// 
 
 The 
 
 Catholic ^Movement 
 
 and the 
 
 ^Archbishops" 'Decision 
 
 with 
 
 '^A Note on certain Resolutions 
 
 BY 
 
 W. SANDAY, D.D., LL.D. 
 
 LADY 1.ARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
 NEW YORK AND BOMBAY 
 
 1899 
 
 [ All rights reserved}
 
 THE CATHOLIC MOVEMENT 
 
 AND 
 
 THE ARCHBISHOPS' DECISION 
 
 If I am not much mistaken, the English nation is at the 
 present moment in danger of committing a serious injustice. 
 In part, it is to be feared, the injustice has been done already; 
 but it is going on, and it has begun to take shape in con- 
 crete acts that may easily become of serious import. 
 
 It is not a light matter to me thus to accuse my country- 
 men. In my heart of hearts I believe that there is no 
 nation that, taken as a whole, so desires to be just, or is so 
 willing to do justice even against its own impulses. When 
 the English nation goes wrong, I believe that it is rarely 
 from rooted unfairness, but rather from want of knowledge, 
 from want of clear insight, from want of discrimination in 
 the analysis of different elements in a situation. 
 
 And that is just what I suspect is taking place now. 
 There is a widespread feeling abroad that there exists in 
 the Church of England a deliberate movement towards 
 Rome — a movement which on its more moderate side lays 
 stress on all those features in the teaching and practice of 
 our National Church that it has in common with the Church 
 of Rome, and which in its more extreme members is press- 
 ing towards a definite appropriation of teaching and practice
 
 that arc more distinctively Roman. The nation has awoke 
 to a sense that there is this tendency at work. It believes 
 that a point has been reached at which its own long-standing 
 traditions are threatened. It is beginning to think itself 
 called upon to take a stand, and to say positively that at 
 least the latter part of this tendency must cease, and that 
 Rome-ward innovations must be checked. 
 
 Nor can it be denied that this feeling has its apparently 
 substantial grounds. There are a number of facts around 
 us that are capable of being described as I have just de- 
 scribed them. It is true that there is a very large and 
 increasing party in the Church which does lay stress on 
 those points of teaching and practice in which we agree 
 with, rather than those on which we differ from, the Church 
 of Rome. As to this party it is allowed that it is within its 
 rights. And although the tendency to keep silence on the 
 points of difference is not altogether approved, and is perhaps 
 regarded with some uneasiness, it is not thought to consti- 
 tute a reason for interference. But when the tendency goes 
 beyond this, and points regarded as characteristic of the 
 Church of Rome are one after another introduced into our 
 own Church, it is not surprising that an alarm should be 
 raised, and that it should affect even sober-judging people. 
 
 Further, it is so much a consequence of the active spirit 
 of initiative in all classes of our people that every move- 
 ment should be carried on by means of societies ; and in 
 the case of this particular movement, which deals directly 
 with the region of things spiritual and sacred, it is so 
 natural that the societies in question should assume a 
 certain character of privacy, that we also cannot be sur- 
 prised if to the world outside, and especially to the 
 unsympathetic world, there should seem to be not only 
 a movement but at the fringes of the movement what 
 amounts to a conspiracy. 
 
 All this, as I have said, is not surprising. We can see 
 
 u,uc
 
 how one step leads on to another ; we can see how the 
 feeling of uneasiness gradually becomes suspicion, and how 
 suspicion excites alarm, and how the alarm expresses itself 
 in the demand for repression. Where then, I shall be 
 asked, is the injustice? 
 
 The injustice lies here. We are so accustomed to using 
 the two words ' Roman Catholic ' together, and the associa- 
 tions which they carry are so constantly fused into a single 
 idea, that we find it extremely difficult to separate in 
 thought what is Catholic from what is Roman. For more 
 than sixty years the High Church party has been insisting 
 on the difference ; but the usage is so inveterate that the 
 separation has not even yet been successfully brought home 
 to the popular mind. And we shall wonder less at this, if 
 I am right in supposing that some High Churchmen have 
 not quite brought it home even to themselves. 
 
