«3* 
 
 re «& 
 
 .safe *S 
 
 ™5S? 
 
 
 Is ■' 
 
 <■■<
 
 LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 CLERGY AND LAITY 
 
 PROVINCE, 
 
 WILLIAM, LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 
 
 LONDON 
 
 1845.
 
 London : 
 
 Punted by Luke James Hansard & Co. 
 
 Near Lincoln's- Inn Fields.
 
 LETTER, 
 
 r OR a considerable time past my attention has 
 been anxiously turned to the divisions in the Church, 
 occasioned by differences of opinion with respect 
 to the intention of certain rubrical directions in 
 the Liturgy, and diversities of practice in the per- 
 formance of Divine Service. These questions, 
 relating to matters in themselves indifferent, but 
 deriving importance from their connexion with the 
 maintenance of uniformity and order in the solemn 
 ministrations of the Church, are rendered difficult 
 by the ambiguity of the Rubrics in some instances, 
 and, in all, by the doubts which may arise as to the 
 weight which should be allowed to general usage 
 when it varies from the written law. It is partly 
 on these accounts, and partly from uncertainty with 
 respect to the extent of the powers committed to 
 the Archbishop of the Province, in the Preface to 
 the Book of Common Prayer, for the resolution of 
 
 a2
 
 doubts in regard to the contested points, ttiat 
 I have not felt myself justified in expressing an 
 authoritative opinion upon questions occasionally 
 submitted to me on these subjects. I was, indeed, 
 willing to hope that these controversies, like many 
 of much greater importance which have for a season 
 disquieted the Church, would be suffered to die 
 away of themselves, when the arguments on each 
 side had been thoroughly sifted, from the good 
 sense of the parties engaged in them, and the ge- 
 neral conviction of their unprofitableness. But 
 having been disappointed in this expectation, and 
 considering the tendency of continued agitation to 
 weaken the sacred bond of affection which ought to 
 unite the Clergy and Laity as members of one body 
 in Christ, I hold it a duty to come forward, in the 
 hope of allaying animosities, and putting a stop to 
 dissensions which are shown by experience to be 
 not only unedifying but mischievous. With this 
 view I would call your attention to a few consider- 
 ations, which, with persons who are desirous of 
 peace, will, I trust, have their due weight. 
 
 It has long been observed that, in the perform- 
 ance of Divine Service in the generality of our 
 
 u.uc*
 
 parochial churches, there has been a deviation, in 
 certain particulars, from the express directions of 
 the Rubric, and that, in some cases, a difference 
 in respect to the sense of the Rubric has led to a 
 diversity in practice. In regard to such points, 
 in themselves non-essential, the most conscientious 
 clergymen have felt themselves justified in treading 
 in the steps of their predecessors ; and hence the 
 irregularity (for all departure from rule is irre- 
 gular), which seems, in some instances at least, 
 to have existed from the beginning, became invete- 
 rate. There have, I apprehend, at all times been 
 clergymen who have been distressed by this incon- 
 sistency ; and of late years it has been regarded by 
 many excellent men as irreconcilable with the 
 obligations which they took upon themselves on 
 their admission into Holy Orders. Under the 
 influence of these scruples, they thought it right 
 to adhere as closely as possible to the letter of the 
 Rubric in their ministrations ; whilst others of their 
 brethren, not less conscientious, have been deter- 
 mined by considerations, in their estimation of 
 great weight, to follow the usage which they found 
 established in their respective churches. Under 
 these circumstances a diversity of practice has
 
 6 
 
 arisen, which is not only inconsistent with the 
 principle of uniformity maintained by the Church, 
 but is sometimes associated in the minds of the 
 people with peculiarities of doctrine, and gives 
 birth to suspicions and jealousies destructive of the 
 confidence which should always subsist between 
 the flock and their pastor. To prevent the increase 
 of an evil which might terminate in actual schisms 
 was confessedly most desirable ; and the most 
 effectual mode of accomplishing the object, it has 
 been thought, would be found in general conformity 
 to the Rubric. Universal concurrence in this easy 
 and obvious regulation would have combined the 
 several advantages of securing compliance with the 
 law of the Church and the land, of putting a 
 stop to unauthorized innovations, and of excluding 
 party distinctions, in their character decidedly un- 
 christian, from the public worship of God ; and 
 I cannot but regret that measures which, with a 
 view to these good purposes, have been recom- 
 mended by high authorities, should not have been 
 received with unanimous acquiescence, as the means 
 of restoring order and peace, without any departure 
 from the principles of the Church, or offence to 
 the most scrupulous conscience.
 
