position in which the great body of the clergy can hardly be prepared con- tentedly to acquiesce, and so the legal side of the question interests the character and the conscience of every parish priest in the country. It cannot be sufficient for him to be treated with indulgence by those who regard him as really guilty of a breach of duty. But though I do not expect that those who have taken this high ground will ever retract their language, I do not think it will continue to be repeated with the same inward confidence ; as it must be felt that, to say the least, the assumption on which it rests has within the last half year suffered a somewhat rude shock and lost much of its credit. Several of the Bishops, a majority of the English Bench, thought that the state of things rendered it desirable to obtain a legal opinion on the lawful- ness of some of the restored observances, and by their direction a Case very carefully prepared was submitted to four lawyers of the highest reputation, OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 77 including one who was then Attorney- General. The joint Opinion of these eminent persons pronounced the practices in question to be unlawful. It was to have been expected that those who would have rejoiced if the answer had been in the opposite sense, should have been displeased and dissatisfied with this result. But I was not prepared to find that any one not pledged to their views would permit himself to decry the value of the opinion, on the ground that the Case was “ of an ex-jparte character,” and that the counsel consulted fell into a “trap” which had been laid for them 7 . I refrain from all comment on the good taste of this language and on the reflection it implies on the character of the consulting Bishops, and on the learning and ability of their legal advisers. I will only observe that the infatuation thus indirectly but unmistak- ably imputed to the Bishops, is even greater than the disingenuousness with which they are charged. For if any one had a deep personal interest in ascer- taining the real state of the law on the subject, it must have been those who might find themselves compelled to bring the question into Court at their own charge and risk. They are supposed t3 have craftily contrived the defeat of their own object, by laying a “ trap ” into which their guides, whom they had carefully blinded, innocently but inevitably fell. In the meanwhile, however successful one who is not a member of the legal profession, may believe himself to have been, in convicting four lawyers of the first eminence, and acting under the gravest responsibility, of ignorance or carelessness, without 7 See the speech of the Dean of Ely, in the debate on Ritual, in the Lower House of Convocation. 78 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY the possibility of knowing the steps by which they were brought to their conclusion, it is satisfactory to reflect that, as far as I am aware, no one has ventured to throw out a suspicion that they were under the influence of any bias arising from personal feelings ; as it is notorious that if any such had existed it would have been likely to operate rather against their conclusion than in its favour ; nor do I know that any one has yet attempted to show that the case submitted to them either omitted or mis- stated any material fact or element of a judicial decision. It has indeed been suggested that 'the persons whom it would have been proper to consult were those who are profoundly versed in what is called the science of Liturgiology. This would no doubt have been the right course if the object had been that which has been attributed to the Bishops, to procure a sanction for foregone conclusions. But if it was to obtain a thoroughly unprejudiced as well as enlightened opinion, no course could have been less judicious. Some of the most distinguished pro- fessors of the new science have made it clear that, even if they professed the requisite impartiality in which they are so glaringly deficient, they would be very unsafe guides, not only in questions of law, but even in such as are immediately connected with their own special study, the tendency of which appears to be to develope the imagination at the expense of the judgment 8 . 8 On Dr. Littledale’s notable discovery, unhappily endorsed by Archdeacon Freeman, about the north side of the altar, see a pamphlet, “ The North Side of the Table,” by Henry Richmond Droop, M.A., Barrister, and one with the same title by the Rev. Charles John Elliott. On Archdeacon Freeman’s own not less OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 79 One advantage, not as it appears to me incon- siderable, will have been gained by the Opinion, whatever else may be its result. Until it shall have been overruled by the Judgment of a competent tribunal, it may be hoped that no Ritualist will again reproach any of his brethren with unfaithfulness or wilfulness, because they abstain from observances notable discovery as to weekly celebrations, see a Letter to the Archdeacon by the Rev. R. H. Eortescue. The extravagant licence of arbitrary conjecture and assumption in which Ritualist writers indulge when they have a point to make out, is a very evil sign, whether as indicating weakness of judgment or violence of party spirit : or, as is most probable, both at once. With its help, St. Paul’s e\ovr) (2 Tim. iv. 13) becomes a “ sacrificial vestment.’* The lights in the upper chamber (Acts xx. 8) which were burning while he preached, were manifestly designed to pay honour to the Holy Eucharist. The direction ascribed to St. James, in the forged Apostolical Constitution (viii. 12), for the dp^iepeus to officiate \a/x7rpav io-Orjra /xere vSvs, is deemed conclusive as to the sacerdotal character of the vestment ; though the real Apostle speaks (ii. 2) of a rich man coming into the Christian assembly iv eaOrjTL Xa/xTrpa, apparently not for the purpose of “ celebrating.” Still more seriously shocking is the abuse made of the Old Testament and of the Book of Revelation. Cardinal Baronius was not guilty of a worse outrage on truth and common sense, when he pretended to discover that our Lord robed Himself for the celebration of the Last Supper ( Annales , tom. i. p. 154). Casaubon’s rebuke (Exercita- tiones, p. 439) is, as to the abuse of Scripture, equally applicable to the Cardinal’s modern imitators : “ Quis ferat Baronii licentiam, hie quoque fingentis Dominum nostrum ad instituendam Sacrosanctam Eucharistiam pretiosam aliam vestem induisse, et pro actionibus vestimenta subinde mutasse ! Hoccine est divina oracula cum timore et tremore tractare, humana figmenta sacris narrationibus ex suo semper immiscere?” The next remark shows that Baro- nius was more excusable than those who tread in his steps : “Enimvero non poterat continere se Cardinalis Baronius, vel Cardinalities certe jam turn animos gerens, aulse Romanse splen- dori et regise Pontificum pompse assuetus, quin aliquid de moribus hodiernis Domino affingeret.” — To the above cited pamphlets may now be added an excellent article on the North Side of the Lord’s Table, in the Contemporary Review, Oct. 1866. 80 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY which eminent lawyers believe to be unlawful. But I am quite aware that the opinion by no means sets the question at rest, and though I should be sur- prised if it was to be judicially contradicted, I am fully sensible of the possibility that the more thorough sifting of a trial may lead to an opposite conclusion. That the question in its legal aspect is one of very great difficulty will not be denied by any one who is at all acquainted with the voluminous discussion it has undergone. I will only venture to make one observation, which seems to lie fairly within my province, on the peculiar character of the difficulty. It is one of a kind which we have con- stantly to encounter in the highest regions of theo- logy, when we find two truths — such as God’s sovereignty and man’s free agency — both undeniable, yet apparently irreconcilable with one another. In the present case we have, on the one side, a Rubric still in force, which prescribes the use of certain ornaments in the Church by the authority of Parlia- ment. On the other side, we have the uniform practice of three centuries, during which these ornaments have never been in use. Both facts are unquestionable, the difficulty is to find an explanation by which they may be reconciled. Such an explana- tion has been thought to be furnished by subsequent acts of Royal authority which, if valid, would qualify the Rubric, and even, if not, would sufficiently account for the practice. But why the Rubric was allowed to remain at the last revision of the Prayer Book in 1662, without either modification or explanation, is another difficulty which has been bequeathed to us by the Bishops of that day. I am afraid that it admits of a but too easy solution. When at the Savoy Conference the Ministers excepted to the OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 81 Rubric on the ground that “it seemed to bring back” the vestments forbidden by the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI., the Bishops might either have admitted that they desired to see these ornaments restored, or have shown that the Rubric under the law as it then stood would not have that effect. They did neither the one nor the other, but simply declared that they “ thought it fit that the Rubric continue as it is,” for reasons which they had already given in answer to a more general remonstrance of the ministers on the subject of ceremonies. But when we refer to these reasons, we find that they relate to no other kind of vestment than the surplice. The Bishops of the Restoration may deserve cen- sure for some parts of their conduct in that contro- versy. Not that they were more intolerant than their adversaries, but it was their misfortune to have gained the power, where the others only retained the will to persecute. But, without wishing at all to extenuate their faults, I think we have no right, morally or historically, to put the worst construction on their words or actions, when they may be at least equally well explained on a milder supposition. If, when they gave that answer to the exception of the ministers, they believed that the Rubric did really authorize the use of the vestments which “ it seemed to bring back,” they would have been guilty of the most odious duplicity. But if, knowing or believing that it had been so limited as only to cover the use of the surplice, they nevertheless retained it unaltered, just because their opponents “ desired that it might be wholly left out,” this I am afraid would be too much in keeping with the general course and spirit of their proceedings, to be thought at all improbable. It must, however, be observed that though on this F 82 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY supposition they were witnessing, as some of them did still more plainly by their subsequent acts, to the general understanding as to the state of the law on this head, it would not follow with absolute certainty that they were not under a mistake, and that the apprehension professed by the Puritans was not better grounded than they themselves believed. Independently of whatever weight may be due to the recent Opinion, I think there was at least enough of obscurity and perplexity in the question, to re- strain a cautious and modest man who had studied its history, even from making up his mind upon it with absolute confidence 9 , much more from acting upon his private opinion by the revival of obsolete observances. The use of three centuries may not be sufficient to prove the state of the law, but it can hardly be denied that it affords a strong indication of the mind of the Church, which it seems hardly con- sistent with either humility or charity for any of her ministers openly to disregard. But maxims of con- duct which would govern ordinary cases may not be applicable to this. We are bound to judge men by the view they take of their own position and duties, however erroneous it may appear to us. And it is clear that the clergymen who are engaged in the 9 I venture to express this opinion, notwithstanding the high authority cited by Mr. Stephens (Book of Common Prayer with Notes, vol. i. p. 378), because I find that in that quotation a most material part of the history of the question was entirely ignored ; as it is, most surprisingly, by Archdeacon Law, in his lecture on Extreme Ritualism, where, through this singular oversight, he finds himself driven (p. 124) to a conclusion most repugnant to his wishes. Mr. Stephens himself seems to me to beg the whole ques- tion, in his answer to the observations which he quotes from Bishop Mant, on the limitation effected in the Rubric of Elizabeth by the Advertisements and Articles of 1571 (p. 3G8)... 83 OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. Ritualistic movement do not consider themselves simply as ministers of tlie Church of England, but as providentially charged with a missionary work of restoration and renewal, which they conceive to be urgently needed for her welfare 1 . The changes which have been introduced into the forms of public worship are a part only, though the most con- spicuous, and perhaps the most important part of that work. In their eyes that usage of three cen- turies, to which they are called upon to conform, whether legal or not, has no claim to respect, but, on the contrary, is a corruption and an abuse. When they look back to its origin, they can feel no sym- pathy with the spirit from which it sprang. When they follow the stream of its history, they observe signs of progressive deterioration. And when they test it by its final results, they find on the whole failure and not success. The present state of things appears to them such as to warrant all lawful endeavours to try the effect of a different system. If the tendency of that which they advo- cate is to lessen the amount of difference in externals^ which separates the English Church from the greater part of Christendom, they do not regard that as a ground of objection, but as an argument in its favour; and more especially with respect to our Missions to the heathen, as an incalculable advantage, supplying a defect which would be alone sufficient to account for their comparative barrenness. Whatever we may think of the past, I am afraid that no one who does not shut his eyes to facts of the most glaring notoriety, can deny that this view 1 See Dr, Littledale on “ The Missionary Aspect of Ritualism,” in u The Church and the World.” F 2 84 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY of the present is but too well founded, and that the state of the Church with regard to the influence which she exercises on the people of this country is far from satisfactory. This indeed would be abun- dantly evident if it were only from the proposals and attempts which have been so rife of late years for supplying the acknowledged want. They show indeed that the Church is awake to the consciousness of her need, and bestirring herself to provide for it ; but also that the means of so doing have not yet been found, at least in any degree adequate to the end. And I think this ought to make us very cautious about rejecting any help which may be offered to us for this object, unless it be quite clear that it is offered on terms which we cannot lawfully accept. I do not mean now to speak of the difficulty of reaching vast masses of our population on whom the Church has at present no hold at all, and who have to be recovered from a state often much worse than most forms of heathenism. That would only divert our attention from the subject immediately before us. Those who never enter our churches because they are strangers to all religion, can have no concern in a question about modes of worship. But confining ourselves to this point, we can hardly fail to see clear signs of a wide-spread feeling that something is wanting in the ordinary services of the Church to make them generally attractive or im- pressive. Otherwise we should not hear so many complaints of their length and tediousness. And we cannot overlook the fact, that the outward posture and most probably the inward frame of perhaps the great bulk of our congregations, is not that of worshippers who are joining in common prayer, but that of persons listening, respectfully or otherwise, OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 85 to some devotional utterances wliicli pass between tlie minister and the clerk, while waiting for the sermon, as the only part of the service from which they expect any benefit. It is natural that many should wish to have this time of waiting abridged. But, on the other hand, we hear not less loud complaints of the length and tediousness of sermons, and wishes that they should be either reserved for special occasions, or kept within a much narrower compass. It is not enough, by way of answer, to point to the crowds which frequent the special services of our cathedrals, as a proof that we may well be content with the present attractiveness of our form of wor- ship. N o doubt as often as it combines the attrac- tions of a majestic building, a well-trained choir, and an eloquent preacher, it will never lack the attendance of large congregations. But it is very rarely that any of these are to be found, much more rarely that all are to be found together, in our parish churches. The example, however, shows what are the elements which contribute to the result : and experience ap- pears to prove that they may be sufficiently effica- cious even when present in only a moderate degree. The character and internal arrangements of the building, though of subordinate moment, are by no means unimportant ; and every indication of wilful, irreverent neglect, in things appropriated to the most sacred uses, can hardly fail to injure those whom it does not offend. But this at least it is always possible to avoid. A high strain of eloquence can never be common : nor perhaps is it suited to most of our congregations. But earnestness and thoughtfulness, with the skill gained by experience in adapting the discourse to the capacity and circum- 86 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY stances of the hearers, will always enable the preacher to awaken their interest, and command their atten- tion. And so, if our ordinary Services are found wearisome by those who do not bring with them a lively spirit of devotion, this cannot be fairly laid to the charge of the Prayer Book, where its directions are disregarded, and the services are conducted in a manner wholly at variance with the intention of its framers, and deprived of all their proper charm of variety and solemnity, by the practice which excludes all musical expression, and makes the effect to depend on the always uncertain, and often painfully defective taste and judgment of the reader. While therefore I would readily admit that which is often urged in defence of the Ritualistic movement, that in many of our churches there is large room for improvement in the prevailing practice of our public worship, I cannot find in this fact any thing to justify, or indeed to account for the recent innovations. In the first place the resources of the Prayer Book were very far from exhausted. Experience, as far as it went, tended to show that a closer observance of its directions, and a fuller use of the means it places at our disposal, without the smallest excess over that which is perfectly legitimate and unquestionably authorized, would commonly suffice to relieve our services from that monotony which has been the subject of com- plaint ; and which, allow me to remind you, my reverend brethren, may be felt by many of our hearers as very irksome and depressing, while we who officiate are wholly unconscious of the effect we pro- duce. And it must be added that, if there are con- gregations to whom even such an amount of variation from the established usage would be unwelcome, and even offensive, that is, certainly a reason not for, but OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 87 against, the introduction of other changes, which are generally obnoxious, not only from their novelty, but their character. And in the next place it must be observed, that these startling changes have been made, not at a time when the Church had to be roused from a state of apathy and torpor, but, on the contrary, while she was exerting herself with unpre- cedented activity for the removal of impediments, and the strengthening of aids to the public devotion of her children. I have already, at the beginning of my Charge, touched on the evidence visible in this Diocese, and still more in many others, of the grow- ing attention paid to the structure and comeliness of her sacred buildings : and this care has been very largely extended to the details of her worship. If any proof of this statement were needed as to our- selves, it would be found in the gratifying fact, that choral associations have been lately formed in three of our Archdeaconries, whose example will no doubt ere long be followed by the fourth. We have thus ground to hope, that the voice of melody will be more frequently heard in our churches, to inspirit the strains of praise and thanksgiving, and that the “ psalms and hymns, and spiritual songs,” which were meant to be the expression of pious feelings, will not always be made to serve merely as additional lessons. In the meanwhile it is by no means certain that the success, measured by increased attendance, of the new observances, has been greater than that of services which have been conducted strictly within the commonly recognized limits of the Prayer Book, and with an intelligent and judicious application of its rules. I have no statistics which would enable me to speak with confidence on this subject. But I believe that in most neighbourhoods the number of 88 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY those who are attracted by the revived ritual bears a small proportion to that of those who dislike and disapprove of it, even if they are not shocked and disgusted by it. And I strongly suspect that those who take pleasure in it, do so mainly not on account of its superior sensuous attractions, but because it represents a peculiar system of opinions. Hence it is clear that a comparison between the two forms of worship, with respect to their effectiveness or popularity, could lead to no trustworthy result, and, even if it did, could afford no safe ground for any practical decision. It is absolutely necessary to consider the movement in itself, apart from all calculations or conjectures as to its prospects of success or failure. Much also has been said which appears to me quite irrelevant, as to the personal character of those who take the lead in it. They are described, I have no doubt most truly, as men of exemplary lives, and extraordinary devotedness to their pastoral duties 2 . These certainly are qualities which entitle them to respect ; and that devotedness may not be the less meritorious because they are avowedly engaged in a missionary and proselytizing work. But they themselves would probably be the last to question that many, if not most, Roman Catholic priests lead holy, self-denying lives, and give themselves unsparingly to the work of their calling, even when it is not of a missionary kind. It seems 2 So the Report of the Committee of the Lower House of Con- vocation on Ritual. “ None are more earnest and unwearied in delivering the truth of Christ’s Gospel, none more self-denying in ministering to the wants and distresses of the poor, than very many of those who have put in use these observances.” As the Committee throughout ignore the Romanizing character of the movement, it is not surprising that they should not have perceived the irrelevancy of this remark. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID* Sw 89 to me more to tlie purpose to observe, tliat they are apparently persons of great energy and no incon- siderable ability, thoroughly in earnest, believing in themselves and their mission, of resolute will and sanguine hopes ; and that the strength of the party behind their backs is not to be measured by the num- bers of those who happen to belong to their congre- gations. Their adherents probably form a much larger body. It may not be too much to say, looking at their connexions and alliances, that they are already a power in the Church : one strong enough at least to make it worth our while to gain as clear an idea as we can of their principles and aims. The fact which presents itself most obviously on the surface of the whole matter, is the change which has been made in the Administration of the Lord’s Supper. The Communion Service of the Prayer Book is set, as it were, in the frame of the Roman Catholic ceremonial, with all the accompaniments of the high or chanted Mass, vestments, lights, incense, postures and gestures of the officiating clergy. It is interpolated with corresponding hymns, and supple- mented by private prayers, translated from the Roman Missal. To make the resemblance more complete, several of the clearest directions of our own Rubric are disobeyed, and the Roman observance substituted for that appointed by our Church 3 . To the eye, hardly any thing appears to be wanting for an exact identity between the two Liturgies : and it is but rarely that any difference can be detected by the ear. I cannot help thinking that this unques- 3 This is most amply shown in a pamphlet entitled “ Utrum Horum,” by Presbyter Anglicanus , where the directions of the Prayer Book are compared with those of the “ Directorium Angli- canum. 90 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY tionable fact deserved some notice in the Report of the Committee of the Lower House of Convocation on Ritual, where it is passed over in silence, and could not be gathered by any one from the remarks which are there made on the particulars of the new practice. And it is not unworthy of note, as indi- cating the spirit of the movement, that according to an interpretation of the Rubric referring to the second year of Edward VI., which was for some time treated as indisputable, every ornament and rite of the unreformed Church, which has not been either expressly forbidden or tacitly excluded by the esta- blished order of our Service, is still authorized by the Statute law, and may and ought to be used. This doctrine was made the foundation of a remarkable work, which purports to direct the Anglican clergy in their liturgical ministrations, with a view to the restoration of the old practice, and treats the subject with a Rabbinical minuteness, quite worthy of the end proposed 4 . This interpretation, indeed, has since been discovered to be hardly tenable, though it will probably not the less continue to be acted upon. But it marks the precise character of the ideal which the Ritualists have set before themselves, as the object of their aspirations : the mediaeval type of Ritual in its most florid development, and in the most glaring possible contrast to the simplicity of our present use. This, I say, is a fact which, in my opinion, ought not to be kept out of sight in any statement which professes to give a clear and fair view of the subject, especially if it is meant to be a guide to practical conclusions. And it enables us the better to judge * “ Directorium Anglicanum.” 