 Speaking broadly, I believe that the High Church party 
 does aim at making the Church of England Catholic, and 
 does not aim at making it Roman. Or rather its position 
 is really stronger than this. An instructed High Church- 
 man would not allow that he was trying to make the 
 Church of England more Catholic, but only that he was 
 trying to assert those elements of Catholicity which were 
 inherent, though perhaps latent, in its constitution. Our 
 Church is Catholic in the same sense in which the Church 
 of Rome and the Churches of the East are Catholic. It 
 holds to the same great standards of faith, and has pre- 
 served the same Church order. The Church of England 
 has done this from the first, and gloried in doing it. And 
 if the High Churchman thinks it right to emphasize what 
 he has in common with these other great Churches, I do 
 not see where he can be gainsaid. 
 
 The question really is, How far does the common ground 
 extend? It is inevitable that there should be a certain 
 amount of debateable matter where the one party will
 
 defend as Catholic what the other will condemn as Roman. 
 To begin with, there is no complete agreement as to the 
 definition of what is Catholic. Does it cover the usage of 
 the first two centuries, or of four, or of six ? In regard to 
 this, opinions may naturally and legitimately differ. 
 
 But besides this inevitable difficulty in discriminating, 
 there is another kind of confusion between things Catholic 
 and things Roman which is less excusable. Every one 
 does not possess either the ability or the opportunity to test 
 accurately where the Catholic ends and the Roman begins. 
 And it is not only possible but sure to happen that, 
 whether from these causes or from simple thoughtlessness, 
 Roman usages should sometimes be adopted as though 
 they were Catholic. The Church of Rome is (locally) the 
 nearest Catholic body to our own, and there are sure to be 
 some who, in the search for what is Catholic, will look to 
 it as their pattern. 
 
 Hence arises the necessity for authoritative definition. 
 And if we look at it in its broader context, it is such 
 a definition that the Archbishops have been recently asked 
 to give, and have given. They themselves, however, have 
 not considered the questions submitted to them quite in 
 this light. They have confined themselves to the smaller 
 issue of what was and what was not in accordance with the 
 Law of the Church of England. In this sense they have 
 decided that the ceremonial use of incense and of lights 
 carried in procession is not permissible. 
 
 For the sake of simplicity we may take the first of these 
 points only. The second appears to stand upon a very 
 similar footing. It is obvious that the Archbishops could 
 not have decided that the use of incense was un-Catholic. 
 It is common both to the East and to the West. It is in 
 any case early, if not primitive. And the use without 
 doubt existed in our own Church on the very eve of 
 Elizabeth's first Act of Uniformity.
 
 The Archbishops' decision thus brings into relief the 
 possibility that there may be some practices which, though 
 Catholic in themselves, are not consistent with the Law 
 of the Church of England. That was, indeed, only to 
 be expected. * Every particular or national Church hath 
 authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites 
 of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that 
 all things be done to edifying.' It follows that there will 
 be some local usages to which it would be the duty of 
 members of the particular Church to conform. 
 
 Hitherto questions of the kind which the Archbishops 
 have had to determine have been complicated by two 
 difficulties : (i) the hesitation to regard omission as 
 equivalent to prohibition ; and (2) the ambiguity as to the 
 meaning of ' the second year of King Edward the Sixth ' 
 in the Ornaments Rubric. The Archbishops have thought 
 that they could escape these difficulties by taking their 
 stand upon the Act of Uniformity of A.D. 1559. They find 
 there what seems to them to be a prohibition which they 
 can use without having recourse to the Ornaments Rubric. 
 
 I am not lawyer enough to know exactly in what relation 
 this earlier Act stands to the later Act of A.D. 1662. It 
 seems natural to suppose that the later Act would supersede 
 the earlier, and govern the conditions under which we live. 
 It has the further advantage of embodying decisions of 
 Convocation as well as of Parliament. It would not 
 however serve the purpose of the Archbishops, because 
 it does not contain the phrase on which they rely. 
 