 At the same time, I am sensible that those who 
 object have much to allege in their justification. 
 If the written law is against them, they plead an 
 opposite usage, in parochial churches at least, 
 reaching back, perhaps, to the time when the inten- 
 tion of the lawgiver was best understood, supersed- 
 ing its literal sense, and determining its real 
 meaning ; they appeal to the general consent of 
 Bishops, Clergy and Laity, implied in the absence 
 of any effectual interference during so long a period ; 
 they object to the sudden revival of rules, which 
 in their opinion are obsolete, and still more, to their 
 rigid enforcement after so long a term of abeyance. 
 In fairness to them we must allow, that this dislike 
 of alterations in the manner of worship to which 
 they have been accustomed from their infancy, 
 proceeding, as it does, from attachment to the 
 ordinances of the Church, ought not to be visited 
 with unkindly censure ; and we can hardly be 
 surprised at any change being regarded with sus- 
 picion when so many attempts have been made to 
 introduce innovations which are really objectionable, 
 and tend, as far as they go, to alter the character 
 of our Church. It must also be granted that the 
 intention of the Church is not always clearly dis-
 
 8 
 
 coverable from the language of the Rubric, nor 
 determinable with absolute certainty from the records 
 of early practice. In such cases it may with some 
 show of reason be said, that, as the eminent men 
 to whom the several revisions of the Liturgy were 
 successively entrusted, did not see the necessity of 
 giving directions so precise as to ensure a rigid 
 conformity in every particular, we may be contented 
 to acquiesce in slight deviations from rule, sug- 
 gested by convenience, and sanctioned by long 
 usage. 
 
 Now, whatever may be the force of the arguments 
 on either side, a difference of opinion will probably 
 always exist in regard to the contested points. But 
 all parties will concur in regarding these points as 
 of far less importance than the maintenance of that 
 mutual confidence which, next to support from 
 above, forms the main strength of the Church, 
 producing the harmonious co-operation of its several 
 members, and disposing the people to look up with 
 reverence to their pastor as their spiritual instructor 
 and guide. In whatever degree, or by whatever 
 means, the tie of affection is loosened, a propor- 
 tionate diminution will follow of that moral influ-
 
 ence on which the efficiency of the Clergyman's 
 teaching will always depend. 
 
 The case, then, if fairly considered with reference 
 to the existing dissensions, and the results to be 
 expected from their continuance, will show the 
 necessity of mutual forbearance to the peace and 
 the honour, I may even say, to the safety, of 
 the Church. The Laity, it may be hoped, will 
 see the propriety of respecting the consciences 
 of such of the Clergy as have held themselves 
 bound to strict compliance with the express direc- 
 tions of the Rubric, without regard to former 
 disuse ; and the Clergy will perceive the expe- 
 diency of not pressing too harshly, or abruptly, the 
 observance of laws which, having by themselves 
 and their predecessors been long suffered to sleep, 
 have now the appearance of novelty. I am fully 
 alive to the importance of uniformity in the cele- 
 bration of Divine Service ; but I think it would 
 be purchased too dearly at the expense of lasting 
 divisions, — a consequence which, I trust, will be 
 averted by a suspension of the existing disputes. 
 My hope of such an adjustment is grounded on 
 the wisdom, temper, and piety which are engaged
 
 10 
 
 on both sides of the question. A settlement which 
 would have the sanction of law is at the present 
 moment impossible ; and, were it possible, could 
 hardly be attempted with hope of success, till the 
 subsisting excitement has been allayed by time and 
 reflection. But till that time shall arrive, our 
 regard to the spiritual interests of our brethren 
 ought surely to put a stop to contentions, which, 
 besides the offence against charity, engage much 
 time and ability which might be infinitely better 
 applied, and which can afford pleasure to those 
 only who bear ill-will to our Church. The 
 matters in controversy, considered in themselves, 
 are not of vital importance : the service in our 
 Churches has in general been conducted in con- 
 formity to the Apostle's direction, with order and 
 decency ; and, whether performed with exact 
 regard to the letter of the Rubric, or with the 
 variations established by general usage, will still be 
 decent and orderly. I therefore entreat you to 
 consider, whether the peace of the Church should 
 be hazarded by prolonging an unprofitable con- 
 troversy, at a time, more especially, when her 
 energies are directed, with such hope of success, 
 to the promotion of religion and morals, and when
 
 11 
 
 the Clergy and Laity are zealously engaged in 
 united exertions for the erection and endowment 
 of Churches and Schools, and for other pious 
 and beneficial objects, in almost every part of the 
 country. 
 