91 OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. of the argumentative value of some topics which are often urged on behalf of the movement, and which have even been deemed worthy of a place in the Report I was just now speaking of. We cannot but sympathize with persons who are governed by “ no other motive than a desire to do honour to the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, and to render the services of the English Church more becoming in themselves and more attractive to the people. 5 ’ But it is not easy to perceive how these motives are specially connected with the practices in defence of which they are alleged ; and I think it would startle and alarm most Churchmen to hear that, in the judgment of either House of Convocation, wherever these motives exist, they will of themselves, without any other kind of impulse, naturally lead to the closest possible assimilation of our Liturgy to the Roman Mass. In this case the ruling motives can be only matter of conjecture ; all that is certain is the visible result. And this rather suggests a strong suspicion, that the motives assigned would not have taken this direction if it had not been determined by a prepossession in favour of distinctive Roman usages. It has also been laid down as a principle bearing upon the present question, that the use of peculiar vestments for the celebration of Divine Service, and especially of its most solemn act, the Holy Communion, is a dictate of instinctive piety 5 . Yet it may now be considered as well ascertained that for several centuries the piety of the early Chris- tians did not lead them to make any change in their ordinary apparel, even for the celebration of their 6 See “ A Sermon for Easter Day,” by the Rev. Edward Stuart, Appendix, p. 45. 92 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY holiest mysteries, and that the liturgical vestments of later ages may all be traced to the original dress of common secular life 6 . But even if the principle could claim that sanction of Christian antiquity which it wants, and which seems rather to belong, in respect both of shape and colour, to the much-despised sur- plice 7 , still, it would not either warrant or explain the partiality shown in the adoption, not only of the late mediaeval forms, but of the precise variations of colour prescribed by the Roman Ritual. These examples, however, convey a very imperfect idea of the extent to which that partiality is carried, and of the manifold ways in which it is displayed. The Debate on Ritual in the Lower House of Convo- cation drew forth some remarkable disclosures 8 , which leave no room for doubt on this head. I confine myself, however, to that which is apparent in the mode of conducting public worship. Where we find such a close and studied approximation to the Roman Catholic system in externals, it is certainly not uncharitable to suspect that there may 6 Professor Hefele’s Essay on this subject in the second volume of his “ Beitragezur Kirchengeschichte, Archaologie, und Liturgik” — the more valuable as the work of a zealous as well as a very learned Roman Catholic — has been made the foundation of a very useful paper by the Rev. Professor Cheetham, in the “ Contemporary Review,” August, 1866. 7 “ The clergy,” observes Mr. Hemans, in a paper on the Church in the Catacombs, “ Contemporary Review,” October, 1866, “ till the end of this primitive period, continued to officiate attired in the classic white vestments common to Roman citizens, but distin- guished by the long hair and beard of philosophers ; and not till the Constantinian period did the bishops begin to wear purple ; not till the ninth century was that primitive white costume (which was sometimes slightly adorned in purple or gold) laid aside by the priesthood generally.” 8 In a letter or paper read by Archdeacon Wordsworth. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 93 be a corresponding affinity in matters of faith and doctrine. This becomes still more probable when we place two facts side by side. On the one hand, the Reformers, who desired to abolish the ornaments and ceremonies now restored, had no aversion to them in themselves, were not only fully aware that in themselves they are things indifferent, but pro- bably would have been ready to admit that they are graceful, picturesque, attractive to the senses and the imagination. But they disliked them the more on that very account, because, in their minds, they were things inseparably associated with doctrines which they abhorred, and against which they con- tended even to the death. On the other hand, those who are labouring for the restoration of the pre- Reformation Ritual, though they do not neglect to avail themselves of such general pleas as I was just now noticing, grounded on the common instincts and cravings of human nature, when they come distinctly to enumerate “ the ends to which Ritual and Ceremonial minister,” specify as one end, that “ they are the expressions of doctrine, and witnesses to the Sacramental system of the Catholic religion 9 .” It is of course on this account above all that these things are valued by those who adopt them. These earnest men would indignantly reject the supposition that they are agitating the Church for any thing which serves merely to gratify a refined taste, and has not in their eyes a very deep doctrinal signifi- cance. The question, therefore, is forced upon us : Is the doctrine thus symbolized the doctrine of the Reformed Church of England, which has dropped these symbols, or that of the Church of Rome, which retains them ? 9 “ Directorium Anglicanum,” Preface, p. xiv. 94 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY There may be persons to whom it may appear that this question admits but of one answer, that of the latter alternative. This, however, evidently depends on the further inquiry, Whether the doctrine is one of those on which the two Churches are at variance, or of those on which they agree with one another. Now, however it may be as to doctrine in the proper sense, I think it can hardly be denied that there is a very wide and important difference between the general view which our Church takes of her Liturgy, and the Roman view of the Mass. The difference is marked by their several names and descriptions. The one is an Office for the Adminis- tration of the Lord’s Supper, or Holy Communion ; the other, for the celebration of a sacrifice. The difference indicated by the titles is equally conspicuous in the contents of the two Liturgies. In the Angli- can, the idea which is almost exclusively predominant is that of Communion. There is, indeed, an Offer- tory, and an oblation of common things for sacred and charitable uses. There is mention of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, which appears to include the whole rite 1 ; and the communicants “ offer and present themselves, their souls and bodies, as a living sacrifice.” But of any other kind of sacrifice, and particularly of any sacrificial oblation of the conse- crated elements, there is not a word. The Conse- cration is immediately followed by the Communion, which is the great business of the whole. On the other hand, the Council of Trent pronounces an anathema on those who say that there is not offered to God in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice, or that the offering consists only in Christ’s being given 1 “ This our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 95 to us for manducation ; or that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed on the Cross, and not propitiatory. A more direct conflict of views, if they are supposed to relate to the same subject, or to two subjects not essentially different from one another, it would be difficult to conceive ; for that which the Council so emphatically denies to be the sacrifice of the Mass, is the only thing to which our Church gives the name of her sacrifice. That which the Council declares to be the true and proper sacrifice of the Mass, is an offering as to which our Church is absolutely silent. It might have seemed to any one who read our Communion Office, a strange and hopeless under- taking to bring it into harmony with the Mass ; and I think that the Ritualists who have made the attempt, have failed to produce any thing more than a deceptive show of resemblance ; but of the harmony between their own views and those of the Church of Rome in this respect, they have given the most unequivocal signs. The rite which they celebrate they describe as the Sacrifice of the Altar, or the Mass. The splendour with which they invest it is certainly more appropriate to the oblation of a sacrifice than to the reception and participation of a gift. And, feeling that this would still be insufficient for the purpose, they interpolate our Office with large extracts from the Canon of the Mass, in which the Sacrifice is explicitly announced, and which the “ celebrant ” is directed to use as private prayers 2 . I must own that there is something in this adulteration, — as I 2 See “ Suggestions for the Due and Eeverent Celebration of the Holy Eucharist,” printed for the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. 96 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY think I may not improperly term it, — of the Prayer Book out of the Missal, which to my sense has an unpleasant savour of artifice and disingenuousness. It is a proceeding of which I think both Churches have reason to complain : the one, that her mind is not only disregarded, but misrepresented ; the other, that her treasures are rifled to set off her adversary with a false semblance of likeness to herself. But still all this does not amount to a proof that there has been any departure from the express teaching of our Church with regard to the Sacra- ment. And in one important particular there can be no doubt that those who carry the assimilation of ritual to the greatest length, most decidedly and sincerely repudiate the Bomish doctrine. With our twenty-eighth Article, — whether for the reasons there assigned or not, — they reject the dogma of Transubstantiation. So indeed they might do, with perfect consistency, even if they used the Homan Liturgy without curtailment or alteration; for to those who have studied the subject, it is well known that the Canon of the Mass is so far from teaching that dogma, that it positively witnesses against it, and can only be reconciled with it by the most violent artifices of interpretation \ The Canon had been fixed many centuries before the dogma was defined. And here I cannot refrain from pausing for a moment to remark, that there is perhaps no head of theological controversy in which our Church 3 The consecration is followed by the prayer : “ Supra quae pro- pitio et sereno vultu respicere digneris, et accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tni justi Abel, et sacri- ficium. Patriarchs nostri Abrahse, et quod tibi obtulit Summus Sacerdos tuus Melchidezech sanctum Sacrificium, immaculatam Hostiam.” What a comparison, when Jesus Christ Himself is supposed to be on the altar ! OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 97 stands in more advantageous contrast with Rome, or in which we have more reason thankfully to recognize her characteristic moderation, than this. The tenet of Transubstantiation, decreed as an article of faith, combines in itself the two extremes of irreverent rationalism and presumptuous dog- matism. As a speculation of the Schools, it is essentially rationalistic ; a bold and vain attempt to pry into mysteries of faith impenetrable to human reason. As a dogma, it exhibits the spectacle of a Church so forgetful of her proper functions, as to undertake to give a Divine sanction to a purely meta- physical theory, the offspring of a system of profane philosophy. This rationalistic dogmatism gives an imposing air of solidity and compactness to much in the Roman theology which, on closer inspection, proves to be utterly hollow and baseless. A conclu- sion is reached through a process of vicious ratio- cination, composed of ambiguous terms and arbi- trary assumptions. In itself it is “ a fond thing vainly invented. 5 5 But it is withdrawn from all inquiry, and stamped with the character of a Divine revelation, by means of the dogma of Papal or Conciliar infallibility. This however, when ex- amined, turns out to be itself the product of a like abuse of reason. We are reminded of the Indian cosmology, in which the earth rests on the elephant, the elephant on the tortoise, and the tortoise — on empty space. The Church of England, on the con- trary, has dealt with this subject in a spirit of true reverence as well as of prudence and charity 4 . She asserts the mystery inherent in the institution of the Sacrament, but abstains from all attempts to inves- 4 See however Appendix D. G 98 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY tigate or define it, and leaves the widest range open to the devotional feelings, and the private medita- tions of her children with regard to it. And this liberty is so large, and has been so freely used, that, apart from the express admission of Tran substantia- tion, or of the grossly carnal notions to which it gave rise, and which, in the minds of the common people, are probably inseparable from it, I think there can hardly be any description of the Real Presence, which, in some sense or other, is uni- versally allowed, that would not be found to be authorized by the language of eminent divines of our Church ; and I am not aware, and do not believe, that our most advanced Ritualists have in fact over- stepped those very ample bounds. But I am not so sure that it is possible to reconcile their view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice with that of the Church of England, or to distinguish it from that of the Church of Rome. The subject is one which requires the utmost precision of thought and lan- guage, to avoid either falling into or giving occasion for misconception. At every step we are in danger of being misled by ambiguous terms, and of reason- ing upon them in a sense different from that in which they are used by those with whom we contend. I wish very much to keep this present to my own mind and to yours in that which I am about to say. The Council of Trent anathematizes those who affirm that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not propitia- tory, or that it benefits only the receiver, or com- municant ; or that it ought not to be offered for quick and dead, to have remission of pain and guilt. The word propitiatory is one of those which admit of two senses : the one, strict and proper ; the other, loose and inexact. It might be understood to mean OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 99 nothing more than acceptable to God , as that “ living sacrifice ” of our bodies, spoken of by St. Paul, or as our common prayers made in the name of Christ. In this sense it might not unfitly, though impru- dently, because in a way so very liable to misap- prehension and abuse, be applied to that memorial of the one only real propitiation, which the Church makes in her Eucharist. This, however, is most certainly not the sense in which the Church of Pome asserts that the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory ; for she regards it, not indeed as a repetition of the offering made on the Cross, but neither as a simple commemoration of that. It is, in her view, a repe- tition of the Sacrifice which she holds to have been actually made, not merely signified as a thing to come, at the Last Supper, for the remission of the sins of the Apostles and of many 5 . There can there- fore be no doubt in what sense she directs the priest, at the close of the Mass, to pray that the sacrifice which he has offered “ may be acceptable unto God, 5 Bellarmin, “ De Missa,” i. c. xii. : “ Christus in ultima Coena seipse sub specie panis et vini Deo Patri obtulit, et idipsum jussit fieri ab Apostolis et eorum successoribus usque ad mundi consum- mationem. Sed hoc est sacrificium vere ac proprie dictum ob- tulisse, et offerendum instituisse.” So, in nearly the same words, Bona, “ Rerum Liturgicarum,” i. c. 4. Melchior Canus, “ De Locis Theologieis,” xii. c. 12, draws a distinction between the efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Cross and that of the Last Supper : “ Alia efficientia hostise illius est, quam Christus palam mactavit in cruce : alia illius est quam sub speciebus definitis mystice prsebuit in coena. Ilia generalis est, nec per sacrificium modo, sed per omnia sigillatim sacramenta ad effecta longe diversa applicatur. Haec peculiaris efficientia est, et sub speciebus certis ad peculiaria quae- dam effecta concluditur. Obtulit ergo Christus in coena turn pro culpa veniali, turn pro poena quae pro culpa etiam mortali de- beretur.” The Bishop of Brechin (Primary Charge, 2nd edit. p. 52) goes no farther than to say, “ At that first Eucharist that Sacrifice was presented to the Father before it was made.” G 2 100 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY and propitiatory for himself and all for whom he has offered it.” What, then, must we infer from the fact that this very prayer is one of those which are recommended for the use of our clergy in the ad- ministration of the Lord’s Supper at the correspond- ing part of the Office 6 ? Must we not conclude that it is in the very same sense that, in a manual of devotion accredited by the same authority, the cele- bration of our Liturgy is described as a “ Sacrifice of praise and propitiation,” in which our Lord, £,£ through His own presence communicates the vir- tues of His most precious death and passion to all His faithful, living and departed 7 ” I do not see how this language is to be reconciled with the doctrine of our Church, even as expounded by divines of that school which takes the highest view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. But if we suppose that it is meant to express sound Anglican doctrine in Roman phraseology, how strong must be the leaning towards Rome which prompts the use of her language, where it is apparently most at variance with the sense which the authors intend to convey ! The words which I was just now reading may have reminded you that the strongest condemnatory lan- guage to be found in our Articles is that of the Thirty-first, where ££ the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt,” are branded with the name of “ blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” In the celebrated Tract xc. it was contended, that the censure of the Article was aimed, not at the 6 Suggestions, &c. 7 The Manual of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 101 creed of tlie Roman Church, but at certain opinions which were no essential parts of her system ; and that it neither speaks against the Mass in itself, nor against its being an offering for the quick and the dead for the remission of sin, but against its being viewed as independent or distinct from the Sacrifice of the Cross 8 .” I am not just now con- cerned to inquire whether this opinion is well founded or not, or how far the Church of Rome is irrevocably pledged to that exposition of the decrees of Trent which was given by her great apologists, and which is now generally received by all members of her communion. I would only observe that the doubt itself implies that the language of the decrees is in perfect harmony with that exposition, even if it admits of an explanation which would bring it nearer to doctrine which may be held in the Church of England. When therefore that language is used, as it is, in forms of devotion which are recommended as private accompaniments of the ritual which is stu- diously assimilated to that of Rome, without any qualifying explanation, it can only be understood in the sense generally received, — a sense in which even the author of Tract xo. did not profess to believe that it could be reconciled with the teaching of our Church, or with what he then held to be the truth. And again, I desire you to observe, if the language is supposed to be borrowed in a different and sounder sense, how strong must be the predilection which it indicates for every thing that has the Roman stamp upon it. This close approximation to Roman views and prac- tice, in connection with the predominance assigned 8 See Appendix C. 102 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY to that sacrificial aspect of the Lord’s Supper, which it is so difficult even to detect in the English Service Book, over that of the Sacrament, which there alone meets the eye, is especially conspicuous in the kind of encouragement given by clergymen of the Ritual- istic school to the attendance of non- communicants during the celebration 9 . Services exactly corres- ponding to the Low Masses of the Church of Rome, are multiplied in their churches, without any design of affording additional opportunities of communicat- ing, for congregations in which few are expected or desired to be more than listeners ; most indeed not so much : for as they are provided with “ manuals of devotion to be used at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist by such as do not communicate,” they may be as little aware of what is said and done at the Holy Table, as if they were outside the door, and only apprised of the moment of consecration by the tinkling of a bell. The practical question is one of some little difficulty. I should think it a most un- warrantable encroachment on the rights of conscience to compel any of the congregation to withdraw, if they wish to remain, though without any intention of communicating. This of course must needs be left to every one’s discretion. But I should also consider it as an intrusion into the sanctuary of private devotion, absolutely and indiscriminately to condemn or discourage such attendance. I fully admit that there may be many cases in which it may tend to edification, without the slightest tinge of super- stition. I expressed the same opinion in a Charge several years ago, and I see no reason for changing it now. But attendance simply with a view to edifi- 0 See Appendix I). OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 103 cation, is one thing : attendance in the belief that the proper benefit of the ordinance may be enjoyed without reception, seems to me another and quite a different thing. This, if I am not mistaken, and not, as has been argued, a vulgar error, by which it was supposed that the Sacrifice of the Cross itself is repeated in every Mass, was the doctrine which lay at the root of the practice condemned by the Thirty- first Article 1 . From this doctrine naturally sprang the indefinite multiplication of solitary Masses, each of which was held to possess a certain inherent value, quite distinct from that of the Sacrifice of the Cross, though not independent of it, and which might be applied, according to the intention of the priest, either to the living, or, which was the more frequent occasion of that multiplication, to the departed, for the purpose of obtaining their release from Purgatory. The abuses reproved by the Coun- cil of Trent were only casual incidents of the prac- tice, and in no way necessary consequences of the doctrine, which the Council distinctly asserted, ex- pressly “ approving of those Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally,” and on the ground, that “ they are celebrated by the public minis- ter of the Church, not for himself only, but for all the faithful who belong to the Body of Christ ” — in other words, as our Article has it, “ for the quick and the dead.” When the doctrine is received among ourselves, it will be only the effect of outward tem- porary restraints, if it is not accompanied by the practice which the Article condemned, not indeed simply by itself, but along with, though not solely or mainly on account of, its incidental, gross and See Appendix C. 104 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY shameless abuses, the recurrence of which, it may be hoped, we have no reason to fear. But this ritual movement has by no means reached its term. It is still in the full vigour of its early years. It appears to be advancing both extensively, in the work of proselytism, and intensively, in doctrinal inno- vation, not always distinctly enunciated but clearly intimated. Its partizans seem to vie with one another in the introduction of more and more startling novel- ties, both of theory and practice. The adoration of the consecrated Wafer, reserved for that purpose, which is one of the most characteristic Romish rites, and a legitimate consequence of the Romish Eucharistic doctrine, is contemplated, if it has not been already adopted, in some of our churches, and the Romish Festival of the Corpus Christi instituted for the more conspicuous exercise of that adoration, has, it ap- pears, actually begun to be observed by clergymen of our Church. Already public honours are paid to the Virgin Mary, and language applied to her, which can only be considered as marking the first stage of a development, to which no limit, short of the fall Romish worship, can be probably assigned. In the presence of these facts, the statement of the Committee of the Lower House of Convocation, that — “ in the larger number of the practices which were brought under their notice, they could trace no proper connexion with the distinctive teaching of the Church of Rome,” — seems much better fitted to excite surprise, than to administer consolation, or inspire confidence. But it was to me still more surprising to hear from one speaking in another place, with the weight of high authority, and under very grave responsibility 2 — a most deliberate and solemn declara- 2 Chronicle of Convocation, Feb. 9, 1866, p. 165. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 105 tion of his belief, “ that this present movement is not a movement towards Rome.” And yet, paradoxical as it may seem, I will own that there is a sense in which I can myself believe that this movement is not a movement towards Rome. Not certainly in the sense that it has any other direction. Not in the sense that its “ ultimate end and aim ” — as has been said by one who appears to have had means of under- standing it thoroughly — is any thing less than “ to make the doctrine, practice, and worship of the An- glican Church as nearly as possible identical with the Roman 3 .” In that sense I cannot doubt that it is a very decided and rapid movement towards Rome. But in another sense I might say, though I should not think it a happy way of expressing my meaning, that this present movement — and I should lay great stress on the word present — is not a movement toward Rome. I believe that many at least of those who are most actively engaged in it are not at present contemplating secession from the Church of England, and do not even desire that it should be immediately absorbed in the Church of Rome. I may say indeed that, with regard to a considerable number of them, there are clear proofs that this is not their present bent or aim. That which they have in view is quite another thing : something indeed which I can only regard as a dream and a delusion, but which as long as they cherish this delu- sion, will keep them in their present position. Their real object has been lately brought somewhat promi- nently under public notice, by some very remarkable documents, which at the same time afford the best means of forming a judgment on its prospects of success. 3 See Archdeacon Wordsworth’s speech in the debate on Ritual. 106 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY From them we learn that a Society has- been founded under the name of an “ Association for the Promotion of the Unity of Christendom/ 5 whose common bond of union is an earnest desire for the visible reunion of all Christendom, especially of the three chief communions, the Roman Catholic, the Eastern, and the Anglican : the agency to be employed for compassing the end, being for the present simply intercessory prayer. The Society was composed chiefly of English Churchmen, clergy and laity ; but as some Roman Catholics had been induced to join it, it attracted the attention of their Bishops, who referred the matter to the supreme authority at Rome (the Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition) which issued a rescript condemning the Association, and enjoining the faithful to beware of uniting themselves with it under peril of heresy. This document drew forth a letter addressed to its author, Cardinal Patrizi, Prefect of the Holy Office, and signed by 198 clergymen of the Church of England, including some of its dignitaries, in which they more distinctly explain the precise nature of their object, which they thought the Cardinal had misunderstood 4 . They disclaim the intention which had been imputed to them, of seeking “ that the three communions in their integrity, and each persisting in its persuasion, might simultaneously combine into one which they admit to be “ a scheme, from which no ecclesiastical unity could be hoped for.” They explain that their object is confined to an intercommunion between the three Churches as dis- tinct, independent, bodies, like that which existed 4 The whole correspondence may be found at the end of Arch- bishop Manning’s “ Reunion of Christendom, a Pastoral Letter to Clergy,” &c. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 107 between East and West before tbe separation. They state that they have worked many years to hasten this result : that they have effected improvements beyond their hopes, where there was any thing imperfect in the faith of the flock, in divine worship, and clerical discipline, and that they have shown an amount of good will toward the venerable Church of Rome, which has “ rendered them suspected in the eyes of some.” This last statement will, I think, both receive and reflect light, if it is compared with the facts which we had just now before us. It seems surprising that any one moderately ac- quainted with the history and character of the Papacy, should have thought it possible that such a proposal should ever be entertained at Rome. And perhaps, but for the interference of the Roman Catholic Bishops, it might have been long before the desires of the Association were embodied in one, so as to call forth the judgment of Rome upon it. The reply of Cardinal Patrizi, energetically en- forced by the highest Roman Catholic authority in this country, must, I think, have convinced the most sanguine of the utter hopelessness of the attempt under present circumstances, or indeed without such a change in the spirit and the principles of the Church of Rome as would almost supersede the necessity of any formal reconciliation 5 . But whether those who have been thus rejected and rebuked will patiently acquiesce in their failure and disappoint- ment — whether, when they find that all their ad- 5 It does not, however, prevent the English Church Union from regarding “Ritualism as a means of promoting ultimately the intercommunion of the whole Catholic Church.” Report of the President and Council of the English Church Union on the Report of the Lower House of Convocation on Ritual. 108 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY vances towards Rome in a growing conformity of faith, worship, and discipline have not brought them one step nearer to the attainment of their object ; when they observe that the differences which sepa- rate them from the great mass of the members of their own communion are enormously greater than those which lie between them and Rome, and which are constantly decreasing, — while they know and are frequently reminded that an act of dutiful submission to that “ venerable Church ” will at once place them not in a mere intercommunion but in the enjoyment of full communion with her — whether, I say, under such circumstances it will be possible for them long to maintain their present ambiguous, intermediate position, and not, however reluctantly, to be carried down, as by an eddy : this it remains far the future to disclose. If we were to listen to the experience of the past, we could hardly feel a doubt as to the final result. But I find that in other quarters among us persons entitled to the highest respect, and of unquestionable attachment to our Church, are strongly persuaded that the signs of our times are peculiarly favourable to the prospect of a restoration of unity in Christen- dom, though there appears to be a very wide differ- ence among them as to the means by which the end is to be compassed. Some ground their hopes on the fact that, as in Italy political unity has been accompanied by religious liberty, a door has been thrown open for the doctrines of the Reformation, which perhaps were never entirely stamped out there, to be re-admitted and have free course. The general alienation of the people from the Court of Rome and the temporal claims of the Papacy, has been thought likely to win favour for the foundation OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 109 of an independent national Church on the platform of primitive doctrine, worship, and government, not unlike, and in full communion with, our own. That such a prospect should attract and should awaken a lively interest in the minds of earnest and pious English Churchmen is perfectly natural, and we cannot but sympathize warmly with their motives and general aims. How far the means hitherto adopted are suited to the moral and religious condi- tion of the country, now in the throes of a great political crisis, it is very difficult for a foreigner to judge. But one thing is clear. The immediate tendency of such a movement will not be to restore unity, but to multiply divisions and to foment religious discord. That may, under the gracious overruling of Divine Providence, be only a transition to a state of unity and concord. But it is certainly possible, and to human eyes quite as probable, that those who think they are laying the foundation of a national reformed Church, may find that they have only been planting a hotbed of sects, which as they spring up will kill one another, and leave the Church of Borne more powerful than before 6 . Here, however, all is intelligible and consistent. I cannot say so much with regard to the hopes which I see are still cherished by some eminent persons of a reconciliation with the Church of Rome on the basis of a common doctrine ; still less with regard to their opinion that the present juncture affords peculiar encouragement to such hopes. That the spread of unbelief should have suggested, or rather 6 This was written before I had seen “ a Memorandum on Church Reformation in Italy, drawn up and issued with the joint sanction of the Bishops of Gibraltar and Pennsylvania.” But the perusal of it has rather confirmed than altered my opinion. 110 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY have strengthened, the wish for such re-union, I can readily understand. But how it has removed or lessened the obstacles which before stood in the way, I am at a loss to comprehend. The scheme is in the main a renewal of that which was the subject of much discussion and negotiation toward the end of the seventeenth century. It was then proposed under most singularly propitious political auspices, such as have never been seen since, and are not likely to recur. The Pope of that day gave it the utmost encouragement possible in his position. It was not in Italy but in Prance, not from an Ultramontane doctor or prelate, but from Bossuet, the champion of the Gallican liberties, that it received its death-blow, in the declaration that his Church would never recede from a single point of her doctrine, and particularly from that laid down by the Council of Trent 7 . How immensely the difficulties, which then were felt to be insurmountable, have since increased, has by no one been shown with more luminous demonstration than by the eminent theologian, who is at once the warmest supporter and the most authoritative ex- positor of the revived scheme of pacification and re- union. From his “ Eirenicon” we learn, on the one hand, the extravagant extent to which the worship of the Virgin Mary has been already carried in the Church of Home, and how very nearly it has superseded 7 See Lettres xxi. xxii. xxviii. in the Correspondence between Leibnitz and Bossuet (CEuvres de Bossuet, Tome xi.) Bossuet ob- serves (Lettre xi.) that nothing would be gained on the Pro- testant side, even if the Council of Trent was deprived of all autho- rity : “ puisqu’il lie faudrait pas moins croire la Transubstantia- tion, le Sacrifice, la primaute du Pape de droit divin, la priere des Saints, et celles pour les morts, qui ont ete definies dans les Conciles precedents.” The difficulty as to the Papacy was recog- nized by the author of Tract xc. in his letter to Dr. Jelf. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. Ill reliance on the mediation of Christ, who is generally- regarded as the terrible Judge, whose severity can only be softened by the all-availing intercession of His more compassionate mother : and further, that this kind of devotion did not even reach its culmi- nating point in the additional honour paid to her in the new dogma of her Immaculate Conception, but is sup- posed to be yet far from the last stage of its develop- ment, and is expected to yield a larger harvest of dogmatic novelties. And while we are thus led to see how deeply the Church of Rome is pledged to a doctrine and practice from which most of us recoil, as one of the grossest corruptions of Christ’s religion, we learn on the other hand that, during the same period, especially during the reign of the present Pope, the claims of the Papacy have been making continual progress, and have now reached the length of despotic authority in the Church, and of a per- petual divine inspiration, ensuring his infallibility far beyond the limits of faith and morals assigned to it by the most strenuous assertors of the Papal supre- macy in former ages. To these facts I must add another, which appears to me of no slight significance in the present ques- tion — that the highest authority among the Ro- manists in this country has been recently com- mitted to one who, some fourteen years ago, seceded from the Church of England. That he should take the most unfavourable view of the com- munion which he left, and should be inclined to exaggerate the doctrinal differences which separate it from that of his adoption, was almost a necessity of his position, to guard himself against the imputa- tion of rashness, in quitting his old home on light grounds, and a little detracts from the weight of his 112 A CHAEGE TO THE CLEEGY new opinions among his old, if not among his new friends. But that which appears to me most signi- ficant in that selection is, that the same person is the most strenuous among the advocates of Ultramontane views of Papal authority, and would be the last to accept any overtures for reconciliation on any other terms than those of unconditional submission. On this point his published declarations have been most explicit and distinct, and it is not his fault if any person or body outside the Church of Rome expects to be received into it otherwise than as a pardoned penitent. With this history in his mind, and this state of things before his eyes, and recorded and described by himself for the instruction of others, the author of the “Eirenicon” says, as the sum of the whole matter, and speaking, no doubt, in the name of many followers : “ On the terms which Bossuet we hope would have sanctioned, we long to see the Church united 8 and believing that there are individuals in the Roman Communion, who, in their hearts share that longing, he says : “To such we stretch forth our hands 9 of course, for such help as individuals can give ; not, it would seem, in this case, a very solid ground of hope. I do not, however, presume to say that the course of events may not be shaped by Divine Providence to such a result. But I think I may venture to believe that, before this comes to pass, a revolution must have taken place in the Church of Rome, by which the Pope has been made not only to abdicate his usurped authority, but to declare many aets of his own and of his predecessors, done in the exercise of that authority, null and void. God grant that such a day may come. But even 8 Page 335. 9 Page 334. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVIDS. 113 then I should not have expected that the compromise would have been quite satisfactory to divines of that school which insists on the most rigorous preciseness of dogmatical definition, but should have thought it likely to be rather more congenial to some who are reproached with the breadth of their views. And I am not sure that there would not still be danger of confusion and misunderstanding. What seems to be contemplated as the basis of the agree- ment is, that the Decrees of Trent should be read by Anglicans in the Anglican sense, the Thirty-nine Articles by Roman Catholics in the Roman sense. The case would be something like that of a system of imitative signs, such as are used in some parts of the East, common to several nations speaking wholly different languages. The same document, written in these characters, might be read by two persons, to whom it conveyed the same ideas, but who expressed them by sounds which made the readers mutually unintelligible, each, as the Apostle terms it, “ a bar- barian” unto the other. Only a bystander of superior information could know that they meant the same thing. I must not, however, omit to express my own conviction that the Articles are, not in sound only but in sense, at irreconcilable variance with the Decrees of the Council. So it has appeared both to Anglican and to Roman Catholic writers, on a careful compa- rison of their statements on controverted points \ 1 Bishop Mant, who in his day passed for a' High Churchman, published a little tract ( The Churches of Borne and England com- pared , , 1836) suggested by an assertion of the late Lord Melbourne, who concurred with Dr. Pusey in thinking that “ Homan Catho- lics in all the fundamentals of Christianity agree with Protestants,” for the purpose of showing, “that as to numerous fundamental doctrines and ordinances the Roman and the Anglican Churches 114 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY And though the authority of the Pope, if it was brought to bear on the Roman Catholic, would no doubt overrule his opinion, and oblige him to re- nounce it, it could not have the same effect on the Anglican, unless he had first admitted the Pope’s infallibility, and so had virtually become a Roman Catholic. These remarks, though they may here and there have taken a somewhat wider range than was abso- lutely necessary for the discussion of the Ritual question, will not, I trust, appear to any one irre- levant to it. I wished to set it before you in its principal bearings, and to place it in its true light. I believe, indeed, that on the main point I have said nothing but what is universally known ; and I should not be surprised if there were many who will smile at the pains I have been taking to light a candle in the broad noonday to help them to see that which is so patent to all. I should myself have thought it a superfluous labour, if I had not observed in some quarters an appearance of a tacit agreement to treat the fact as a kind of sacred mystery, familiar indeed to the initiated but not to be divulged to the profane. are so far from being in agreement with each other, that they are as diametrically opposed to each other as the east and the west and this he endeavours to do by an arrangement in which passages from the Articles and from the Decrees and Canons of Trent are confronted with each other in parallel columns. By a like method the Rev. Mr. Estcourt, a Roman Catholic clergyman, in a Letter published by Mr. Oakeley in the Appendix to his pamphlet on the Eirenicon, is brought to the like conclusion ; that “No one who accepts that Council as the voice of the Church and the guide of his faith could with a safe conscience subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles and that “ it is difficult to see any other basis for the reconciliation of Anglicans to the Catholic Church, than their re- nouncing the Prayer Book and Articles, and receiving the Council of Trent.” OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 115 I can be no party to a system of concealment which appears to me neither manly nor perfectly consistent with good faith or with a plain duty to the Church ; and I regard the prevalence of such a system as one of the least honourable, and the most ominous signs of our time. Nothing, in my judgment, can be more mis- chievous, as well as in more direct contradiction to notorious facts, than to deny or ignore the Home- ward tendency of the movement. Its effects, indeed, on those who are not engaged in it would be the same if by them it was universally, though erro- neously, viewed in that light. But it might, in that case, call for a different treatment. For practical purposes it is also very important that, without pre- tending to foresee the actual result, we should con- sider its natural and probable consequences. I hope that my forebodings may be too gloomy ; but I think I see several serious dangers looming not very far ahead. One or two of them have been, I cannot say pointed out, but hinted at in the Report of the Com- mittee of Convocation, with a delicacy which was no doubt thought to befit such a document, but which is not always favourable to perspicuity. The greater part and the gravest appear altogether to have escaped the Committee’s observation, unless they were meant to be concealed under the statement that “in the larger number of the practices which had been brought under their notice — they do not say in all of them — they can trace no proper connexion with the distinctive teaching of the Church of Rome.” As to any danger threatening the Church of England from such connexion as they were able to trace, or danger of any kind on the side of Rome, the Report is entirely silent. I wish to say a few words on this h 2 116 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY subject, and to speak a little more plainly and fully than the Committee felt it their duty to do. Though, as I have said, it appears to me highly probable that the leaders of the movement themselves have no present thought of quitting the Anglican communion, I think it almost inevitable that they should be giving occasion to more or less numerous secessions to the Church of Rome, both by fostering that general pre- dilection for all that belongs to her, which they them- selves betray, or rather exhibit, and by stimulating a craving for a gorgeous ritual, which, remaining where they are, they can never fully satisfy : even if it be possible for thoughtful and ingenuous minds long to feel quite at their ease in a form of worship which strives to engraft, not only the outward ceremonial, but the essential idea of the Roman Mass on the Anglican Communion Office, and where the officiating priest uses language in his private devotions quite incongruous with that which the Church puts into his mouth. Some I think can hardly fail to find this hybrid kind of devotion intolerable, and to be driven to exchange it for something more real and genuine, more consistent and complete. That might be found either in the Church of England or in the Church of Rome. It is unhappily too clear in which they have been trained to seek it. This is one form of the danger in its Romeward aspect. There are others still greater, though probably more remote. I have already endeavoured to point out the process by which the movement may reach its termination in the secession, not of individuals, but of a whole party. Another form which the evil might take under different circumstances, would be an open rent in the Church, which however might in the end lead to the same result. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 117 But there is no less danger on the side opposed to Rome. And this has been in some degree recognized by the Committee, in a passage of their Report, where they remind us, “ that the National Church of England has a holy work to perform toward the Nonconformists of this country : and that every instance, not only of exceeding the law, but of a want of prudence and tenderness in respect of usages within the law, can hardly fail to create fresh diffi* culties in the way of winning back to our Church those who have become estranged from her commu- nion.” This is indeed an allusion to a very grave and unquestionable fact, but couched in terms which seem to me singularly inappropriate, and tending to conceal both the real nature and the extent of the danger. It might lead any one to imagine that the Nonconformists with whom we have to deal, are, like the dissenters from the Russian Church, such sticklers for rigid rubrical uniformity* that they are likely to be scared away from us by any deviation from the letter of the Prayer Book. I need not observe how directly this would* reverse the real state of the case, or that, if the innovations which offend many, I believe I may still say most Churchmen, are peculiarly obnoxious to the Nonconformists of this country, it is not simply as innovations, but because they present the appearance of the closest possible approximation to the Church of Rome. And the danger on this side is far greater than that which is suggested by the language of the Report. It is not merely that we may make fewer converts from the ranks of Dissent, but that we may strengthen them by large secessions, perhaps of whole congregations, from our own. And the danger — if I ought not rather to say the certain and present evil — does not 118 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY end there. These proceedings both tend to widen the breach between ns and Dissenters, and to stimu- late them to more active opposition, and furnish their leaders with an instrument which they will not fail to use for the purpose of exciting general ill will toward the Church, and weakening her position in the country. And it must be remembered that these injuries which she may suffer on opposite sides may be going on together simultaneously. There is nothing in the one to lessen, nothing that must not aggra- vate the other. For every proselyte who is drawn from us to Rome, we may reckon on others who will leave us for Geneva. That this damage will be com- pensated by any accession of numbers from either quarter is, with regard to Dissent, in the highest degree improbable : as to Rome, it is neither pretended nor desired. The object for which the Committee was appointed, was entirely practical. It was “ to inquire as to such measures as might seem to them fit for clearing the doubts and allaying the anxieties ” which the Lower House had represented as existing upon the subject of Ritual, and as calling for consideration. It was highly proper that, before they proceeded to perform this task, they should take a view of the state of the case on which they were to advise : and it is only to be regretted that this view was somewhat oblique and one-sided. Their practical proposals, however, though in them must be supposed to lie the whole fruit of their deliberations, and the pith and essence of the Report, while all the rest, however valuable, was only preparatory and incidental, are, with one notable exception, purely negative, and inform the House what in their opinion ought not to be done. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 119 But even this rather scanty amount of information is very imperfectly and ambiguously conveyed. They deprecate a resort to judicial proceedings, as tending to promote, rather than to allay dissension. But in the sentence immediately preceding, they had ex- pressed an earnest wish, that such a course might not be found necessary ; clearly implying that it might be found necessary ; but leaving the reader to guess both what kind or case of necessity they had in their minds, and whether in that event it would still in their opinion have the same evil tendency. It would, I think, have been desirable that they should have stated whether in their opinion it was to be wished, that the present obscurity and uncertainty in the state of the law should be removed, and whether they knew of any way by which this could be effected without a resort to judicial proceedings. We know from an eminent member of their own body how utterly inadequate any Opinion of counsel is for such a purpose. Though deprived of the benefit of their guidance on this important point, I venture to think that there are two conditions on which a moral necessity for resort to judicial proceedings would arise 2 . The one would be, if any clergyman should 2 I am here assuming that the Ritual innovations are intro- duced by Incumbents, and not by Stipendiary Curates ; a thing of which I happen never to have heard, though Sir H. Thompson, in a Speech delivered in the debate in Convocation, which he has published in a pamphlet entitled, “ Ritualism, a plea for the Sur- plice,” seems to suppose that it is a very common, if not the most common case, and on this fact grounds a charge of want of “vigour” against the bishops, on whom it is always easy and pleasant to lay the blame of every thing amiss in the Church. It would of course be easy to revoke the Licence of a “ contumacious stipendary Curate,” hut it does not seem to me at all clear that “ such a step,” hy “ provoking an appeal to the Primate,” from 120 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY attempt to introduce the Ritual innovations in his parish church against the will of any considerable part of his congregation : and the other, if he should persist in so doing after having been admonished and dissuaded by his Bishop. I consider every such attempt as an audacious and culpable aggression on the rights of the parishioners, which I should wish to see repressed, either by judicial or even, if neces- sary, though I should exceedingly deplore the necessity, by legislative interference. But I am not for the present prepared to lay down any more absolute and comprehensive rule of action, though many persons — some of them worthy of all respect — call loudly for the interposition of authority in every case, to put down the excess of Ritualism, wherever it shows itself : and therefore even where the whole or the bulk of the congregation earnestly desire it, and none take offence at it. On the same principle on which I would interfere for the protec- tion of parishioners, on whom their minister attempts to force a novelty which they dislike, I should scruple to deprive a congregation of a form of worship which has become dear to them, though it is one of which I disapprove. And here we must be on our guard against exaggerating the importance of outward forms, and supposing that some great thing has been gained when they have been suppressed, though the opinions of which they are the visible exponents remain unchanged. Here I agree with the Com- mittee* when they deprecate any attempt to establish a rule applicable to all places and congregations alike. I consider a uniformity which does not repre- whose decision there would be no further appeal, would “ secure a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the question.” OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVIDS. 121 sent, but is the substitute for unanimity, as a very questionable blessing. I adopt the maxim of the Committee on a much higher authority. It was not in the spirit of our last Act of Uniformity, but under the guidance of one as opposite to that as light to darkness, that St. Paul wrote those ever memo- rable words for the perpetual rebuke of all narrow- mindedness and tyrannical encroachments on the rights of conscience and Christian liberty : “ One man esteemeth one day above another : another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be per- suaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord ; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.” I observed that there was one notable exception to the generally negative character of the practical measures suggested by the Committee, and therefore I am perhaps bound to notice it. It seems that some of them shared the opinion of those who con- sider the paucity of Bishops as the chief root of evil in the Church; and applying this principle to the present case, they remark that “ both excesses and defects in ritual observance are symptoms of a deep- seated evil, namely, the want of a more effective working of the Diocesan system.” This is the gloomiest view that has yet been taken of the sub- ject. It shows that, except for the sake of this particular disclosure, the appointment of the Com- mittee was totally useless ; and that, as the remedy of the evil depends on a contingency indefinitely remote, namely, an adequate multiplication of Bishops, the case is practically hopeless. It is 122 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY therefore to myself a comfort to believe, that the remark is simply the offspring of some fervid imagi- nation, without any foundation in fact 3 * . The Report concludes with a general observation, which, as such, may be true, whether applicable or not to the subject of the inquiry — “ Excess of Ritualism is, in fact, the natural reaction from unseemly neglect of solemn order.’ 5 But it is clearly implied, that in the opinion of the Committee, the latest development of Ritualism is an instance of such reaction. This, as I have already intimated, I believe to be a mistake. That the movement in its origin some thirty years ago was partly the effect of a reaction, I think highly probable ; but that it is so in its present phase, I find no reason whatever to suppose. And I am sorry that the Committee appear to lend their coun- tenance to a kind of recrimination, which I often hear, but which does not seem to me either quite logical, or very becoming. When a Ritualist is re- proached for his innovations by a clergyman of the opposite school, he has a favourite retort always at hand : “ If you take liberties with the Prayer Book, e by neglect,’ as the Committee expresses it, c of its plain rules and curtailment of its Offices,’ have I not a right to make the Liturgy as exact a copy as I can of the Mass ?” I do not say that this argument is more unsound than it would be to reply on the other side — though I am not aware that this has ever been done — “ If you turn the Communion Office into a Mass, have I not a right to neglect plain rules of the Prayer Book, and to curtail its Offices ?” It 3 The Export has so much the look of a mosaic of compromises, cemented by a general disposition in favour of Eitualism, that it would be hardly fair to impute this particular fancy to the whole Committee. OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 123 would be hard to say, on which side there is the more grievous lack both of sound reason and sense of duty. But though the Committee’s observation is so questionable as to its historical correctness, and must tend to divert attention from the real state of the case and gist of the controversy, it may very profit- ably remind us of another grave danger with which we are threatened by the Ritual movement ; the danger, I mean, of its producing an “unseemly neglect of solemn order,” which is “the natural reaction from excess of Ritualism,” even when it has no special significance, much more from that which we are now witnessing. The jealousy and suspicion which it unavoidably awakens in Churchmen of a different school, must disturb the harmony which was beginning to prevail, notwithstanding the pro- vocations to discord and ill-will, ministered by some of the Journals on both sides, and thus check a healthy and uniform progress in the Church at large. The evil spirit of party will be ever at work to magnify trifles into tests of faith, and grounds of division, and to blind men, as well to the good which is associated with that which they dislike, as to the evil which mars things which are justly dear to them. Allow me, my reverend brethren, to warn those of you who are most adverse to the Ritual movement, against this temptation, and to remind you that defect is not the proper cure of excess, and that opposite exaggerations do not counteract, but only inflame and aggravate one another. Suffer me to suggest to you, that some wholesome and precious uses may be extracted from that of which, as a whole, you may strongly disapprove. It appears to me that you may well take occasion from it to 124 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY consider, both severally, and in common, whether there is any thing amiss in your practice, any thing which might be justly described as “ neglect of plain rules of the Prayer Book, and curtailment of its Offices,” and this, not merely to guard against the censure of an adversary, but to avoid giving offence to those whom you may look upon as the weaker brethren. But further, I think there is a loud call upon you, not to rest satisfied with a mere confor- mity to the letter of the ordinances of our Church, but to endeavour more and more to learn her mind and imbibe her spirit. You are not really faithful to her, if you neglect to avail yourselves of all the means of grace which she commits to your steward- ship, but having received two talents — the Word and the Sacraments — make gain of the one, but hide the other in the earth. I would also express a hope that my younger brethren, whose opinions on many points have still to be matured and fixed, but who are open to con- viction and earnestly seek the truth, may be led by our present controversies to cultivate a closer acquaintance with primitive Christian antiquity than may hitherto have entered into the course of their studies, and if possible not to rest content with the information which they may draw from secondary sources, but to go to the fountain-head, that they may in a manner listen to the voice and gaze upon the living features of the ancient Church. I venture to assure them that the pleasure which they will derive from that intercourse 'will more than repay any labour which it may cost them. But I recom- mend the study, because I am convinced that, rightly pursued and regulated, it will both enlighten and strengthen their attachment to the Church in which OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID’S. 125 they have been called to minister. But for this pur- pose some cautions may be needed in our day, which in other times might have been superfluous. One is, that the student should not look at the primitive Church through a glass tinged with Romish or indeed any other prejudices, and that his view should be taken downward, from the standing point of anti- quity to the modern Church of Rome, not upward, from her standing point to antiquity. Another, perhaps still more needful caution is, that he should approach the subject in a spirit of Christian freedom, which is perfectly consistent with the love and rever- ence which the image of the ancient Church is fitted to awaken in Christian minds. He will have to re- member that he is not bound to adopt or to imitate every thing that was said or done by his fathers in the faith, and that when he perceives a difference of opinion or practice between the early Church and his own, it does not necessarily follow that his own Church is in the wrong ; as on the other hand he may believe that she has judged and acted wisely, without absolutely condemning the maxims and usages of a former age. If, however, we were to apply these general remarks to the subject which has just been occupying our attention, we should find but little occasion for such distinctions. We cannot read the detailed description given by Justin Martyr of the order of administering the Eucharist in his day, without joyfully recognizing the closest possible resemblance, in every material point, between it and our own. We observe that there is not the slightest hint that it was regarded as a Sacri- fice, other than of prayer and praise, or the presid- ing minister as a sacrificing priest, and not simply as the dispenser of a holy communion. The spiritual 126 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY food was received by all present, and was sent to those who were unavoidably absent, but not offered for them. But along with this general resemblance, we perceive some points of difference between ancient and modern practice. Those weekly assemblies of Justin’s time were never held without the celebra- tion of the Lord’s Supper. That was the one object for which the people came together every Lord’s Day. In that respect there is indeed a very wide difference between their usage and ours. Here I think few will say that the advantage is on our side, though probably as few will adopt the opinion of a learned theologian who has endeavoured to prove, by arguments which it seems to be the peculiar pri- vilege of Ritualists to understand, that weekly com- munion is “ matter of Divine obligation,” alone ful- filling the commandment of Christ, and that the clergy who omit it, “ if judged by the rule of the Apostles, are false to their Lord’s dying command in a particular from which He left no dispensation 4 .” Without falling into this exaggeration we may lament the modern departure from primitive practice in that mutilation of the Communion Office which prevails in most of our churches. But we also know that this departure had its origin in an abuse which has been carried to its greatest height by the Church of Rome, in the encouragement given to the attend- ance of non-communicants, which some among us are so eager to restore. And their attempt is pro- bably, through a natural though deplorable reaction, one main obstacle to the general revival of the weekly Communion. The study of primitive Christianity will also lead 4 Archdeacon Freeman in Bites and Bitual, p. 13. or THE DIOCESE OP ST. DAVID’S. 127 the thoughtful inquirer to see and feel the contrast between the Church of the Catacombs and the Church of the Yatican. In the marvellous development by which the one passed into the other, he will above all admire the mysterious dealings of Divine Providence, which, without annulling the freedom of the human will, can make even the worst of evils minister to good. He will not deny whatever may be fairly implied in the identity of the two, and therefore entitled to respect ; but he will not the less clearly see the accompanying growth of corruption and error. He will be enabled justly to appreciate the value of the claims set up for the modern Papacy, as the living oracle of God, the subject of a constant Divine inspiration, which constitutes every Pope the supreme and unerring arbiter in all disputes which can arise within the ever widening sphere of opinion, as dis- tinguished from that of exact science : so that, though a like inspiration must have been vouchsafed to Linus and Cletus, it was in a degree immeasurably lower than that enjoyed by Pius IX., whose Allocutions and Encyclicals would probably to them have been simply unintelligible. Historically, the student will know how strangely such a claim would have sounded in the ears of those venerable men and of the Apostolic Fathers. And when he inquires into the ground on which this amazing pretension is based, he finds only a fresh illustration of that reasoning in a vicious circle which I have already noted as characteristic of the Pomish theology. A perfectly arbitrary and preca- rious meaning is attached to a few texts of Scripture, to prove the alleged infallibility : and then the infalli- bility is used to establish the certainty of the inter- pretation. The supercilious arrogance which, as well as a relentless fanaticism, is naturally engendered by 128 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY this delusion, should move our deepest pity ; a feeling like that with which we witness the serene self- complacency visible in the features of a maniac who, confined in a narrow cell, believes himself to be the emperor of the world. We have lately received a very solemn admonition from a person who has since been placed at the head of the English Romanists, on “ the danger and the chastisement of those who,” like the Church of England, “ would instruct the Church of Jesus Christ 5 .” I do not know whether any consciences have been disturbed by the sound of these words, which contain the whole pith of the writer’s argu- ment. It seems enough to observe, that the Church of England has never pretended to instruct the Church of Jesus Christ, but has always desired to receive and transmit its teaching. But certainly we do not regard it as a very rash or culpable presump- tion, to believe that the Church of Alexander VI., of Julius II., and Leo X., might have something to learn, and still more to unlearn. And when we are called upon to accept these new doctrines on the ground of our Lord’s promise, of the abiding presence of the Spirit of Truth in His Church, we may not only rightly refuse to appropriate to a part that which was intended for the whole, but we may reasonably doubt, whether that which was secured by the promise was a perpetual preservation from error, and not rather a preservation from perpetual error, in other words, the final prevalence of truth. That we know is great and will prevail. With this belief let us comfort our hearts. To this let us firmly cling 5 “ The Crown in Council on the Essays and Reviews. A Letter to an Anglican Friend, by Henry Edward Manning, OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID S. 129 amidst the surgings of doubt and controversy, while we lift up our eyes to the Father of Lights, “ with Whom ” alone “ is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,” beseeching Him to enlighten us with His truth, according to the measure of our need, but above all to grant to us the higher grace of walking faithfully by the light we have received. i APPENDIX. APPENDIX A. I subjoin a list of the places referred to at p. 5, in which work of church building or restoration has been set on foot. Brecknockshire. 1. Brecon Priory Church. 2. Brynmawr. 3. Cantreff. 4. Cathedine. 5. Coelbren- 6. Llanelly- 7. Llywell. 8. Vaynor- 9. Llanfihangel Abergwessin (restoration). 10. „ ,, (new church) . 11. Llanfechan. 12. Llanfihangel Bryn Pabuan. Radnorshire. 13. Rhayader. 14. Abbey cwmhir. 15. Aberystwyth. 16. Llanbadarnfawr. 17. Llangunllo. Glamorganshire. i 2 18. Swansea. 132 APPENDIX. Carmarthenshire. 19. Carmarthen St. David's. 20. ,, (new church). 21. Llanelly. 22. Llandefeilog parish church. 23. ,, St. Anne's (new chapel). 24. Mydrim. 25. Henllan Amgoed. Pembrokeshire. 26. Prendergast, Haverfordwest. 27. Mathry. 28. Amblestone. 29. Burton. 30. St. Bride's. 31. Pennar, Pembroke Dock. 32. Walwyn Castle. 33. St. Catherine's, Milford. 34. Llysyfran. 35. Manerbier. I believe that some others might be added as in immediate contemplation. APPENDIX B. It must be admitted that, in the Declaration or Protesta- tion at the end of the Communion Office, the Church of England has deviated from her principles, has come down from her own vantage ground to that of her adversary, and has stated the question in the way most favourable to the doctrine of the Church of Borne ; for it is made to turn on a purely metaphysical proposition as to the nature of body ; “ it being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one." This is virtually to fall into the Bomish error, and to stake the truth of her doctrine on the soundness of a scholastic speculation, which, as a Church, she has no more right to deny, than the Church of Borne to affirm. The real objection to Transubstantiation is, not that it is bad philosophy, but that it is philosophy : not that it is APPENDIX. 133 impossible, but that it is destitute and incapable of proof. How dangerous it would be to rely on the proposition assumed in the Declaration as a ground for rejecting the dogma of Transubstantiation, may appear from the defence of it which Leibnitz sets up on the basis of his own metaphysical system. In the posthumous “ Sy sterna Theologium ” (ed. Dr. Carl Haas) he writes : “ Equidem si demonstrari posset invictis argumentis metaphysicse necessitatis omnem corporis essentiam in exten- sione sive spatii determinati implemento consistere, utique cum verum vero pugnare non possit, fatendum esset unum corpus non posse esse in pluribus locis, ne per divinam quidem potentiam, non magis quam fieri potest ut diagonalis sit lateri quadrati commensurabilis. Eoque posito utique recurrendum esset ad allegoricam divini verbi sive scripti sive traditi inter- pretationem. Sed tantum abest ut quisquam philosophorum jactatam illam demonstrationem absolvent, ut contra potius solide ostendi posse videatur exigere quidem naturam corporis ut extensum sit, nisi a Deo obex ponatur ; essentiam tamen corporis consistere in materia et forma substantiali : hoc est, in principio passionis et actionis, substantiae enim est agere et pati posse.” He then makes a few remarks on some expressions of ecclesiastical writers apparently adverse to the doctrine, among them that of Pope Gelasius : “ Gelasius Pontifex liomanus innuit panem transire in Corpus Christi, manente natura panis, hoc est qualitatibus ejus sive accidentibus (a most arbi- trary and unwarranted interpretation) : neque enim tunc ad metaphy sicas notiones formulae exigebantur He then proceeds to expound his theory of matter, by which he is brought to the conclusion, “existentia pariter atque unio substantiae et accidentium realium in Dei arbitrio est. Et cum natura rerum nihil aliud sit quam consuetudo Dei, ordinarie aut extraordi- narie agere aeque facile ipsi est, prout sapientia ejus exigit.” This great genius does not seem to have perceived that the further he dived into the depths of metaphysical speculation, the more certain it must be that what he would draw out would not be a legitimate theological dogma. It was a case for the application of his own wise remark in his answer to Pirot on the authority of the Council of Trent (CEuvres de Bossuet, XI. Lettre xxi. p. 105, ed. 1778) : “Nous n^avons peutetre que trop de pretendues definitions en matiere de Foi.” 134 APPENDIX. Lacordaire (Lettres k des jeunes gens : ed. Perreyve, p. 106 ) writes to a young friend who was perplexed by the meta- physical difficulty : — “ Si vous me demandez maintenant comment un corps est present dans un si petit espace et en tous les lieux a la fois, je vous repondrais que nous n'avons pas la premiere idee de Fessence des corps, et qu'il n'est pas le moins du monde certain que Fetendue divisible soit essentielle aux corps. Les plus grands philosophes ont pense le contraire, et ont cru que les corps n'etaient qu'un compose d^atomes indivisibles uni par Faffinite qui les attire reciproquement, et devenant etendus par Fespace qui se glisse entPeux, et y cause des interstices, de sorte que plus on condense un corps, c'est a dire plus on ote Pespace quTl renferme en rapprochant les atomes, moins il tient de place. Voila pour la presence dans un petit espace. Quant a la presence en tous lieux, considerez que la lumiere est un corps, et qu'elle parcourt en une seconde soixante quinze mille lieues ; considerez que Pelectricite est un corps, et qu'elle parcourt en une seconde cent quinze mille lieues. Qui empeche done quffin corps uni a la Divinite n^ait une agilite un milliard de fois plus grande, de maniere a toucher tous les points du globe au meme instant ?” (I must own that I do not see the force of this illustration, as there must always be an interval between the departure and the arrival; but what follows is more to the purpose.) “ En outre des que le corps peut etre inetendu, il n'est plus assujetti a la loi de la localite, et il peut etre present en tous lieux, comme votre ame est presente k tous les points de votre corps, comme Dieu est indivisiblement present k tous les points de Funivers.” All excellent reasons for abstaining from such speculations in theology. APPENDIX C. Mr. Newman (in Tract xc.) and Dr. Pusey {Eirenicon) agree in thinking that Article XXXI. was intended to condemn, not any doctrine which is and must be held by all members of the Church of Pome who acknowledge the authority of the Council of Trent, but only a popular error or abuse which every intelligent member of the Roman Communion would APPENDIX. 135 repudiate. They do not however exactly coincide with one another in their view of the error which was condemned. In the Tract, which I quote from Dr. Pusey's reprint, the argu- ment is thus summed up : — “ On the whole, it is conceived that the Article before us neither speaks against the Mass in itself nor against its being [an offering, though commemorative,] for the quick and the dead for the remission of sin, [(especially since the decree of Trent says, that ‘ the fruits of the Bloody Oblation are through this most abundantly obtained : so far is the latter from de- tracting in any way from the former) /] but against its being viewed, on the one hand, as independent of or distinct from the Sacrifice on the Cross, which is blasphemy ; and, on the other, its being directed to the emolument of those to whom it pertains to celebrate it, which is imposture in addition.” (The words in brackets were added in the second edition.) Dr. Pusey writes ( Eirenicon , p. 25) : — “ The very strength of the expressions used ' of the sacri- fices of Masses/ that they ‘ were blasphemous fables and dan- gerous deceits/ the use of the plural, and the clause, ‘ in the which it was commonly said' show that what the Article speaks of is, not 'the Sacrifice of the Mass/ but the habit (which, as one hears from time to time, still remains) of trust- ing to the purchase of Masses when dying, to the neglect of a holy life, or repentance, and the grace of God and His mercy in Christ Jesus, while in health.” The view taken of the Article in Tract xc. is adopted by Mr. Medd in his essay on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, in “ The Church and the World,” in a few passing words, p. 343, where, after quoting the words of the Article, “ Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ,” he adds the interpretation (i. e. by way of re- enacting the Sacrifice of Calvary by an actual mactation afresh) ; and by Mr. Stuart, in his “ Plea for Low Masses,” in an elaborate argument, in the course of which he says, p. 35 : “ In order to understand rightly the meaning of the Thirty- first Article, we must remember that this Article is not directed against the Eucharistic Sacrifice or the Sacrifice of the Mass, nor ‘indeed against any formal authoritative doctrine on this subject whatever, but against a certain popular misapprehension of this doctrine which had prevailed, and which manifestly impugned the sole sufficiency of the Sacrifice of the death of 136 APPENDIX. Christ.” The nature of this misapprehension he had just before explained in the words : “ To think of the offering of Christ in the Holy Eucharist as an offering made inde- pendently of His death, — to suppose that such an offering could have been made, for instance, if He had never died,” &c, And p. 37 : “ As there is but one real Sacrifice, which is Christ, once only sacrificed, i. e. upon the Cross, it would be blasphemy to speak of sacrifices in the plural, — the Sacrifices of Masses, for instance, — since in all the Masses or Eucharists ever yet celebrated there has been but one real Sacrifice, which is Christ Himself.” There is a general objection, which seems to me to stand in the way of both these modes of interpretation. It appears to me very improbable that the framers of the Article should have levelled it, not against any doctrine held by the Church of Rome, but against either an error or an abuse which had crept in among the people. This might have been ground for charging the rulers of the Church of Rome with culpable neglect or connivance, but would have been out of place in an Article. If this had been the meaning, I can hardly conceive that it would have been so expressed. For then the only hint of that which was the object of such very severe condemnation, would be contained in the single letter s , the sign of the plural number. From this the reader would be expected to infer that what the authors really had in their minds was this : “ The Sacrifice of the Mass, in which the priest offers Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt ; this we admit to be consistent with sound doctrine, but this doc- trine has been corrupted and perverted to bad ends, through a popular misapprehension as to the nature of the offering, which is irreconcilable with the fulness and sufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Such Masses we stigmatize as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” Rut how does this paraphrase, when we have it, either explain or justify the language of the Article ? The Mass itself remained the same rite, however multiplied. It could not be affected by any erroneous view that might be entertained of it, still less by any unholy purpose to which it might be abused. How then could it be consistent either with justice or common sense to speak of the Masses themselves in terms which were only applicable, and only meant to be applied, to the error and the abuse ? It might as well be said that the administration of the Holy Communion APPENDIX. 137 becomes a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit as often as it is received by an unworthy communicant. The absti- nence from any further allusion to the real scope of the Article would be the more singular, because the writer, if he had had the thought now attributed to him in his mind, would so naturally and almost unavoidably have said, instead of “ the priest did offer Christ,” “ the priest did sacrifice Christ afresh.” On Dr. Pusey*s supposition that the thing condemned was “the habit of trusting to the purchase of Masses;” beside that this would be so clearly matter of discipline, not of doctrine, the obscurity and impropriety of the language would be still greater, and as it appears to me, absolutely incredible. On the other hand, if the writer of the Article believed that the Sacrifice of the Mass was in itself inconsistent with the doctrine of “ the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross,” I see no difficulty in the form of expression. He would naturally be thinking, not only of the doctrinal error, but of the enor- mous practical abuses which had sprung from it : and this would, I think, sufficiently account both for the use of the plural, the reference to the common way of speaking, and the extreme severity of the censure. The Rev. Mr. Estcourt (quoted by Mr. Oakeley in his pamphlet on the Eirenicon , p. 73) utterly rejects Dr. Pusey's construction of the Article. His own comment on it is : — “ False and impious : nor can it be defended on the ground of the phrase f Sacrifices of Masses/ being in the plural number, because the term ‘ Sacrificia Missarum 9 is equally correct, and has the same meaning with f Sacrificium Missse/ Thus, in the Missa pro Eefunctis, ‘ anima famuli tui his sacri- ficiis purgata, et a peccatis expedita/ This Article is, there- fore, nothing else than a charge of blasphemy and imposture on the most holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist.” Some persons may attach the greater weight to this judgment as coming from a Roman Catholic priest. Candour, however, obliges me to own that I do not set any higher value on it on that account, and that I think Dr. Pusey "’s explanation of the plural number more probable than Mr. Estcourfs. But it certainly shows how little it was to be expected that the Article should be understood in the sense assigned to it by Dr. Pusey. In support of his opinion, Dr. Pusey reproduces a passage cited by Gieseler from a work of an Ultramontanist Bishop of the fourteenth century, in which the multiplication of Masses for 138 APPENDIX. unholy ends is deplored and condemned. Dr. Pusey's object seems to be to show that the abuse to which alone he supposes the Article to refer was, so far from being a doctrine of the Church of Pome, that long before the Reformation it had been censured in the strongest terms by one who was an Ultramontanist Bishop, and even a Penitentiary of Pope John XXII. But to me this fact appears not at all to strengthen Dr. Pusey’s argument, but to lead to the opposite conclusion, as it makes it the more improbable that the Article was meant simply to condemn an abuse which was acknowledged, lamented, and reprobated within the Church of Borne itself. But I must further observe that this extract from Alvarus Pelagius, de Elanctu EcclesicB, has another bearing on the meaning of our Article, which Dr. Pusey seems to have overlooked, at all events has not noticed. It contains an allusion to a remark- able fact, which the writer explains so as to suit his purpose. “ Whence also St. Francis willed that the brothers everywhere should be content with one Mass, foreseeing that the brothers would wish to justify themselves by Masses, and reduce them to a matter of gain, as we see done at this day.” The words of St. Francis himself deserve to be quoted, both on their own account, and that their import may be better understood. They occur in Epistola XII. (Francisci Assisiatis opera omnia : ed. von der Burg) . “ Moneo praeterea et exhortor in Domino, ut in locis in quibus morantur fratres, una tantum celebretur Missa in die secundum formam sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae. Si vero in loco plures fuerint sacerdotes, sic sit per amorem charitatis alter contentus audita celebratione sacerdotis alterius, quia absentes et praesentes replet, qui eo digni sunt, Dominus Noster Jesus Christus. Qui licet in pluribus locis reperiatur, tamen indi- visibilis manet et aliqua detrimenta non novit, sed unus verus, sicut ei placet, operatur, cum Domino Deo Patre et Spiritu Paracleto in saecula saeculorum.” On the ground of this passage, as we learn from Cardinal Bona (Rer. Lit. i. c. 14, p. 387), the authority of St. Francis was pleaded against the private Mass : “ En, inquiunt (Sec- tarii), vir Dei unam duntaxat in die Missam admittit, idque secundum formam Romanae Ecclesiae. Porro Catholici vim hujus objectionis variis modis declinare nituntur.” He then enumerates several of these methods, all more or less strained and improbable. Others had, on this ground alone, pronounced APPENDIX. 139 tlie letter a forgery. Bona himself is quite satisfied as to its genuineness, and offers his own solution of the difficulty. “ Ego admissa epistola tanquam vera et legitima, sumptam ex ea objectionem nullo negotio dilui posse existimo, si dixerimus Seraphicum Patrem, qua humilitate a Sacerdotii susceptione ipse abstinuit, eadem hortari suos ne quotidie celeb rent."” And as to the words “ secundum formam Roman* Ecclesi*,” which had been misunderstood to apply to the single daily celebration, he observes : “ Optime noverat plures in die fieri celebra- tiones : sed sicut in regula praecepit, ut fratres officium recita- rent secundum morem Roman* Ecclesi*, ita hie monet ut secundum formam ejusdem Ecclesi* agantur Miss* : turn humilitatis causa, et ne Sacerdotes ex frequenti celebratione tepidiores fierent, hortatur ut unica celebratione, cui omnes interessent, contenti, reliquis abstinerent.” Bona, we see, entirely differs from A1 varus Pelagius, and does not suppose that St. Francis either saw or foresaw any abuse of the private Mass. The private Mass itself was never admitted by any Roman authority to be an abuse, and it received the express approbation of the Council of Trent. “Nec Missas illas in quibus solus Sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, ut privatas et illicitas damnat, sed probat atque adeo commendat ” [here the plural Missa is certainly equivalent to the singular] . If, therefore, the Thirty-first Article only condemns flagrant abuses, and is supposed to allow that which it does not condemn, we are brought to the rather startling conclusion that it tacitly sanctions, not only the sacrifice of the Mass, but private Masses, which, by the Rubric at the end of the Communion Office, the Church of England (as Mr. Stuart reluctantly admits, “ Thoughts on Low Masses,” p. 46) has expressly forbidden. Turning from this to the explanation of the Article given in Tract xc., and lately repeated by Mr. Medd and Mr. Stuart, by the former in somewhat different terms, according to which the Article was pointed at a popular misapprehension as to the nature of the Sacrifice, I think that the common prevalence of such an error, especially as it is described by Mr. Medd, has been too hastily assumed without proof, which perhaps it would be difficult to produce. But it is more important to observe that Mr. Newman, when he had spoken of the Mass “ being viewed as independent of or distinct from the Sacrifice on the Cross,” appears to treat these two expressions, “ independent of” and 140 APPENDIX. “ distinct from,” as synonymous, and as conveying a meaning which he calls “ blasphemy.” But there is a very wide dif- ference between the two things. To view the Mass as inde- pendent of the Sacrifice on the Cross, would indeed be a very gross error; but until I see some proof, 1 shall continue utterly to disbelieve that it is one into which any worshipper at the Mass, even in the darkest ages, ever fell. But though not independent of, it might be viewed as distinct from, the Sacrifice on the Cross ; and so it is viewed, not by the igno- rant and vulgar only, but by the Church of Borne. The distinction between the two things, which the language of Tract xc. appears to confound with one another, may be illustrated by reference to another point of doctrine. Boman Catholic Apologists defend the use of direct prayer to the Virgin Mary, by the explanation that nothing more is meant than the effect of her all-powerful intercession. I may observe, by the way, that this assumption is altogether arbitrary, and that it is not very easy to reconcile it with language such as I find in a Sequence in the Arbuthnott Missal, p. 439. “ Supplicamus, nos emenda, Emendatos nos commenda Tuo Nato, ad habenda Sempiterna gaudia.” Hitherto, however, the Virgin Mary has not been elevated by any formal definition above the rank of a creature. And so Mr. Oakeley (“ Leading Topics of Dr. Pusey’s recent work ”) can still say (p. 35), “ Every well-instructed Catholic (alas! if they do not form the majority !) knows that the Blessed Virgin possesses no power to grant petitions, except such as she derives from God ; but he also knows that her influence with her Divine Son, in virtue of her maternal relation (!) and of her transcendent sanctity, must needs be such, that her will to grant is tantamount to the fact of granting, since her will is so entirely in harmony with the will of God, that her petitions are all in the order of His Providence. If we knew that an earthly sovereign had an almoner, to whom he had given the office of distributing his bounty, we should address ourselves to that almoner as the source from which the bounty emanates, though conscious all the while that he was merely the instru- ment of its bestowal.” Such a view of the case no doubt excludes the notion that the Blessed Virgin possesses any power of granting petitions APPENDIX. 141 independent of God. But it as clearly invests her with a power " distinct from ” His, and must always tend to make her in practice the object of exclusive reliance and supreme devotion. Even if the “ almoner ” is supposed to have no discretion in the distribution of the Royal bounty ; the “ in- fluence of the mother” is something perfectly distinct from the power of the Son. And so the Sacrifice of the Mass might not the less practically supersede that of the Cross, if conceived as “ distinct from,” though not “ independent of” this. And it is so conceived, not by the vulgar only, but by the Church of Rome, speaking through her most accredited doctors, and in her most sacred formularies. Let us hear the prayer in the Mass which accompanies the offering of the bread : — “ Suscipe, Sancte Pater Omnipotens, seterne Deus, hanc immaculatam hostiam (strange language before the Con- secration, but explained by reference to that which the bread was to become), quam ego indignus famulus tuus offero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero, pro innumerabilibus peccatis et offensi- onibus et negligentiis meis, et pro omnibus circumstantibus ; sed et pro omnibus fidelibus Christianis vivis atque defunctis, ut mihi et illis proficiat ad salutem in vitam aeternam.” Our Reformers, from their point of view, might well consider such an oblation as inconsistent with the oneness of that “ finished upon the Cross ;” and as, like the Invocation of the Virgin, on the one hand, a mere human invention, the fruit of bold, unlicensed speculation and unbridled fancy, and, on the other hand, the parent of manifold mischievous superstitions; and loathing it under both aspects alike, might describe it in terms which we would not willingly now use, while we fully adhere to the view which suggested them, as a “ blasphemous fable ” and a “ dangerous deceit.” This subject is so closely connected with that of Mr. Stuart's “ Thoughts on Low Masses,” that I am induced to add a few remarks on the proposal contained in that pamphlet. Mr. Stuart laments that at the Reformation, the Low Masses, which had drawn crowds of worshippers to our churches, on week-days as well as Sundays, were swept away, and an order for daily Morning Prayer, which experience has proved to be far less attractive, indeed to offer no attraction at all, substi- tuted for them. He has observed the crowds which attend the early Masses in the Continental churches, and he thinks that ours might be as well filled by an adaptation of our 142 APPENDIX. Liturgy to the like purpose. He would have it curtailed, and the Rubrics, which say that there shall be no celebration of the Sacrament unless there be a certain number of communi- cants, removed, so that there may be nothing to prevent the congregation from consisting, as in the Continental churches, of spectators only, who come to join with the priest in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Notwithstanding the title of the pamphlet, by which some may have been alarmed and offended, it seems clear that, as to the positive doctrine of the Thirty-first Article, Mr. Stuart's orthodoxy is irreproachable. He takes great pains to explain that “ there is but one real victim, which is Christ, and but one real act of Sacrifice, which was finished upon the Cross, and therefore to speak of Sacrifices , c Sacrificia Missarum,' in the plural number would be a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit " (p. 38) . He then proceeds to expound his theory of the Eucharistic Sacri- fice : “ In the Eucharistic Sacrifice, or the Sacrifice of the Mass (for they are but different names for the same thing), Christ is offered, but not sacrificed — offered in memory of His death, not put to death again. There is a real and propitiatory sacrifice, i. e. victim, in the Eucharist, but there is no real act of propitiation ; the priest's offering of Christ in the Eucharist is not an act of propitiation or atonement, but only a memorial made before God of that propitiation and atone- ment which was effected upon the Cross; — by continually offering the very victim Himself who was slain, we con- tinually plead before God the merits of His death " (p. 39) . I must observe that however, correct Mr. Stuart may be in his view of what the Eucharistic Sacrifice should be, to avoid direct collision with the Thirty-first Article, he is certainly mistaken if, when he says “ there is a real and propitiatory sacrifice, i. e. victim, in the Eucharist, but there is no real act of pro- pitiation," he conceives himself (as the whole context appears to show) to be expounding and not directly contradicting the Roman doctrine of the Mass. For when, in Canon I. De Sacrificio Missae, the Council of Trent declares, “ Si quis dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium, aut quod offerri non sit aliud quam nobis Christum ad man- ducandum dari: anathema sit," it is certain that sacrificium does not mean the victim , but the act — the same act which in Canon III. is declared to be an “ act of propitiation." “ Si quis dixerit, Missae Sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum ac- APPENDIX. 143 tionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in Cruce peracti (only a memorial) non autem propitiatorium, anathema sit.” Can Mr. Stuart have a right to say that the Eucharistic Sacri- fice and the Sacrifice of the Mass “ are but different names for the same thing,” when there is such a radical disagreement be- tween his description of the one and the Council's description of the other ? But putting the Mass out of the question and confining myself to Mr. Stuart's view of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, I must observe that it is open to one capital objection. It is indeed only the One Sacrifice which is to be pleaded, but it is to be pleaded in a special manner : namely, by the offering of the consecrated Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper. And the question is — first, whether such a mode of pleading does not require the sanction of a Divine appointment, and, if it was a mere human invention, would not be presumptuous and profane — the more so for being engrafted on Christ's most solemn ordinance — and next, whether any such sanction is to be found in the records of the original institution unless what has been imported into them by most violent and arbitrary interpretation. Mr. Stuart would probably answer the first part of this question in the affirmative. But as to the other, he may be one of those who are easily satisfied with proofs of that which it seems to them desirable to have proved, and he may be content to interpret the words, “ Do this in remembrance of me,” as at once the institution of Sacrifice and the ordination of the Apostles to the Sacerdotal Office. He has the fullest right to this opinion if he is able to hold it. Only he should not assume that it is commonly received among Churchmen and scholars, on whom it has not been forced by the anathema of an infallible Council. Even, how- ever, if it were allowable to waive this grave objection to the theory in consideration of the general desirableness of the object, as to which I give Mr. Stuart full credit for the very best intentions, there would remain another which seems to me very serious, with regard to practice. Before he could reasonably expect that worshippers will be attracted to his Low Masses, as in the churches of France or Belgium, two things appear to be needed, neither of which can be admitted to be clearly either practicable or desirable. One is, that the English congregation should come with the same notions of the nature and efficacy of the Eucharistic Sacrifice which Homan Catholics bring to the Mass. The other is, that the 144 APPENDIX. Anglican Office should be adapted to these notions. Other- wise, even if all Mr. Stuart's suggestions were carried into effect by the abridgment of the Liturgy and the omission of the “ obstructive " rubrics, the result would be a most un- satisfactory state of things. The congregation would be thinking of one thing, the minister would be speaking to them of another. They come to be spectators of a Sacrifice, he tells them of nothing but a Communion, of which he invites them to partake, though he neither expects nor seriously desires that any one of them should do so. So far would it be from an advantage to “ those who are near to the altar" (p. 49), to “hear the words themselves which accompany that offering " (an offering which is not expressed by a single word in the service) that the best thing possible for all present would be that the whole should pass off — as is indeed so very nearly the case in most Low Masses — in perfectly dumb show, so that the people, with the aid of appropriate manuals of devotion, might follow their train of thought, the priest his form of words, in parallel lines, without connexion or convergency indeed, but also without conflict or disturbance. Apart from all theological objections, I cannot think this a happy plan, though I fully admit the want which it is intended to supply, and that our Order of Morning Prayer is not in its present state adapted to the purpose of an early service which common people, even of devout habits, could be expected to attend. It labours under the twofold disadvantage of incon- venient length, especially in the Lessons and Psalms, and of monotony in the recitation. Its failure does not prove that a shorter service, interspersed with melody, might not succeed, at least as well as Mr. Stuart's experiment, and might not be at least as easily introduced. APPENDIX D. A few passages in the Consultation of Archbishop Herman of Cologne may be read with interest, as bearing on some of the questions discussed in the Charge. I extract them from the English translation of 1548, but have modernized the spelling. APPENDIX. 145 “ Before all things the pastors must labour to take out of men’s minds that false and wicked opinion whereby men think commonly that the priest in masses offereth up Christ our Lord to God the Father, after that sort, that with his intention and prayer he causeth Christ to become a new and acceptable sacrifice to the Father for the salvation of men, applieth and communicateth the merit of the passion of Christ and of the saving sacrifice, whereby the Lord Himself offered Himself to the Father, a sacrifice on the Cross, to them that receive the same with their own faith.” “ For to make men partakers in the Supper of the Lord of the sacrifice and merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, the minister can help no more than that first he exhibit and minister the Holy Supper, as the Lord instituted, and then faithfully de- clare and celebrate religiously the mystery of it : namely, the redemption and cominution (sic) of our Lord Jesus Christ, and furthermore dispense the sacraments (the Bread and Wine) whereby he may stir up and confirm in them that be present true faith in Christ, by which faith every man may himself apprehend and receive the merit and sacrifice of Christ as given unto him.” “ But it is plain that men are every where in this error, that they believe if they he present when the priest sayeth mass and take part of the mass only with their presence, that this very work and sacrifice of the priest, whereby he offereth the Son to the Father for their sins, that is to say, setteth Him before the Father with his intention and prayer, is of such efficacy that it turneth all evil from them and bringeth them all felicity of body and soul, though they continue in all manner of sins against God and their conscience, and neither perceive nor receive the sacraments out of the mass, but only behold the outward action as a spectacle, and honour it with bowing of knees and other gestures and signs of veneration.” “ And whereas the holy fathers call the ministration of this sacrament a sacrifice and oblation, and write sometimes that the priest in the administering the Supper offereth Christ, let the preachers know and teach other, when need shall be, that the holy fathers by the name of a sacrifice understood not application, which was devised a great while after the fathers, and prevailed with other abuses, but a solemn remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, as Augustine expoundeth it. For while the Supper of the Lord is ministered as the Lord instituted . K 146 APPENDIX. it, the sacrifice of Christ is celebrated and exhibited therein through the preaching of His death and distribution of the sacraments, that all they which rightly use the Holy Supper may receive the fruit of this sacrifice." “ As the pastors must diligently teach and dissuade them which with the rest of the congregation cannot communicate because they stick in open sins, that they be not present at the Holy Supper, and testify unto them that if they stand at the Supper with such a mind they do spite unto Christ, and that it shall be damnation unto them. So they must also diligently warn and exhort them which with a good conscience be present at the Supper, that is to say which truly believe in Christy the Lord, that they receive the sacra- ments with other members of Christ." “But forasmuch as this institution of the Lord that all they which be present at the same Supper of the Lord should communicate of one bread and cup, His Body and Blood, is too much out of use, and covered a great while since through common ignorance, it shall be needful to call men back again treatably and gently to the observation of this tradition of the Lord, and the preachers must beware that the minds of the simple, which nevertheless be the true disciples of the Lord, and are entangled in no mischievous and wicked acts, for the which they should be restrained from the Lord's Board, be not stricken and troubled with sore rebukes or untimely thrusting unto the receiving of the sacra- ment. For there be not a few which, though they cannot thoroughly understand this mystery and the perfect use of sacraments, yet have such faith in Christ, that they can pray with the congregation and be somewhat edified in faith through holy doctrine and exhortations that be wont to be used about the Holy Supper and the ministration thereof, yea and they may be taught and moved by little and little to a perfecter knowledge of this mystery, and an oftener use of the sacraments, even by this that they be present at the Holy Supper, which abstain not from the Lord's Supper of any contempt of the sacraments which they acknowledge in themselves, but of a certain weakness of men and preposterous reverence of the sacrament." It will be seen that the first paragraph in these extracts speaks of “ a false opinion " as to what is done by the priest in masses , and therefore according to the principle of interpre- APPENDIX. 