 The portion of the Act cited by the Archbishops is as 
 follows : 
 
 'That all and singular Ministers in any Cathedral or 
 Parish Church . . . shall from and after the Feast of the 
 Nativity of St. John Baptist next coming, be bounden 
 to say and use the Mattins Evensong Celebration of the 
 Lord's Supper and administration of each of the Sacraments
 
 and all their common and open Prayer, in sack order and 
 form as is mentioned in the said Book so authorised by- 
 Parliament in the said fifth and sixth year of the reign of 
 King Edward the Sixth, with one alteration or addition 
 of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, 
 and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two 
 sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacrament to 
 the Communicants, and none other or otherwise' 
 
 The sentence is long and somewhat involved, and a ques- 
 tion may be raised as to the connexion in which these last 
 words are intended to be taken. I have before me a text 
 of the Act in which (by placing a semi-colon after ' Edward 
 the Sixth ') they appear to be taken as qualifying ' alteration 
 or addition,' as though there was to be no further exception 
 beyond the slight changes which were being made in the 
 edition of the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI annexed 
 to the Act. I believe, however, that the Archbishops are 
 right in connecting them with ' such order and form ' several 
 lines above. My reason is that the words appear to be 
 taken over from a yet earlier Act of A. D. 1549, in which 
 they occur in a like connexion. 
 
 The Archbishops infer that the words are meant to ex- 
 clude all variations whatsoever, not only in the Services 
 but in all possible accessories to the Services. 
 
 This interpretation certainly appears to go beyond that 
 given by the late Archbishop Benson in the Lincoln Case of 
 similar words occurring a little lower down in the Act. It 
 was observed that the words * Order, Form and Manner ' 
 are technical terms, and that what is forbidden by them ' is 
 the saying of the various Services according to any other 
 Service Book, including the First of Edward VI, although 
 this receives special commendation in the Second Act of 
 Uniformity.' I believe that this is the true sense ; and 
 it would give the words a more limited reference than the 
 present decision.
 
 Even if they had the wider reference, it would still not 
 be easy to follow the reasoning by which the two Arch- 
 bishops (on p. 13) put aside the appeal to the Ornaments 
 Rubric. They try to make the Elizabethan Act taken 
 with the Ornaments Rubric contradict itself; but they 
 only do so by assuming the correctness of their own 
 interpretation. The other alternative is more natural, that 
 the Act is consistent, and the interpretation wrong. The 
 Ornaments Rubric was itself part of the annexed Prayer 
 Book, and if it applies to ceremonies at all, governed the 
 ceremonies appertaining to the Prayer Book. The Arch- 
 bishops would make it not apply to ceremonies on the 
 ground that although it orders certain ornaments it does 
 not order their use. This seems almost to reduce the 
 rubric to a dead letter. But it appears also to overlook 
 the history of the rubric. 
 
 The Ornaments Rubric is given in four different forms, 
 in the Prayer Book of 1559, in the Act of Uniformity of 
 the same date, and in the Prayer Books of 1604 and 1662. 
 In the last of these and in the Act the words # appear in 
 the form with which we are familiar : ' such Ornaments of 
 the Church and of the Ministers thereof, at all times of 
 their ministration, shall be retained and be in use,' &c. But 
 in the two earlier Prayer Books they run thus : ' that the 
 Minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other 
 times in his Ministration, shall use such Ornaments in the 
 Church as were in use,' &c. Here the use of the Ornaments 
 (in other words the ceremonies appropriate to them) is 
 expressly enjoined. Nor is it probable that any substantial 
 difference was intended between the two forms of the 
 rubric 1 . It is more likely that the current form was 
 adopted as being rather more inclusive : it alone seemed 
 to make provision for the ornaments of the Church as well 
 as of the Minister. 
 
 1 The Privy Council ruled to this effect in the case Westerton v. Liddell.
 
 JO 
 
 I greatly doubt whether the Archbishops' treatment of 
 the Ornaments Rubric will, in any respect, give permanent 
 satisfaction. They absolve themselves from the necessity 
 of determining whether the Ornaments in question are 
 those actually in use in the second regnal year of King 
 Edward the Sixth (January 28, 1548 — January 27, 1549), 
 or those prescribed in the Prayer Book annexed to the 
 First Act of Uniformity which passed the House of 
 Commons (on January 21, 1549), though we do not know 
 that it received the assent of the King, just before the end 
 of that year. This is a moot point, which we may leave 
 open as the Archbishops do. 
 