 What I would most earnestly recommend, for 
 the present, is the discontinuance of any pro- 
 ceedings, in either direction, on the controverted 
 questions. In churches where alterations have been 
 introduced with general acquiescence, let things 
 remain as they are ; in those which retain the less 
 accurate usage, let no risk of division be incurred 
 by any attempt at change, till some final arrange- 
 ment can be made with the sanction of the proper 
 authorities. In the case of churches where agi- 
 tation prevails, and nothing has been definitely 
 settled, it is not possible to lay down any general 
 rule which may be applicable to all circumstances. 
 But is it too much to hope that those who are 
 zealous for the honour of God and the good of his 
 Church, will show, by the temporary surrender of 
 their private opinions, that they are equally zea- 
 lous in the cause of peace and charity ?
 
 12 
 
 On the particular questions which disquiet the 
 public mind, I think it unadvisable to pronounce 
 an opinion. Upon careful examination, I have 
 found reason to think, that some of these questions 
 are more difficult of solution than is commonly 
 imagined, and that the meaning which occurs at 
 first sight is not always the most correct. And 
 the general question, in respect to what should 
 be conceded to usage in controlling or modifying 
 the written law, seems to me to be open to much 
 doubt. But, if I were ever so fully persuaded in 
 my own mind, I should be unwilling, for reasons 
 already assigned, to pronounce a judgment which, 
 not having legal authority, might be accepted by 
 some and disregarded by others, and might thus 
 increase the confusion which it was designed to 
 remedy. For similar reasons I have not thought it 
 expedient to call the Bishops of my Province to- 
 gether at this time, though it will be my desire, as 
 well as my duty, to seek their advice and assistance 
 when a fit opportunity presents itself. I am, how- 
 ever, fully assured of their general concurrence in 
 deprecating the continuance of discussions, which 
 will undoubtedly multiply strife and contention,
 
 13 
 
 but which, in the present posture of things, can 
 lead to no beneficial result. 
 
 In order to guard against misapprehension, I 
 think it proper to state, that all I have here said 
 is strictly confined to the rubrical questions which 
 have occasioned the present agitation. All change 
 in the performance of the Service, affecting the 
 doctrine of the Church, by alteration, addition, 
 or omission, I regard with unqualified disapproba- 
 tion. I may further remark, that the danger to the 
 Church would be great, if clergymen, not having due 
 respect either to episcopal authority or established 
 usage, should interpret the Rubric for themselves, 
 should introduce or curtail ceremonies at pleasure, 
 or make Divine Service in any way the means of 
 expressing their own theological opinions or party 
 views. In respect to the Ritual, the Preface to the 
 Book of Common Prayer directs all persons 
 having doubts, or diversly taking any thing in the 
 performance of the Church Service, to resort to the 
 Bishop of the diocese for the resolution of such 
 doubts, and the appeasing of diversities. Had due 
 attention been paid, from the first, to this salutary
 
 14 
 
 rule, the Church might perhaps have been saved 
 from much of the dissension which at various times 
 has divided her members, and grieved and perplexed 
 her rulers, and which, if not speedily checked, may 
 again cause a serious disturbance of her peace. 
 Considering the course I have suggested as offering 
 the only immediate means of averting such a 
 calamity, and at the same time preparing the way 
 for a final arrangement at a convenient season, I 
 earnestly recommend its adoption, in the hope that, 
 through the blessing of God, it may lay the founda- 
 tion of lasting peace ; " and to this end" — (I borrow 
 the words of a learned and pious ritualist) — " to this 
 end may the God of Peace give us all meek hearts, 
 quiet spirits, and devout affections, and free us from 
 all prejudice, that we may have full churches, fre- 
 quent prayers, and fervent charity ; that, uniting in 
 our prayers here, we may all join in His praises 
 hereafter, for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 
 Amen. 
 
 W. Cantuar. 
 Lambeth Palace, 
 
 Jan. 11, 1845. 
 
 London : Printed by Luke James Hansard & Co., near Lincoln's-Inn Fields.
 
 JP "■■"'«
 
 St: 
 
 
 ~>^»^r»> 
 
 ►JOB*-