147 tation which has been applied to our Thirty-first Article, might be thought not to be directed against the mass itself. But in the margin we read, “ The false opinion concerning the obla- tion of the priest in the mass must be taken away.” And the statements which follow leave no doubt as to the Archbishop's meaning. The work appears to have been a joint production of Bucer, Melancthon, and other Reformers (Gieseler, Lehr- buch der K. G. 111. 1. p. 322). Luther, as appears from a letter in De Wette's Collection, v. p. 708, was dissatisfied with the chapter on the Lord's Supper, as not sufficiently explicit with regard to the “ substance.'' And Gieseler observes that it passes over the real presence of the Body. Yet the pastors are enjoined to “warn the people that they doubt nothing but the Lord Himself is present in the midst of them, and giveth them His very Body and Blood, that they ever may more fully live in Him, and He in them.'' THE END. GILBERT AND RIV1NGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN’S SQUARE, LONDON. A C H A R G E THE CLEEGY DIOCESE OF LONDON, AT HIS VISITATION, IN DECEMBER, 1866, BY ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, LOUD BISHOP OE LONDON, RIVINGTONS, LONDON, OXFORD, AND CAMBRIDGE, 1866. TO T HE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF LONDON tfftarje IS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED BY THEIR FAITHFUL FRIEND AND SERVANT A. C. LONDON. C H A R G E. Reverend and dear Brethren, I greatly regret that the state of my health prevents me from meeting you personally at this Visitation, or speaking to you otherwise than through the press. I have now completed the tenth year of my connexion with you as Bishop, and yet I only seem to be learning how great is our work. It is, I suppose, the same with all of us. Advancing time, giving us a clearer insight into our people’s wants, and thus stimulating us to ever fresh plans for their welfare, brings to us a deeper feeling of our weakness and our failures. This is hut the con- dition of every true Christian’s life. And the lesson is the same for all : Work while the brief day lasts — do the part allotted to you ; even if the uncertainty of life, and the shortness of time, and the greatness of human necessities, allow us to accomplish hut a very small portion of what B 2 is needed. Do it energetically, do it quietly, do it on a plan, do it in dependence upon God with prayer. If we can ourselves accomplish hut little, other hands will he found to perfect what we have begun, if we have hut begun well. Solemnized by such thoughts, let us proceed to review our position as Christ’s ministers, and ask what has been done, and in what we have failed, since we met for Visitation four years ago. Our scrutiny reaches to this : How far is the national Church of England, and especially the Church of this diocese, fulfilling the work which Christ has committed to it, and how are we each of us fulfilling our own part ? The national Church and the Church of this diocese — for, indeed, it is as difficult to separate the two as it is to separate the diocese from its parti- cular parishes, and the parishes from those who minister in them. London, above all other dioceses, must be indissolubly connected with the whole national Church. We do not ignore those powerful elements of the softening influences of country life, not found amongst ourselves ; nor the effect of the position, so different from ours, in which the country clergy stand to their flocks ; nor the vast power of University life, moulding the thoughts of our rising youth. But still Lon- don is the centre : To London flows yearly in a steady tide, a large body of persons of all classes 3 from every county : From London the stream of influence, however unobserved, sets in irresistibly, through newspapers, books, letters, the converse of friends, to hall, parsonage, farmhouse, and cottage in the remotest country districts. If we in London are faithless, all England suffers. If London could but become the really Christian centre of the nation, how would our national Christianity grow ! Now in the scrutiny of what has been accom- plished we must, I suppose, depend on apparent results ; yet here is one of our greatest difficul- ties : We know how very fallacious is this test. We may enumerate new churches and schools, new mission stations, additional clergymen, with all their staff complete; but who shall tell whether consciences have been aroused, souls reached, characters reformed, and whether a new generation of children is being trained in the fear of God ? My friends, we have all need to remember, that there is danger lest we rest com- placently in the multiplication of our efforts and the improvement of our machinery — things excellent in their way and indispensable, but not that real result, which is to be found only in a deeper Christian character impressed more widely on our people. Yet still with the immediate progress of improved diocesan arrangements we must be much occupied. We must regard these b 2 4 with thankfulness, though not failing to look wistfully beyond them, anxiously asking whether churches are becoming tilled, whether our ad- ditional clergy are more devoted to their work, and whether they are quietly beginning, at last, to see indications that their self-denying labours are not in vain. But, under the peculiar circumstances of our Church during the last four years, many con- siderations must he weighed before we can enter on this more private discussion of our diocesan re- sponsibilities. Certain questions are stirred that call for settlement in reference to the whole posi- tion of our Church. No doubt the four years from my last Visitation, and the tAvo years which pre- ceded them, have been an anxious time for our Church. Strange doctrines have been rashly pro- pounded. These have been met not only by calm argument — as thank God they have been met — but also at times by excited protests, which have not always proceeded from persons well qualified to judge of the intricate questions at issue ; and men have sometimes seemed ready, in their zeal against one set of errors, to plunge, like many who opposed the ancient heresies, into other errors equally dangerous. There has been a great, and no doubt reason- able, fear of nationalism; and certain persons, whose errors are of a totally different cast, have availed themselves of this wide-spread alarm to work with a vigour unknown for many years in the revival of an imitation of the imperfect Churchmanship of the Middle Ages. Hence a system which sprang unexpectedly into influence some thirty years ago, and then appeared to re- ceive its deatli-hlow by the secession to Home of many of its chief supporters, has certainly within the last two years proceeded to a more open outward display of its peculiarities than it ever ventured on, when, in the first vigour of its youth, it fascinated many of our best in- tellects. No wonder, then, that quiet persons, who shrink alarmed both from infidelity and from superstition, are much cast down. And no w r onder that angry disputants on all sides within the Church magnify the real difficulties which exist, while enemies without quietly smile as they repeat rash words spoken at random amongst ourselves, and ask, “ To what purpose are all your labours to extend the influence of a Church which has no certain doctrine, no catholicity, no unity, no discipline P ” It will detain us some time from a plain prac- tical scrutiny of our own work, and confine that scrutiny to narrower limits at this Visitation ; hut I think we are hound to turn aside and show, if we can, the fallacy of such reproaches from without, while we protest also against the want 6 of faith shown by such fainthearted or angry questionings within. Now we grant to our opponents — we ought never ourselves to forget — that the Church of England does allow amongst its people great diversity of opinion in non-essentials. This is a necessary characteristic of a Protestant branch of the Church Catholic. Sects of all kinds, whether Protestant or so-called Catholic, are narrow and unwarrantably dogmatic — venturing to define where God’s word has not defined ; eager to exclude from their pale all who will not allow their minds to be forced into one groove. Such the Church of England has never been through any continuous period of its his- tory, though at certain epochs vigorous efforts have been made — and, for a time, even success- fully — to narrow it to the dimensions of a sect. Good men, who loved and adhered to all its essen- tial teaching, have ever and anon been driven from it against their will ; but in time the Church has lamented the violence of those who thus mis- governed it : And usually the strong bias of one generation towards some cherished view of doc- trine has yielded in the next to a strong reaction in favour of opinions before unduly repressed. It is trite to remark that the truth of Christ revealed in his Gospel is adapted to all characters, and that various men grasp various portions of it as most congenial to tlieir souls, that it was so amongst the writers of the New Testament, each, while all were guided by the one Gracious Spirit, still dwelling especially on his own peculiar doc- trine, though not to the disparagement of others. It must he so in all really apostolic Churches. Unity in essentials (and our trust in God’s fatherly care convinces us that essentials are always clearly revealed) ; liberty where God’s revelation has not decided; charity in our judgment of all men — if the Church of England has not always manifested these characteristics, this has been when her rulers failed to understand her true position : But how often has it been noted that the Church, in whose primatial chair have sat Abbot, Laud, Tillotson, Howley, Sumner, has never committed itself to the dogmatism of one school of thought. But then it is urged, and truly, that there must be limits to this variety, or the Church will lose all unity. It may be well that Arnold and Keble and Daniel Wilson, trained in one uni- versity, lived and died, with all their many peculiar differences, ministers of one Church : But how far is this liberty to go ? The answer is plain. It can go no farther than is consistent with a common belief in the essentials of the Church’s faith, and these are plainly stated in the formularies as in the Bible. The mind that re- pudiates these essentials may hesitate for a time 8 (and God forbid that any rash upbraidings should add fresh pain to the anxieties of doubt, or pre- cipitate by unkindness a separation which we deplore) ; but still, if the mind repudiates these plainly-written essentials, it can find no lasting peace in the English Church. Is it true that there are men who even desire to act as Christ's ministers amongst us, without believing in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ? I can scarcely credit the assertion. The Church of England, from the beginning to the end of its formularies, proclaims with St. Paul 1 that if Christ be not risen our preaching and faith is vain, there is no Gospel. Eor those who do not believe in the Resurrection of Christ we have no place, as we have none for those who do not believe in Christ’s Divinity, nor in the Divinity of the Third Person of the blessed Trinity. The essentials of the Christian faith are incorporated in our formula- ries from the Bible and the Apostles’ Creed, — explained and enlarged on, but not added to : the liberty of thought which is consistent with loyalty to our Church is therefore hedged in by these essentials. And then, on the other hand, since the Church of England is not only Catholic as holding the old faith, but also Protestant, there are essentials, not of tl e Christian faith, but of our charter as 1 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17. / 9 reformed from Homan error, which it is equally vain for any man to hope that he can with a safe conscience ignore. “ The Bishop of Borne hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England ” (Art. xxxvii.). “ The sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have re- mission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits ” (Art. xxxi.) te The body of Christ is given, taken, and received in the (Lord’s) Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith” (Art. xxviii.) These and such like solemn protests against Borne, giving their colour to the whole body of our Articles, close on this side the liberty of all who would be loyal to our Church. Within these limits there is a wide field, and we think it no licence, but the legitimate use of the Christian man’s liberty, that there shall be many varieties of opinion as of feeling amongst those who are loyal in essentials : Not that other matters of great though minor importance have not often at times distressed individual souls, and led to perplexity and separation — gloomy views of an overstrained Calvinism, and doubts about the power of the Sacraments. It is difficult to enumerate all the eccentricities of wavering opinion which may destroy a loyal trust in the 10 Church’s system, or render impossible a consci- entious ministration in its service : it is enough for us now to note the great landmarks which warn a man that he is plunging on the one hand into unbelief, and on the other into that super- stitious atmosphere of human devices in which the pure Gospel of the Apostles and of the Church of England cannot breathe. This is the obvious answer to those who deny that we have any true unity because, as Protestants, we admit liberty of individual opinion. We have that sort of unity in essentials which Christ intended should characterize his Church, and we desire none other. And here a new question is raised. If the unity of the Church can be broken by doctrinal error, which may or may not be much obtruded on our attention, how can it be preserved in the midst of those unseemly differences in the mode of celebrating public worship which have sprung up amongst us during the last few years, and which all must see ? There are churches amongst us in which the ornaments about the Communion Table, and the dress, and attitudes, and whole manner of the officiating clergy, render it difficult for a stranger when he enters to know whether he is in a Roman Catholic or a Church of England place of worship. Now, first, it is certain that these peculiarities 11 arc frequently adopted, not merely from an aesthetic love of a worship appealing to the senses, hut to symbolize false doctrine on the nature of the Holy Eucharist. When this is the case the actors in these scenes are, no doubt conscientiously, preaching by their worship a doctrine which is very dear to them ; but let them remember it is not the doctrine 'of the Church of which they are ministers. There are others who have not gone beyond the legitimate liberty allowed by the English Church in their conceptions of the Eucharist, who delight in this elaborate ceremonial, some be- cause they are swept on by the fashion of the day ; some, as they allege, because their reli- gious feelings revolt from examples which have been brought under notice of careless irreverence in the administration of these holy rites, quite as much to be condemned as a superstitiously elabo- rate ceremonial. Now it is granted at once that the Church of England does not so press unifor- mity upon its members as to command that all public worship shall be exactly alike. It has ever allowed great latitude between the gorgeous worship of its cathedrals and the plain village harmony of country churches, or the completely unmusical service, say of a small college chapel. But here, as in reference to doctrine, in the midst of abundant liberty, there are limits on the oppo- 12 site sides of the imitation of Puritanism and of Popery which loyalty to our Church forbids good men to pass. On the subject of what is called excessive Bitualism, I had occasion last spring 1 to express myself as fully and clearly as I could. I know no better way of making my views known than by now repeating what I announced at that time. Is it too much to hope that any amongst us who may hitherto have been slovenly or negligent in acting up to the Church’s rule, will consider how their failure gives a plausible argument to their opponents to claim a dan- gerous liberty on the other side, and that some at least of those who, hurrying on to semi-Romish ceremonial, profess an almost inordinate respect for the Bishop’s office in the abstract, will listen to that practical exercise of its functions, which warns them of the danger of the course on which they have entered ? The phrase excessive Ritualism (I have said), as commonly employed, hears two meanings. “ (1) Sometimes the phrase is used for the in- troduction into parish churches of a form of worship always sanctioned and maintained in our cathedrals and in many of our college chapels. Looking to the time when an un- adorned and almost monotonous worship pre- 1 Answer to Address of Archdeacon of Middlesex and Clergy. 13 vailed, and when, in many country districts at least, the service was not only # monotonous but slovenly, many of the clergy have thought it their bounden duty to do what they could to in- troduce a great change. No doubt the spirit with which these efforts originated has done very much of late years to invest our houses of God with a more seemly dignity, and to give a liveliness to our outward worship which has been found very attractive, especially to the young. Such changes in my judgment are only to be deprecated if they be introduced without proper regard to the feelings and wishes of the parishioners, and without reference, if need be, to the controlling authority of the Ordinary. I quite sympathize with those who, feeling deeply the responsibility of using all lawful means to make our Church Services attractive, not only to advanced Christians, but to those whom it is their office to win from stolid carelessness, have endeavoured to improve their Church music, and arrange their services in some other form than was sanctioned by the stereotyped system of our fathers. Only I would have them remember that it never was the intention of our Church, as the Preface to the Prayer-book and various Rubrics indicate, that each parish priest should be an autocrat, independent alike of the people whose common worship it is his privilege to 14 lead, and of the Bishop to whom he solemnly promises canonical obedience. Indeed, the idea of Common Prayer is lost if every individual clergyman is at liberty to alter the form of worship according to his private tastes, regard- less of what is acceptable to the great body of worshippers.” “Now my own experience leads me to believe that a great number of the disputes respecting Ritualism which have agitated our parishes have sprung from the inconsiderate introduction of practices, not unlawful, nor even contrary to the customary order of the Church as illustrated in our cathedrals. And I believe that — even in those lamentable cases in country districts where such disputes have led to secessions from the parish church, and the erection of unlicensed buildings in which the majority of the parish- ioners have sought a refuge from the arbitrary proceedings of their parish priest — such evils might have been avoided, and all parties brought to a kindly Christian agreement, if reference had been had to the Bishop, that he might take order for composing differences of opinion, sanction by authority such changes as appeared really expedient, and restrain unde- sirable innovations. The English laity are not indisposed to bow to the formal decision of a Bishop, responsible in his high position for all 15 his public acts, when they will not consent to he overruled by a private clergyman who may have come amongst them only yesterday, or have sud- denly changed his theological oiDinions, and with this change have arbitrarily and unexpectedly set aside the form of common worship to which his people were long accustomed.’ 5 “ Men may doubt how far in a Church like ours, which so greatly encourages individual liberty, the discretion of the parish clergy ought to be restrained by more distinct legal enactment ; but none, I think, will doubt that it is wise and be- coming, and likely to promote peace and extend their usefulness, if, where the parishioners wish it, the clergy readily, in the exercise of their discre- tion, refer to the authorities whom God has placed over them.” “ (2) But there is an excessive Bitualism of another kind, which, within the last year, has caused a very wide-spread alarm in the Church. Certain persons have taken upon themselves so to alter the whole external appearance of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper as to make it scarcely distinguishable from the Roman Mass, and they endeavour on all occasions to introduce into the other services some change of vestment or ornament quite alien to the established English usage of 300 years. I am not prepared to say that these persons have not, in part at least, been 1 G influenced by a notion that the changes they ad- vocate will give them a hold over the careless amongst our people through that gorgeous appeal to the senses in which the Homan Church de- lights.” “It is alleged that in large towns such cere- monial is not unpopular, and crowded congrega- tions are pointed to as the result of its adoption. But I would have it remembered that, amongst the multitudes in our large towns, everything which is eccentric or even unusual, either in teaching or in practice, will have many admirers. The clergymen to whom I allude would be the last to maintain that they are sure to be right because many run after them, or that they can be justified in yielding against their better judg- ment to the uninstructed zeal of those whom they ought to lead. And if in some notable cases churches where a very advanced ceremonial is practised are filled, it is a serious question how far they are filled by the parishioners for whom they are built.” “ I believe some have been struck by the way in which crowds of the most ignorant of our Homan Catholic brethren may be seen hurrying to assist at the Mass, and have been led to con- clude that by imitating the ceremonial of Home you may borrow its attractiveness, without falling into that false doctrine which is the centre and 17 life of its ceremonial — a dangerous experiment, in my judgment, and one which I fear experience will prove cannot succeed. To judge, indeed, by certain unauthorized catechisms and manuals of devotion, which some of the supporters of this Ritualism have already put forth, I fear they have not succeeded in this attempt to divorce Roman ceremonial from deadly Roman errors. I would earnestly entreat any of the clergy who are disposed to try this unworthy compromise to pause. Surely the large body of those who are sound at heart and true to the Church of Eng- land must pause, when the united voice of all the Bishops warns them of their danger. If any are already too far gone, and have deliberately abandoned the faith of the Reformation, their position must be to themselves very unsatis- factory. 5 ’ “ The number of those who are so committed is, I am confident, very small. The Church of England from the Reformation has allowed great liberty as to the doctrine of the Sacraments ; and, though I fear it cannot be denied that a few are engaged in a conspiracy to bring back our Church to the state in which it was before the Reformation, I fully believe that most of those who advocate what we deem an excessive Ritual would indignantly deny that they had any such purpose. What I should wish to urge upon all c 18 such is, that by the common sense of the English people all who promote these practices will be regarded alike : their Ritual will be interpreted by the manuals explanatory of it, to which I have alluded ; their own parishioners will so in- terpret it ; and when the people find the clergy maintaining these things against the earnest re- monstrance of the authorities of the Church, they will be forced to believe that it is because their pastors differ in principle from the united body of the Bishops, who take their stand on Scripture and the formularies, and the unbroken teaching and practice of our great divines ; and thus in each parish where such ceremonials prevail the people’s allegiance to the Church will be undermined, whether they are capti- vated by the attractive novelties or disapprove of them.” “ Beginning with the use of lighted candles during the daylight at the administration of the Holy Communion, some men have gone on to in- cense, to the distinctive Roman habits and to pro- strations, which, if they mean anything, speak of an idolatrous worship of the consecrated elements. I feel confident that all good members of the Church of England will pause before they en- courage this downward course.” “ If the introduction of these things which I have specified, by individual clergymen on their 19 own responsibility, be not contrary to the letter of our laws, it is certainly contrary to their spirit, as well as to the authorized practice of the Church ever since the Reformation.’ * It was thus that I felt and spoke on this subject in February last. Certainly the evil has not abated since that time. The persons who have introduced this Ritual- ism have, as I have said, always based their right to do so on their view of the law as con- tained in what appears to be an ambiguously- worded rubric. It seems probable now that the legal question will not be set at rest without the intervention of a judicial decision in some cause, 1 such as that from the Diocese of Exeter which is now winding its devious course of appeals and counter-appeals through the Archbishop’s Court towards a distant settlement. Yet it seems difficult to see how the courts, if they proscribe certain vestments or overt acts of adoration, can restrain the posture, gestures, look, manner, and tone of voice of any one who, being resolved, without regard to authority, to make himself as like a Roman Catholic priest as possible, may accomplish his object by a series of Protean changes which no law can bind. Even the united authority of the Parliament 1 Flamank v. Simpson. c 2 20 and Convocation, sanctioning a clearer explana- tion of doubtful words in the Act of Uniformity as to tlic Ornaments of the church and minister, and as to the discretionary power of the Or- dinary, may he baffled by the individual inge- nuity of any who are not loyal to their Bishops and their Church. It is with inventors of such ceremonies as with teachers of unsound doc- trine ; certainly the best arguments to use with them are not to threaten penalties and endeavour to overwhelm by force (for in this sense, all Church of England men are Protestants, being jealous, and rightly, of preserving their individual liberty), but to reason, to remonstrate, to appeal to their consciences, and to the love they bear their Church. But it is urged now that such arguments have been used for a long time, and with great for- bearance, and yet with no visible result. No wonder that the patience of the Church is well- nigh exhausted, and that other measures of judicial trial or fresh legislation seem to be demanded. The Bishops will certainly not fail in their further duty where the law is clear, if all kindly remedies are in vain. I need not say that I shall examine and consider carefully the reports of the churchwardens as well as those of the clergy laid before me at this Visitation. The churchwardens are the Bishop’s officers, bound to 21 present the case to him if anything affecting the rights of the parishioners is illegally introduced into their parish church. I would remark, how- ever, that during the last four years, notwithstand- ing all the feeling which has been excited, no pre- sentments have been made to me complaining of the services in any church which were capable of being legally sustained, with the exception of one case, in which a clergyman had altered the struc- ture of his church on his own responsibility without a faculty. Letters of Request were in this case granted to the churchwardens on their application, and the case has, within the last month, been adjudicated in the Court of Arches, the changes having been pronounced illegal. Let me make, however, one further remon- strance with the favourers of these novelties. Since I addressed the Archdeacon of Middlesex on the subject last spring, the opinion of Sir R. Palmer and Sir H. Cairns and other learned lawyers has been published, declaring the legal view of the Ritualists to be mistaken. It is probable that a counter-opinion will soon be produced on a case submitted to counsel by the English Church Union. Matters certainly cannot remain much longer as they are. If these prac- tices are persisted in, it must be settled, even though the settlement be incomplete, by some 22 controlling authority, judicial or legislative, how far the liberty of altering the outward form of worship thus boldly claimed is to he allowed or stopped. At present things are done openly, which are disclaimed by all the Bishops, and no advanced Ritualist ventures to exhibit his pecu- liarities when his Bishop takes part in the service. All will allow that this is a state of things not creditable. The confusion has hitherto been chiefly caused by the ambiguity of the existing law, and the unwillingness of the great majority of Churchmen to have the law explained by any fresh enactment. If the Church, clergy and laity, call for it, there is full power for fresh legislation. “ The Church,” says the Twentieth Article, “ hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,” subject to the all-controlling rule of following the guidance of Holy Scripture. It is perfectly competent for each particular Church, and therefore for the Church of England, to alter its ritual, or explain any- thing in its rules of worship which is ambiguous, and also, if it shall see fit, to define with greater accuracy the terms of its communion as to doc- trine. Our established Church must of course first obtain the consent of the civil Legislature to such an alteration of the compact on which the union of Church and State rests. In matters 23 concerning tlie detail of our services which do not touch doctrine I see no difficulty in such legislation. Since the last great settlement at the Restora- tion, slight changes have from time to time been made in the Act of Uniformity, affecting the Ru- brics or body of the Prayer-book as the exigencies of the case required ; and these, sanctioned by Par- liament, have been formally adopted or acquiesced in by the authorities of the Church. Witness the important alteration in the new Subscription Act of 1865, and the consequent necessary change in the rubric of the Ordination Service. I can have little doubt myself that the time will soon come when a well-directed public opinion in Church and State will demand some alteration, either in the rubrics or the actual prayers and thanksgivings of the Burial Service ; and pro- bably fresh powers will, before long, be given to avoid the repetition necessarily implied in the present practice of reading the same evening ser- vice twice a day where there are three Sunday services, as in so many of our town churches. Such changes, and the adoption of some shorter daily service more suited for busy men, as well as of services suitable for the various occasions of rejoicing for the harvest, or re-opening an old church repaired, and the revision of the Lec- tionary, have been so commonly and openly 24j spoken of, and advocated, some of them by such high authority, that it is probable they cannot long be delayed. Like other useful changes, they are sure to come when the public voice of the members of the Church calls for them. And if such changes are possible, neither, if it be neces- sary, ought there to be any difficulty in more accurately defining the meaning of those two clauses respecting the discretionary powers of the Bishop and Archbishop to take order for the settlement of doubts, and respecting the Ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof, the ambiguity of which has been found to cause so much difficulty and introduce so much confusion in the late ritual dissensions. My own opinion is clear that, though legisla- tion could not settle all difficulties, yet, without an authoritative explanation of these two clauses in the Act of Uniformity passed by Parliament and accepted by Convocation, we shall always be liable to misunderstandings dangerous to the Church's peace. It can scarcely be supposed that on any secular matter an ambiguity of the law proved to be so troublesome would have been so long tolerated. Now some believe that it would, in like manner, be easy for the Church to guard itself in doctrine against the imminent and often recurring danger of an approximation to Popish or infidel error, 25 by frcsli definitions of the faith. No doubt our established Church, with consent of the State, has power to proceed to such alterations, but no emergency which has as yet arisen calls for this power to be used. I can hold out no hope to those who fancy they see an easy road to purity of faith in tampering with the great basis of our doctrines formally adopted at the Refor- mation, and recorded in documents which have heen ever since referred to as the written law of the Church. The consent neither of the Church nor of the State will ever be obtained in our day to the complete unsettlement which an alteration of those laws would imply, and no wise son of the Church of England will desire it. We have safeguards for doctrine in our present system quite sufficient, without plunging, in the vain hope of better, into an unknown sea. The Romanism of the time of the Charleses and the second James, and the Arianism of the eight- eenth century, proved powerless against our ex- isting formularies. We adhere to the one faith of the Church Catholic as embodied in our Articles and Prayer-book, and the one great protest against Rome, which, however darkness may now lower for a time, has availed ever since the Reformation. Consider what, in matter of doctrine, is the proper province of the Church. The Church of 26 England has no power of propounding new doc- trine. And this seems by some to he made an ob- jection to her perfectness as a Chu ^L. She has no such power, neither has any other particular Church, nor yet the Church Universal; and any Church which affects to have such power, has it only by presumptuous usurpation of what belongs solely to God. Our doctrine is the doctrine once for all delivered to the saints, and we remember that there is a curse on him who adds to it, as there is on him who takes from it . 1 To pro- pound new doctrine is the office of Christ, the Word of God — in a fresh revelation if He shall so will — not of His Church, which has simply to guard what He has once revealed. Hid the primitive Church then propound no new doctrine, when it put forth the Creeds? No : — Had it done so it would have acted unwar- rantably. This is the meaning of the jealous care with which the Eathers of Ephesus pro- tested against additions to the Nicene Creed. It is indeed the Church’s office, if need be, when errors have arisen, to protest against them, as the Creeds protested against the early heresies. And, if errors as yet unheard of were to arise, I know nothing to prevent our Church from pro- testing against them, as she did at the Reforma- tion against the subtle errors of Romanism by 1 Rev. xxii. 18, 19. 27 the Thirty-nine Articles. But the world is old now. Error is indeed multiform and very pro- lific, and it is possible that new errors may arise, requiring new protests : it is possible, scarcely probable ; and the old protests are sufficient for any errors which our age has as yet heard of. As to existing disputes, if any try to reconcile the old errors in a somewhat varied garb with the old protests which were expressly directed against them in the old garb, I doubt not such subtle reasoners would find some ingenious way of reconciling their opinions with any new pro- test that might be devised. If a man, I say, can reconcile a denial of the Resurrection or of the Divinity of Christ, or of the doctrine of Original Sin, or a belief in the sacrifice of the Mass, with the Thirty-nine Articles, I think any new pro- tests would be quite useless to bind so subtle a spirit. It is quite true, then, that the Church cannot make new doctrines. It is granted that practi- cally, with us, she does not clothe old doctrines in new forms of protest against error. And it is maintained, that thus resting and guarding, in- stead of inventing, she best fulfils her office as faithful to the trust of heavenly teaching once delivered to her. But then we are asked by those who are determined to disparage our system, “ You may 28 be right in refusing all new legislation in doc- trine, but how does your Church judge ? ” We answer, “ She judges all who are accused, accord- ing to the old standards. She applies no arbitrary shifting test as the so-called voice of the living Church, or the uncertain judgment of an un- defined antiquity, but turns to the clearly stated written rule, to which all know themselves to be amenable. ,, But who judges for her ? Here there is often misunderstanding, and I must be excused for entering on the subject at some length. She judges by the Church Courts, the ancient Consistorial Court of the Bishop, or a Com- mission issued in his name, and above these, the Provincial Court of the Metropolitan. And as she recognises no Patriarch to control the inde- pendent judicature of each of her four Arch- bishops, she says, cc the last appeal from these must be made to a court within the realm, and with power in all provinces of the realm, held in the Queen’s name, but still a court judging by the law ecclesiastical — a court indeed, which shall symbolize and represent the union between Church and State.” The chief Bishops sit in this court, and learned lawyers, skilled to inter- pret the old written law. I have sat in this Court of Appeal oftener, I believe, than any other living prelate, and know how its judgments are prepared. In the last case e.g. which has 29 attracted so much attention , 1 it is no breach of confidence, after what has already been published on the subject, to state, that each of the three ecclesiastical and four lay judges was requested to draw up a paper equivalent to a judgment of his own. These were placed in the hands of the presiding judge, who, comparing all, and gather- ing the opinion of the majority, sketched the final judgment : But this sketch was not brought to its complete form without the most careful consideration by all the seven judges. Day after day they met, and pondered each sentence. Of course those who dissented decidedly from any count of acquittal or condemnation could not expect to overrule the deliberate opinion of the majority; but the utmost deference was paid to every suggestion which they made as to the wording of the judgment ; and after several days’ discussion that judgment was maturely adopted which it is the fashion to call the Lord Chan- cellor’s judgment, hut which, except in reference to one of the three counts — that, namely, on verbal inspiration— was acquiesced in by the whole Court, and approved in its details by all hut the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, while sanc- tioning the Judgment on Mr. Wilson’s saying re- specting eternal punishment, could not agree to the arguments by which the acquittal was enforced. 1 Williams and Wilson v. Bishop of Salisbury. 30 Now our Church holds that justice is more likely to be obtained through such a Court than by referring causes either to a General Synod of Clergy, which, being a popular assembly, is not well suited for a court of justice, or even to a meeting of the Bishops. A Court of Appeal, similar to this in all essentials, has been main- tained ever since the settlement of the Reforma- tion, when the usurped power of the so-called Universal Patriarch was repudiated as encroach- ing on the independence of a National Church. There has been so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the subject of this Judg- ment pronounced by the Court of Appeal a few months after my Visitation of 1862, that it has not been confined even to our own country, and I may he excused for not unnaturally desiring to make the true state of the case plain. In M. Merle D’Aubigne’s lately-published fourth volume of his “ History of the Reformation in Europe,” p. vi. occurs the following passage, likely to mislead many : — “ Henri VIII, en emancipant son peuple de la “ suprematie papale, se proclama chef dePEglise. “ II en est resulte que PAngleterre est de tous “ les pays protestants celui ou l’Eglise et 1’Etat “ se trouvent le plus intimement unis. Les legis- “ lateurs de Tanglicanisme comprirent plus tard “ le danger que presentait cette union et ddcla- 31 “ rbrent en consequence, dans le trente-septibme “ des articles de religion {Of the Civil Magistrate ), “ ‘ Qu’en attribuant a Sa Majeste, le roi, le gou- “ ‘ vernement principal, ils ne donnaient pas au “ e prince le ministere de la Parole de Diem’ “ Ceci ne voulait pas dire que le roi ne precherait “ pas du haut de la cbaire ; nul n’y pensait ; “ mais que la puissance civile ne se melerait pas “ de determiner les doctrines de la Parole divine. “ Cette precaution malheureusement n’a pas “ suffi. II n’y a pas longtemps qu’une question “ de doctrine s’est soulevee au sujet des Essais et “ Revues , publies a Oxford, et la cause ayant ete “ porte en derniere instance devant l’un des pre- e6rj(T€Tcu olvtw, where our Bible reads, to the same effect, “ they shall be forgiven him.” 49 Confession in these cases is public and general, and, if you please, to God only (though every member of the congregation must hear what his neighbour confesses) ; and the Absolution public and general, and in God’s name too (yet every member of the congregation must receive and apply it to himself) : — Confession is made by every one, Absolution is pronounced to and for every one. These, however, being general, and, we fear, in general but little considered or regarded, create, it seems, no alarm or shame — give no trouble or offence. It is the invitation to open in private the particular grief, and the sin which causes the grief, though to a discreet and learned Minister of God’s Word, and to receive the benefit of a parti- cular Absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice — it is this which appears to some persons so alarming, and to approach so nearly to the Roman Catholic rule. Now it must, I think, be admitted that our Church expects that all persons, before they come to the Holy Communion, should faithfully endeavour, by ex- amining themselves by the rule of God’s command- ments — by confession to Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life — by reconciling them- selves to those they have offended, and being ready likewise to forgive others who have offended them — the Church expects, I say, all intending to come to the Holy Communion, to endeavour, by these Scrip- tural means and helps, to quiet their own consciences ; applying to themselves the promises of forgiveness for Christ’s sake upon repentance, or waiting for the Absolution to be pronounced in due form by the Priest in the service. But should it so happen, and surely it may and must happen in some cases and to some persons, that they cannot by their own undirected and unassisted endeavours quiet their own consciences — D 50 cannot satisfy themselves of the sufficiency of their confession, and purpose of amendment of life, or assure themselves of pardon and forgiveness — and they re- quire, as in such cases all must require, further com- fort or counsel — they are then invited to come to some discreet and learned Minister of God’s Word, and open their grief, (which implies and requires a declaration and confession of the sin which causes the grief), that, by the ministry of God’s holy Word, they may receive the benefit of Absolution : in other words, that by the Minister’s statement and application of the rules and promises of the Gospel, the reality and sufficiency of the repentance may be determined, and the con- ditions of pardon and forgiveness made known ; and that Absolution, which they had heard and received in the congregation after their general Confession, declared and pronounced to them separately and individually. And is it really the case that all, or the most, who would partake of the heavenly feast, do so examine themselves, do so confess themselves to Almighty God, do so recon- cile themselves to their neighbours, that they can come with a full trust in God’s mercy and a quiet con- science ; that few, or none, require further comfort and counsel, who might, if they would, come to some dis- creet and learned Minister of God’s Word and open their grief ? If it be so, our people surely have arrived at a happier and holier condition than our Church, in framing her services, dared to contemplate. Or is it that the discreet and learned Ministers are not to be found ? That would be a reproach and evil as little anticipated. “Is there no halm in Gilead ? is there no physician there f why then is not the health of the daughter of My people recovered ? ” I have ventured to say that it appears the purpose of our Church to instruct and require people, at least 51 in ordinary cases, to quiet their own consciences by self-examination and confession to Almighty God, with resolutions of amendment of life ; just as in ordi- nary cases of bodily sickness we rely upon household and familiar remedies. And I believe there are helps to self-examination which, if honestly used and applied, will be more likely to bring men to a knowledge of their offences and of their real inward state in God’s sight, than a declaration to others of the faults or sins they see or feel in themselves, liable as all are to self- deception and a wrong estimate of our guilt. Never- theless, if we do not pretend to judge of other men’s constitutions, and still less of their secret maladies and need of remedy or relief, but allow them, if they require or desire it, the help of a physician, 44 in whom there may be at times good success ,” we, as Minis- ters, shall at least be as careful and considerate in regard of their spiritual state, never refusing them the opportunity of opening to us their griefs, and receiving 4 4 the benefit of Absolution, together with spiritual counsel and advice.” 44 Do not,” says Bishop Wilson, in his 44 Short and Plain Instruction,” 44 Do not enter- tain a thought so injurious to the merciful promise of the Saviour to the Pastors of the Church, or imagine that the Absolution given by His Minister, after he has inquired into the motives and manner of the repent- ance, according to the rules of the Gospel — do not imagine that this will be of no avail to the health of the soul, or the comfort of the mind.” If it be asked, In what do the doctrine and will of our Church differ in this matter from those of the Roman communion ? we answer chiefly in this : — That with them confession to the Priest is com- pulsory, or at least strictly required of every one at certain set seasons and occasions, and every remem- bered sin must be confessed. We have seen how d 2 52 different in these respects is the rule of onr Church. An invitation only, — and to those who cannot quiet their own consciences, — and, it would appear in reference chiefly to greater offences. But let it not be forgotten that such invitation we are instructed and required to make, when we give warning of the celebration of the Holy Communion ; and, I scarcely need add, are equally bound to hear and consider the grief of all who come to us in answer to that invitation. It is not then with us a question of opinion or of choice, hut of duty; and shame to that Minister who through ignorance or indifference shrinks from or neglects it. Does any one who has received the commission and authority hesitate, in misconceived humility, — thinking rather of himself than his Master, or of his own ability or inability rather than of the gift and grace of God, — does any Minister of Jesus Christ hesitate, in his Master’s name, to absolve the penitent ? and does he think nothing of pronouncing over the child conceived and born in sin, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Bon, and of the Holy Ghost ?” Is this holy Sacrament, ordained by Jesus Christ and administered by us according to His will, a mere form and ceremony ? Is nothing meant when we declare of the baptized child that, being born in original sin and in the wrath of God, he is now, “ by the laver of regeneration in baptism, re- ceived into the number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life ? ” Is it so much more pre- sumptuous, when the same Lord has given us the commission, to say, “I absolve thee,” and to expect that for His sake forgiveness of actual sins will be ex- tended to the penitent? Did not the same Lord who said to His Apostles, “ Go ye and make disciples of all nations , baptizing them,” say also to them, the same Apostles, “Whosesoever, sins'yo remit they arc remitted 58 unto them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are re- tained ?” And was one ministry to be continued and handed down without the other ; or are we at liberty to assume and exercise one, and refuse or ignore the other ? Fully admitting, nay rather earnestly maintaining, that none can forgive sins but God only, and that He can and does forgive upon repentance without man’s agency or intervention (was it not so in the Apostles’ days ?), still we are taught to believe and to say, that 4 4 God hath given power and command- ment to His Ministers to declare and pronounce to His people, being penitent, the Absolution and remis- sion of their sins.” Shall we repudiate the gift con- veyed, betray the trust committed, or neglect the duty imposed in and by those solemn words pro- nounced over every one of us, when we received the Order of Priesthood : 44 Eeceive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments ; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The subject is far too deep, sacred, and important to be discussed on an occasion like this in all its points and bearings. My object and endeavour have been to state and explain, not to prove or establish (that, I trust, will hardly now be required or expected of me) our Church’s doctrine and rule, and to show your privilege and enforce your duty. I will conclude with some remarks of the commonly- called (and I presume by us still so esteemed) judicious Hooker, 44 We have,” he says, 44 in the least and meanest duties performed by ministerial power, that to dignify, grace, and autho- rize them which no offices on earth can challenge. 54 Whether we preach, pray, baptize, communicate, con- demn, give absolution, or whatsoever, as disposers of God’s mysteries, our ends, judgments, acts, and deeds are not ours hut the Holy Ghost’s.” The subjects hitherto noticed are all of present and personal interest ; I mean they are such as may, or rather must, more or less, occupy our minds and affect our practice ; and, as such, deserve our particular con- sideration. Matters affecting the Church generally, or more in other countries than here, must be dismissed more briefly. You may perhaps expect from me some notice of Bishop Colenso’s publications and proceedings, which have occasioned such general surprise and grief, and brought upon him almost as general censure. With regard to his publications, I must content myself with confessing, and am not ashamed to confess, that of his Biblical researches I have not read a single word. It appeared to me at the outset preposterous that a Colonial Bishop, after less than two years given to the subject (so I observed that he himself confessed) should presume to publish theories, original or borrowed, in opposition to the generally received traditions of uni- versal Christendom. And when I learnt that in both houses of the Convocation of Canterbury, without, I believe, a dissentient voice, his views were pronounced unsound and heretical (though all might not agree in the necessity or expediency of a synodical condemna- tion), I felt that my time and thoughts might be more profitably employed in my proper work and duty. Indeed we should have, I conceive, very little, or as- suredly much less than we all have, to do, or more curiosity than I at least possess, to occupy ourselves with difficulties and objections which have been ex- plained and answered, as far as is needful and right to he required, many times and many years ago. I say as far as is needful and right to be required, because in regard to the Old Testament history — remembering its great antiquity, the manner of its preservation and transmission, and that it is and must be in great part its own interpreter — it would be strange indeed if there were not in it some things hard to he understood, which a perverse ingenuity might represent as errors and contradictions. How much more may we expect this result where the professed object is to disclose, to those who can receive them, the will and purpose, the doings and dealings of Almighty God ; and those things, respecting which our blessed Lord even thanks His heavenly Father, because He has hid them from the wise and prudent, — that is in their own sight, — though He has revealed them unto babes. “ There is a sacred obscurity,” says Bishop Wilson, “in the Holy Scrip- tures, which we ought to value them for, because that convinceth us that we must not hope to understand them without a light from God, which we must ask from God and fit ourselves to receive it.” It is quite unnecessary for me, even if I were suffi- ciently acquainted with Bishop Colenso’s writings, and otherwise competent and qualified, to pursue the sub- ject, as you can have recourse to many able replies and reviews, which this new or rather renewed assault on the record of all we know or can know of the way and will, the works and purposes, of Almighty God our Heavenly Father, has called forth. Some of these, kindly sent me by their authors, I have read ; and if it should appear a somewhat unphilosophical method of coming to a conclusion on the merits of a book, — I mean by reading only the replies and reviews, without studying the work itself, — let me hope that none of you, or of your friends, will adopt the opposite, and, on such a question as the truth and authority of all Holy Scrip- ture, far less excusable, method of reading and receiving the objections and contradictions, without a careful 56 examination of the answers, or some of them, which have been written and published ; answers so numerous, learned, and weighty, that we might almost excuse and be thankful for the misdirected judgment and mis- applied talents which gave occasion for them. Near akin to the error, if I should not say sin, of creating doubts and difficulties in respect of the au- thenticity and authority of Holy Scripture, is that of depreciating the decrees of Councils and Synods by which the Catholic Faith has been cleared, maintained, and published : an error in one respect more danger- ous than the former, because it creates generally no alarm, but is received with favour and approval, as an appeal to individual judgment, on matters where it is supposed every man is at liberty to judge. And with sorrow and shame I confess this error prevails in the writings of some much admired, I cannot say learned, Professors of my own University. An instance may be given from Professor Stanley’s Lectures on the Eastern Church : “ The fact,” as he writes, — “ that the whole Christian world has altered the Creed of Nicssa and broken the Decree of Ephesus, without ceasing to be Catholic or Christian, is a decisive proof that common sense is, after all, the supreme arbiter and corrective even of (Ecumenical Councils.” Common sense, it is sometimes said, is the most uncommon sense ; but inasmuch as every man, or surely every Professor, supposes himself to. possess it, it is easy to foresee what would become of our Creeds and Canons, if Councils and Synods were subject to such a corrective. Now, while, with our numerous and urgent avocations, it is idle to aspire to the learning and knowledge which can only be attained by study and reflection, in retire- ment and leisure, we ought to be prepared to meet the popular objections as well in reference to our Creeds and Articles of Eeligion, as to the sacred deposit of 57 truth from which they are derived. You will, I trust, be prepared accordingly, and at least, as admonished by an Apostle, “ be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketli of you a reason of the hope that is in you.” You must allow me to add a few remarks on a subject which has of late attracted much notice, and occasioned some alarm in the Church at home, far beyond its intrinsic importance. You are all, I pre- sume, aware that upon the authority of the rubric set at the beginning of our Prayer Book, to which I have already alluded, such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, as were in the Church of England in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth, have lately in some Churches at home been industriously sought out and ostentatiously displayed. That it was the intention, or rather, perhaps, the wish of those who undertook the last revision of the Prayer Book, after the Savoy Con- ference, to restore, or make way for the restoration of, the symbolical ornaments of the Church and appro- priate habits of the Clergy, specially in the Chancel and ministration of the Holy Communion, may, I think, be inferred ; 1st, from their having determined that the rubric should remain, contrary to the expos- tulations of the Puritans, who plainly foretold its probable effect ; and 2nd, from their having introduced into it the word “retained,” which does not appear in the rubric of the Prayer Book as published at the accession of Queen Elizabeth, or again after the Hampton Court Conference. “ Such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof at all times of their ministration shall be retained and be in use,” &c. Such, it might be supposed, was, so to speak, the animus imponentis , the purpose or wish of those who framed, or reframed the law, and the wording of it is 58 sufficiently plain and explicit. But it never, it seems, was carried into effect — no attempt ever made to enforce its observance. Yet there it stands ; and, although there is some question about “ the authority of Parlia- ment,” it seems generally agreed that the ornaments of the Church and the habits or dress of the Clergy mentioned in the First Book of King Edward the Sixth are intended, i.e. to be retained and be in use. What then should be our course, or, if you please, what should be my course, if any attempt should be made or any desire expressed to introduce them in any Churches in this Diocese ? I have already remarked that — the law having been so long in abeyance and having reference to things in themselves indifferent — no Clergyman need think himself under any moral obligation to observe it or have it observed. I would remark further, that to have it observed belongs rather to the congregation than to the Clergyman, inasmuch as all the ornaments both of the Church and the Minister should be provided at the expense of the congregation ; and, lastly, that, as far as it does or may belong to the Clergy, they ought not to adopt any such change without the authority of the Bishop or Ordinary. We are informed, and I am pre- pared to believe it, that in general the Clergymen who have adopted, whether of their own choice or by the desire of their congregation, the ancient ornaments, are earnest and sincere ; that they hope and intend to show respect to the house and worship of Almighty God ; that they perceive, as I presume we all do to a certain extent, a fitness and propriety in certain orna- ments in reference to the time, or place, or service. You all know that the Puritans at the Savoy Con- ference objected to the dress, — any distinctive dress, — of the Clergy, and I think you will all agree and coincide in the Bishops’ reply; — that “ reason and experience 59 teaches that decent ornaments and habits preserve reverence, and are held therefore necessary to the solemnity of royal acts and acts of justice, and why not as well to the solemnity of religious worship ? ” With reference to ornaments generally of our Church, I would be permitted to quote some obser- vations of my first Charge, to show what my opinion was and is, and that I did, as I do now, conceive that they deserve on principle our very serious attention. “ These directions,” — they were directions referring to the arrangements and furniture of our Churches, — “ will appear minute, but cannot by any persons be judged unnecessary or unimportant, having regard to the sub- ject and purposes to which they relate. And if we look into the directions which God, Almighty and Allwise, Himself gave for the furniture of the Taber- nacle, these we find were far more minute, numerous, and particular ; not less so, it has been observed (and why should they be ?), than the spots on the wings of an insect, or the streaks and colours of a flower. My meaning is, that God, who has taken such abundant care (if we may presume so to speak) that there should be order, and arrangement, and beauty in all the works of His hands, which He has pronounced very good, and which all praise Him, will not be displeased, but rather expects and requires of us (having also sufficiently de- clared His Will in Holy Scripture), that we provide, according to our ability, for a similar accuracy and propriety even in the minutest parts and circumstances of His worship.” And in a subsequent part of the same Charge I remarked, “ We cannot, I fear, have much reference, in our present wooden edifices, to the symbolism of ancient Churches, where the minutest ornaments had their peculiar and appropriate signifi- cance ; but a Chancel might, I conceive, be frequently added :” and I drew attention to the vessels used in 60 the Holy Communion, that they should be of silver, and the fonts for Baptism of stone. And in a later Charge I quoted the Koyal Injunctions of 1601 for the better and more comely keeping of Churches, com- plaining of “ the negligence and lack of convenient reverence towards the comely keeping and order of the (said) churches, and especially of the upper part called the Chancel ; leaving the place of prayer desolate of all cleanliness, and of meet ornaments whereby it might be known for a place of religion and worship.” Such were, such are, my views and wishes in reference to the ornaments in general of the Church ; and I am thankful in having the best evidence that they have been and are generally approved, by the general addition of the Chancel to many old, and in nearly all new, Churches, and the adoption of the more comely and costly furniture and other 4 ‘meet ornaments.” And I confidently believe that the desired result — increased and increasing reverence and regard for the House of Prayer and our holy services — has been in large measure attained. I cannot doubt, therefore, that we are agreed that all suitable and appropriate ornaments of Churches may be and should he adopted, any or all which may enlarge devotion or testify duty and thank- fulness, and also, if special seasons are marked by special services, whatever is outwardly appropriate to the season or service, and tends to bring the intended instruction home to the mind and heart. Only the more excellent, useful, and holy the observance, the more is any ill taste, abuse, or exaggeration to be deprecated. Corruptio optimi est pessima. Still, what- ever may be our conviction or agreement, we are not called on, or rather, not justified, in forcing or pressing the introduction of new or unaccustomed ornaments or observances, till the meaning and purpose are generally understood and appreciated ; nor to make our ideas 61 and views the rule or measure of what is or should be edifying to all men. In these and other like matters the Apostle’s advice should ever be present to our minds, 44 We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak , and not to please ourselves. Let every man please his neighbour for his good to edification .” It is true this advice did not apply in the first instance to the Ministers of the Church in the execution of their office ; and it has been contended that, if we can satisfy the right-minded and reasonable, we may pro- ceed with good courage and a good conscience, though others ill-informed and ill-disposed may take offence. But the same Apostle in another place instructs us 4 4 to ivalk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time, because the days are evil:” upon which Bishop Wilson observes, 44 Prudence is very necessary in dan- gerous times ; it being no small fault to give occasion to the raising of storms against the Church and her members, for want of having a due regard to the times and to the passions of carnal men.” Until the last revision of the Prayer Book only the ornaments of the Minister, hut these always, were re- ferred to in the rubric; and therefore, we may conclude, have always been considered of special importance. And here again I may be permitted to remind you that on the first opportunity after my arrival in the Diocese, I ventured to recommend, as a substitute for the not well-defined tippet, the adoption of a scarf or stole by all in Priest’s Orders, hut of silk only by the Puiral Deans and Bishop’s chaplains. My two-fold abject being to distinguish the different orders and degrees of the Ministry, and to give the Clergy generally an appropriate and becoming ornament, thus distinguish- ing them from lay- clerks and choristers — an ornament, however, not generally used by Priests when I entered the Ministry. I have already observed that it probably G2 was the purpose, or wish, of the divines who were entrusted with the last Revision to reintroduce in the ministration of the Holy Communion the more ornate habits of the Clergy ordered in the First Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth : thus making a distinction between the Order of Morning Prayer and of Holy Communion. And as in other respects there is a distinction, the Communion being celebrated in the Chancel — and the Chancel, on that account, more or differently ornamented — it is difficult to understand why there should he any objection to a distinction of dress in the officiating Minister, or rather, why that should not he in keeping with the rest ; all to give more honour and win more regard and respect to the higher service. And the same in proportion in the ministration of Public Baptism. That you all approve of the introduction of what is considered comely in your official dress, and are all, to a certain extent, ritualists in this respect, appears from your ready adoption of scarf or stole, not generally used in the Church, I have said, twenty-five years ago. We must beware therefore of establishing a rule against ourselves, and, by denouncing stoles of this or that colour or shape, opening the question of the right and propriety of adopting them at all. Should it be contended that this stole or scarf was, or is, part of the ministerial dress, so, and more expressly so, accord- ing to our rule, was and is the cope in the Holy Communion, and it would be difficult on principle to show why we have resumed or adopted the stole rather than the cope, and not less so to determine why the colour or shape must be what we or others approve, and every where the same 8 . Enough — some will perhaps say more than enough • Erasmus in his “ Colloquies,” speaking of the appliances used by 63 — on a subject of comparatively little importance. I must however be permitted to add, that in my humble judgment, progress and improvement in the ornaments of the Minister are the natural accompaniment and complement of the progress and improvement in the ornaments of the Church. No person, I presume, supposes that when it is said in the rubric immediately preceding that which has occasioned so much dis- cussion, “ The Chancels shall remain as they have done in times past,” — no one supposes (or if any did, the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, and still more the proceedings of our times would have undeceived them,) that it was intended they should remain “ desolate of all cleanliness and of meet ornaments,” &c. And surely a similar inference in respect of the ministering Priests is inevitable. And this inference is strengthened by the fact, which I before mentioned, that in this rubric (of 1668) for the first time the ornaments of the Church are expressly named distinct from, but in connection with, those of the Ministers. And the vast increase of the “ linigerum genus,” in choirs, consist- ing of all imaginable trades and occupations, points to the necessity of some other distinction for the Priest. Let me, however, in conclusion say, that while I think and teach, as I have thought and taught, that too much art, skill, and (having regard to other duties) expense, cannot be bestowed upon the appropriate ornaments of Grod’s house and worship, and should be glad and thankful to have them understood and valued by our congregations, I would deprecate the introduc- the priest undertaking or expecting to exorcise the evil spirit says, “ Addita est in collum sacra stola, quam vocant, unde pendebat initium Evangelii secundum Joannem.” — Exorcismus. Whether he designed to ridicule the stole, as he certainly did the proceed- ings of the exorcising Priest, I must leave to those better acquainted with his writings to determine. 04 tion or reintroduction of those alluded to in the rubric, or any others, which would give general offence — I will not merely say to the pious and right-minded through want of knowledge, but to those who wait for our halting, and by whom even our good will he evil spoken of. ‘‘ In quietness and in confidence shall he your strength,” was the motto chosen by the author of “ The Thoughts in Verse” (such is the modest title) “ for the Sundays and Holy-days throughout the Year.” Who, in these latter days, more deserves the reverent attention of all who love the Church of England, and desire to guide and be guided by the spirit of her rules and ordinances ? His white stole, we are told, now hangs, — shall I say mourns ? — over his vacant stall in the Church which he built by the proceeds of that book, from which thousands have learnt, and thousands in generations to come will learn, to value and honour more and more all our services for the Christian Year. That speaks ; but hear his own words, among the last he wrote and published, on this, at that time, new subject of dispute and difference : “ On these, and all like matters, we shall perhaps do well to accept the counsel of our Church in her first reformed Liturgy concerning another main point of Christian discipline. Such as are satisfied with the more modern and plainer ritual not to be offended with them that adopt the more ornate and symbolical requirements of the rubric : they, on the other hand, who find comfort and edification in the ceremonies to bear with their brethren, who, for various reasons, think best to dispense with them for the present.” 0 si sic omnes. 0 that the same, or like, prudence and charity, the same spirit of loving quietness and holy confidence, might always govern our speech and guide our Steps ; that in these might be our strength ! And where were this quietness and confidence learnt, 65 and the strength ensuing upon them, by him whose name and praise are in all the Churches ? where but in the lessons of the Sundays and Holy-days, and other holy services of our Church ? Let us then honour, love, and study them more and more — let us learn her doctrines, and observe her rites and ceremonies, and practise her rules, and obey her laws. Thus may we, by God’s grace, he every day more worthy of the office and ministry to which He has called us : and thus, by the same grace, the Church and congregation whom we serve shall profit by us daily, while we dili- gently preach the Word of God, rightly and duly administer His holy Sacraments, and exercise Godly discipline, for His sake who loved the Church and gave Himself for it : — then, and thus, shall we learn the true meaning and application of those holy words of comfort, “ No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper ; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn . This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord , and their righteousness is of Me, saith the Lord.” E POSTSCRIPT. I thought it best, if I should not rather say I found it necessary, for several reasons, to print my Charge in England. One principal reason was that I could not make leisure while in Newfoundland to prepare my manuscript for the press. I had time for this, and some other like occupations, in my pleasant voyage to England, in the “ Great Eastern.” One result of this delay has been, that I find some of the statements in my Charge controverted by the (so-called) Ritualists ; able and conscientious men, but led away, as it appears to me, by an unauthorized desire of progress and development in Liturgical observances. It has been asserted ; 1. that “ in all cases ‘ at ’ (the Holy Table) certainly meant with the face turned east- wards 2. that the north side (of the Table) meant the north part of the west side; and 3. that “ to break the bread before the people ” meant in the presence of the people, but with the bach towards them . The two first assertions are sufficiently answered by the facts that in the Scotch Liturgy, compiled by as able Ritual- ists as any in the present day, “ north side or end ” is the phrase, where in our Prayer Book we read “ north side,” and that our best Liturgists (Bishop Andrewes 67 and others) did stand at the north end ; of which latter fact there is satisfactory evidence. And with regard to the first assertion, it may be further observed that at least in one case (in the Solemnization of Matrimony) it is ordered, that “ the Priest standing at the Table, and having his face towards them (the man and woman kneeling before the Table), shall say, &c.” The third assertion surely can hardly be maintained by any persons who will consent to take words in their plain grammatical sense (which we of the Clergy are specially bound to do), even without considering the significance of the action. It is contended indeed, that there is a difficulty in complying with the present Rubric (the difficulty, I am sure, was little felt, or known, twenty-five years ago) which says, “ When the Priest, standing before the Table, hath so ordered the bread and wine, that he may with the more readi- ness and decency break the Bread before the people, and take the Cup into his hands.” I have pointed out in my Charge two ways in which this (supposed) difficulty may be overcome ; in one or other, of which it has been overcome (if that can be said to have been overcome, which has never been encountered) by nine -tenths of the Priests of the English Church for the last two hundred years. Ecquis erit finis ? I trust I may still indulge the hope that to you, my brethren, those concluding sentences, “ Concerning the Service of the Church,” in our Book of Common Prayer, will be a useful guide in these and other like diversities : “ Forasmuch as nothing can be. so plainly set forth, but doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same ; to appease all such diversity (if any arise) and for the resolution of all doubts how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this Book; the parties that so doubt, or diversely take any thing, shall alway resort to the bishop of the diocese, who 68 by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same ; so that the same order be not contrary to any thing contained in this Book. And if the bishop of the diocese be in doubt, then he may send for the resolution thereof to the Arch- bishop.” The mind of the Reformers on the subject of Con- fession, even on the approach of death, may perhaps be inferred from the following expressions in the Colloquies of Erasmus ; contrasting a peaceful and happy death with one of parade and tumult ; and they afford an illustration of some remarkable words in our Liturgy: “Accitus parochus rursus porrexit corpus Domini ; sed citra confessionem : negabat enim quidquam scrupuli residisse in animo.” — Funus. Edward Newfoundland. the END. GILBERT AND RIVJNGTON, i’RINTERS, ST. JOHN’S SQUARE, LONDON. A CHARGE DELIVERED TO THE DIOCESE OF OXFORD AT Its St&tntij Visitation, DECEMBER, 1866, BY SAMUEL, LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD, lord high almoner to her majesty the queen, and chancellor OF THE ORDER OF THE GARTER, Published at the request of the Clergy and Laity, ©iforti anti ILontiori : JAMES PARKER AND CO. 1867. fltmteb bn $ antes |)arher anb <£o., Crofoit-garb, (Hhforb. & Cljarp, kt QNCE again, my brethren of the clergy and of the laity, our three years’ period has run out its sands, and we meet in this the chief Church of the Diocese to review God’s past dealings with us, to sum up our work accomplished, to take measure of what remains to be done, and, in His presence, to form new resolu- tions for attempting, in His strength, its better accom- plishment. Again we are warned, by vacant places and new names upon our muster-roll, of the short- ness of our day of work, of the coming of our night of rest, and, may God grant it, of our joyful day- break of reward, when our beloved Lord shall stand again amongst us. Forty- two Incumbents a have been gathered in the last three years to their Fathers ; — fourteen more than in the parallel preceding period. During the three years last past, I have confirmed about the same number of candidates as in the three preceding. Again, I notice a growing equality in the numbers of the two sexes, amongst the confirmed ; in itself, I am convinced, a hopeful sign, and one which, I rejoice to say, seems to me to be borne out by the still increasing appearance both of intelligence and of devotion in those whom you have prepared for this Office. Nothing can be more marked than the dif- ference between the Confirmations of these last years, and those of twenty years ago ; and often, as I sit in my chair of Office, casting my eyes with many a prayer a See Appendix I. B 2 4 over the kneeling band, I mingle praise with suppli- cation, on noting the evident fruits of your labour and your prayers on those whom you have at length brought before me for the imposition of my hands, and the gifts bestowed in that Apostolic benediction. Once more I would press upon all of you the great importance of securing the attendance at the Con- firmations, wherever it is possible, of the Parents and God-parents of those confirmed. Many a grace might be won by the prayers of that season, many a new foundation laid of holier family life, the natural bonds of which had been consecrated and transfigured by such communion in worship. I venture also to request you, my brethren of the clergy, to undertake one other labour connected with this most blessed Ordinance ; — I mean, that you would keep for me an accurate account of those who follow Confirmation up by that which is its proper conclusion — the coming to the Table of the Lord. And here let me say one word as to the proper age at which your candidates should be presented. Enquiries from different parts of the Diocese have led me to think that some of you imagine me to have fixed some definite age below which I would receive no candidates. This is an entire misapprehension. I do not conceive myself to have been invested by the Church with the right to make any such general rule. The general rule is made alike for me and for you. It is the simple one that none should