 It is, however, of some importance to note that one of 
 the documents brought up in the present controversy 
 appears to have a very pertinent bearing upon the point. 
 Sandys, afterwards Archbishop of York, who was one of 
 the Committee for revising the Prayer Book in 1559, 
 speaking of his own work says : ' The last Book of Service 
 is gone through with a proviso to retain the ornaments 
 which were used in the first and second year of King 
 Edward VI until it please the Queen to take other order 
 for them.' Here we have a contemporary interpretation of 
 the disputed words, and whatever ambiguity there may be 
 as to the second year of King Edward VI there can be none 
 as to the first. There can be no doubt at all that incense 
 was in full use in that year. But if so, it would be difficult 
 to see how the conclusion could be avoided that it is equally 
 lawful to this day 1 . 
 
 We can well believe that the Archbishops were glad to 
 escape, as they thought, the necessity of assuming that 
 omission is the same thing as prohibition. But we have 
 
 1 It would be, however, wrong to suggest that there is not a substantial case 
 for the other view, which was adopted by the Privy Council in Westerton v. 
 Liddell. The Judges do not seem to have had before them this letter of 
 Archbishop Sandys, but they refer to an Act which appears to tell the other 
 way.
 
 II 
 
 seen much reason to think that the expedient by which 
 they do this is untenable. In the end, whether we go upon 
 the Act of Uniformity of 1559 or not, the only ground on 
 which the use of incense can be declared illegal is that 
 the rubrics of the Prayer Book do not enjoin it. Is this 
 argument from silence justified? 
 
 The advocates of incense would say that it was definitely 
 covered by the Ornaments Rubric. But, waiving that 
 point, must it not in any case be a large assumption to 
 suppose that all the old practices to which men were 
 accustomed could be swept away simply by silence ? 
 A change so thorough and searching as (on the Arch- 
 bishops' view) this was intended to be, called for explicit 
 commands, both negative and positive. 
 
 But were these first acts of the reign of Queen Elizabeth 
 of that description ? I will endeavour shortly to answer 
 this question. It brings me, however, to another part of 
 my subject, the Archbishops' reading of history, which, 
 speaking with all deference, I cannot but think leaves much 
 to be desired. 
 
 Taking the points raised in chronological order, I may be 
 allowed to refer for a moment to what is said as to the date 
 of the first introduction of incense into Christian worship. 
 
 The Archbishops allege as a reason for the omission of 
 incense that c it was certainly not in use in the Church for 
 at least three hundred years from the Apostolic times.' 
 
 The evidence respecting the use of incense is fully 
 collected in the pamphlet laid before the Archbishops, and 
 entitled The Case for Incense. But I will speak only of the 
 data into which I had looked myself before referring to this 
 collection. The natural place to turn to first was the 
 Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta, first published by Gamurrini 
 in 1887. These travels are ascribed for good reasons 
 and by general consent to a certain noble lady, Silvia of 
 Aquitaine, and to the years 385-388. They contain a full
 
 12 
 
 and graphic description of the Services at which the 
 pilgrim was present during her visit to Jerusalem, which 
 included Holy Week. I was not long in finding a 
 passage directly to the point. The spelling of the MS. is 
 preserved — 
 
 Diet is ergo Jiis tribas p salmis, ct factis orationibus tribus, 
 ecce etiam thimiatasia inferuntur intro spelunca Anastasis, 
 lit tota basilica Anastasis repleatur odoribus. 
 
 Censers were taken into the cave [of the Holy Sepulchre], 
 1 so that the whole church [which the Greeks called 
 Anastasis, and which we call the Church of the Holy 
 Sepulchre] was filled with the odour.' The use of incense 
 here is unmistakably ceremonial. In the years 385-388 it 
 was evidently no novel usage but already well established. 
 It would be no straining of probability to suppose that it 
 dated back to the founding of the church by Constantine. 
 
 This would lead us by a natural step to other evidence 
 for the same period. The Liber Pontificalis contains, 
 under the popedom of Silvester (314-335), inventories, 
 probably authentic, of the furniture of the churches built 
 by Constantine at Rome. Several of these include golden 
 censers, e.g. the Basilica Co?istantiniana (now the Lateran): 
 Thymiamateria II ex auro purissimo, pens. lib. XXX. 
 Again, apparently in the Baptistery of the same church, 
 Tymiamaterium ex auro purissimo cum gemmis prasinis 
 XL Villi, pens. lib. XV. 
 To St. Peter's Constantine gave 
 
 Tymiamaterium ex auro purissimo cum gemmis ex 
 undique ornatum numcro LX,pens. lib. XV. (Du- 
 chesne, Lib. Pontif. i. 174, 177.) 
 
 In view of the evidence which we have just had for 
 Jerusalem it would be fair to conclude that the censers in 
 these churches were intended to be used ceremonially. So 
 that the proof of the existence of such use would be carried 
 back full fifty years : and even then we should be by no
 
 *3 
 
 means at the beginning. The last Apostle did not die 
 before A. D. 98. It would therefore be precarious to say: 
 that incense ' was certainly not in use in the Church ' for 
 even two hundred years after the Apostolic times, not to 
 speak of ' at least three hundred.' 
 
 The point is not unimportant, because while the Church 
 of England undoubtedly lays stress on ancient usage, it is 
 not so clear within what limits usage is to be described as 
 1 ancient.' Bishop Jewell boldly, and indeed it may be 
 thought over-boldly, challenged his Romanist opponents to 
 show that their distinctive uses were within six centuries 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 We return to the Act of Uniformity which passed the 
 House of Lords on April 28, 1559. The Archbishops have 
 interpreted this Act with the utmost possible stringency. 
 They read into the absence of minute regulations in Queen 
 Elizabeth's Prayer Book a systematic exclusion of the older 
 ceremonies. They suppose that on and after June 24 of 
 the year 1559 evei T ceremony not specifically ordered was 
 to cease. They do not think that the cessation was really 
 so abrupt. But they set down any irregularities rather to 
 the difficulty of enforcing the Act than to any lack of strict- 
 ness in the Act itself. They remark ' that the time was a 
 time of great excitement and unsettlement. The whole 
 country was in a feverish condition. Elizabeth and her 
 advisers could not be sure that insurrection and civil war 
 might not begin at any moment. It was necessary to act 
 without delay. Elizabeth herself would have preferred to 
 bring back the First Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth ; but 
 she did not feel sure that the country would bear this, and 
 all through her reign, in spite of her despotic character, she 
 showed herself steadily determined to have her people with 
 her. It was impossible to consult the Convocations; the 
 reign of Mary had made them, and especially their leaders 
 the Bishops, untrustworthy for the purpose in hand.'
 
 14 
 
 We may well ask whether such a time and such' 
 conditions were suited for the issue of a sharp and stringent 
 Act, forbidding by what it did not say as well as by what 
 it did. The probabilities against this are really even 
 stronger than the Archbishops' statement would make them. 
 Elizabeth had only come to the throne on November 17 of 
 the previous year. It was neither her wish nor her policy 
 to drive the Romanists to extremities. She wished rather 
 to conciliate them, and, as a matter of fact, did to a large 
 extent succeed in conciliating them. For eleven years of 
 her reign the Romanist laity habitually conformed to the 
 English Prayer Book. Of the whole body of Marian 
 clergy less than two hundred refused obedience. It was said 
 at the time (but also denied) that Pope Pius IV was ready 
 to approve the English Prayer Book if his other demands 
 had been granted. Elizabeth herself was still playing with 
 Philip II, and had not at once refused his offer of marriage. 
 Her personal leanings towards a more elaborate ceremonial 
 are well known. 
 
 There is every reason to think that these first changes 
 were intended to be cautious, conciliatory, and conservative. 
 The chief object was to gain time. The Elizabethan 
 Statute expressly provides that the Ornaments mentioned in 
 it should be in use 'until other order shall be therein taken.'' 
 
 Whether any such order was taken is debated. Probably 
 it was not, in the sense intended. But it would be only in 
 accordance with the English character and with what has 
 happened elsewhere in English history if a settlement, 
 intended in the first instance to be provisional, should 
 have been allowed by lapse of time and use to become 
 permanent. It was found to hit the happy mean, which 
 was what the nation really wanted ; and its very omissions 
 and ambiguities have all told in the direction of liberty, 
 which one party after another has striven to destroy, but 
 which the nation as a whole has jealously maintained.
 
 i5 
 
 This view of the incompleteness of the rubrical directions 
 in the Prayer Book appears, upon the face of it, far more 
 probable than that omission is equivalent to prohibition. 
 
 Let us suppose for a moment only that there was a doubt 
 on this head, and ask whether in that case it was wise or 
 expedient to decide in the sense of greatest stringency. 
 
 Two considerations present themselves. 
 
 One is that the spiritual life of the Church as we see it 
 around us is probably more vigorous and active than it has 
 ever been. The temper of the Church is expansive. 
 Neither the clergy nor the laity can be said to spare 
 themselves in acts of devotion. At such a time a narrow 
 uniformity is to be deprecated. The more ardent spirits 
 are chilled and repressed by it. Of course it is easier to 
 carry out a uniform system than one which admits of 
 variety. There may be friction here and there, where 
 priest and people are pulling different ways. But on the 
 whole the clergy have succeeded in carrying their people 
 with them. In by far the greater number of the churches 
 which have been most conspicuous for experiments in 
 ritual there is perfect harmony, and the indications point 
 to a satisfaction of real wants and instincts. I could well 
 have understood it if the Archbishops had shown them- 
 selves unwilling to interfere any further than they were 
 compelled. 
 
 The other consideration is that there is a strong desire in 
 the minds of many persons for better relations with the 
 great communions from which we are parted. That desire 
 has been checked, but by no means extinguished, by the 
 rebuffs which it has received in recent years. In any case 
 one would think that the rulers of the Church would 
 naturally look forward to the future, and abstain from 
 doing anything that would emphasize the insular character 
 of our Church at the expense of its Catholicity. 
 
 If the law of the Church were clear and precise, there
 
 i6 
 
 would of course be no choice ; but the previous argument 
 has gone to show that in the case of incense the law was by 
 no means clear and precise. So that here, too, there would 
 have been a motive for leaving a reasonable latitude. 
 
 It is impossible not to compare the present decision with 
 the late Archbishop's judgement in the case of the Bishop 
 of Lincoln. And, applying this test, it is equally impossible 
 not to regard it with great disappointment. The exact 
 interpretation of documents and careful study of evidence 
 which characterized the earlier judgement are absent from 
 the later. In this their place is taken by an apparent 
 short-cut, which examination has shown to be delusive. 
 Hence, while the one judgement carried with it conviction 
 almost all along the line, the other carries with it no 
 conviction at all. 
 
 The decision is all the more disappointing because the 
 action of the Archbishops which led up to it had seemed 
 so thoroughly statesmanlike and well considered. It was an 
 excellent step to take advantage of the method prescribed 
 at the end of the preface ' Concerning the Service of the 
 Church ' (dating from 1549). No more quiet and peaceable 
 way of settling disputed points could be found, or one the 
 legitimacy of which could be so little questioned. 
 
 Nor have I really any doubt that, whether it is right or 
 wrong in the nature of things, the decision ought to be 
 obeyed. The arguments in favour of disobedience put 
 forward in the correspondence columns of the newspapers 
 were transparent sophistries, which could only injure the 
 writers and the cause they advocate. But I rejoice to see 
 that the majority of those implicated are likely to yield. 
 
 I do not know how far the arguments put forward in this 
 pamphlet will be thought to hold good, or how far on 
 these or on other grounds public opinion will endorse or 
 decline to endorse the decision of the Archbishops. Neither 
 do I know what possibilities there may be of amending
 
 i7 
 
 a decision once given that is afterwards discovered to be 
 wrong. For that we must put our trust in the wisdom of 
 the Bishops and the disinterestedness of the Archbishops 
 themselves. It is certain that a doubtful ruling will not be 
 oppressively enforced. 
 
 In the meantime those of us who are onlookers not 
 personally involved ought to give the tribute of respectful 
 sympathy to those who, at the call of duty, suppress their 
 own preferences and relinquish practices which they have 
 found to be edifying. I know too well the strength of 
 attachment with which such things wind themselves round 
 the heart, to think the sacrifice really insignificant. Its 
 value will be greater as a mark of self-discipline and self- 
 control than it could be as yielded to external compulsion. 
 
 We may also do what in us lies to press forward the 
 movement which seeks to recover for the Church the 
 power of legislating more effectively for itself. By the 
 side of all the disquieting symptoms of recent years there 
 have been others, as I cannot but think, at once more 
 deeply rooted and more hopeful. The way in which the 
 two Archbishops have worked together, the combined 
 action of the two Convocations and the House of Laymen, 
 point to possibilities in the future as to what may be done 
 in the way of free and spontaneous self- reform with a 
 minimum of appeal to Parliament. I believe also that 
 among the great mass of the clergy there would be a readi- 
 ness to fall in with and to second such attempts beyond 
 what might be suspected. Other bodies have shown us 
 what may be effected on these lines. And the spectacle 
 of a Church reforming and reconstituting itself by the 
 voluntary co-operation of its members would be one worthy 
 of the English name.
 
 i8 
 
 NOTE ON CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS 
 
 Passed at a Conference of Churchmen on April 28, 1899. 
 
 AMONG the acts of injustice referred to above I must 
 needs include a series of Resolutions which have been 
 largely circulated, and which I regret to see are signed by 
 many of my own personal friends. They read like an 
 effective indictment ; but they only do so by attributing to 
 High Churchmen a number of positions which they do not 
 really hold. I will take the resolutions in order. 
 
 1. The signatories pledge themselves 'to co-operate in 
 maintaining by all lawful and godly means [the] Protestant 
 and comprehensive character [of our Church], and to guard 
 and cherish the great heritage of religious freedom and 
 progress secured to the English people at the Reformation, 
 enriched by three centuries of Anglican life and thought.' 
 
 The words are stirring words, and I could cordially assent 
 to them if I might interpret ' Protestant ' in such a way 
 as not to be inconsistent with ' comprehensive.' But can 
 it be said that the tenor of the remaining Resolutions is 
 comprehensive ? 
 
 2. The Second Resolution is directed against 'the en- 
 deavours which are being made by a section of the clergy 
 to bring back an unscriptural and materialistic doctrine 
 of the Holy Communion, and a ritual hardly, if at all, 
 distinguishable from that of the Roman Mass repudiated 
 at the Reformation.' 
 
 No High Churchman would admit that his doctrine was 
 really ' unscriptural and materialistic' It is based directly
 
 19 
 
 on two contexts of Holy Scripture (the Words of Institution 
 and i Cor. xi. 29). And, whatever we may think of the 
 interpretation of these passages, it cannot be said to be 
 wanting in strictness. 
 
 The idea that his teaching was really ' materialistic,' a 
 thoughtful High Churchman would repudiate no less than 
 his opponents. 
 
 As to ritual, our own Communion Service is made up of 
 elements every one of which has its counterpart in ancient 
 Liturgies and Service-books. And High Churchmen do 
 but seek to emphasize this continuity. Perhaps I may be 
 allowed to refer to a paper by Canon C. E. Hammond, 
 Vicar of Menheniot (The Order of Holy Communion, 
 Plymouth, 1897), as exhibiting the relation of our own 
 Service to the older Services in a singularly clear, simple 
 and instructive manner. 
 
 3. From the Third Resolution on Confession I do not 
 substantially differ. But I think that it should be distinctly 
 recognized that there are many minds to which Confession 
 is a very real help, and I believe that in practice it is chiefly 
 such that have recourse to it. On the whole I believe that, 
 speaking with the rough approximation which is all that is 
 attainable in human affairs, those for whom Confession is a 
 good thing practise it, and those for whom it would not be 
 good do not. I should object as much as the signatories to 
 having it pressed indiscriminately as a duty. 
 
 4. The Resolution on the Reservation of the Sacrament 
 seems to me to cover and confuse two distinct things ; re- 
 servation for purposes of Worship, and reservation for the 
 Communion of the Sick. For the latter, properly guarded, 
 it seems to me that there is much to be said. 
 
 5. The last Resolution speaks of ' the pretension put 
 forward by a section of Churchmen that the law of the 
 Church in spiritual matters is to be authoritatively inter- 
 preted by the clerical order alone.'
 
 20 
 
 I would ask, What section of Churchmen maintains this ? 
 As far as I know, High Churchmen would be perfectly 
 willing to give to laymen a voice in interpreting the law 
 of the Church, provided that in some valid sense they are 
 appointed by the Church and represent the Church. 
 
 I confess that these Resolutions remind me forcibly of 
 what I would conclude by urging, the solemn duty which 
 we owe alike to God and man, a duty at no time more 
 imperative than at the present, to use the utmost care in 
 ascribing to others such opinions only as are really theirs. 
 
 OXFORD : HORACE HART 
 PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY