*« 
 
 w * 
 
 
 ^f • ^^JB^ 
 
 
 
 mm 
 
 
 
 
 Wm_ 
 
 ^n^^Hu^y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y^.: m^
 
 mmm'nw'4 
 
 
 LI B RAR.Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVER.5ITY 
 
 or ILLINOIS
 
 10 
 
 THE LAW OF RITUALISM,
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY JOSEPH MASTERS AND SON, 
 
 ALDERSGATE STREET.
 
 To the Rt. Eev. the Bishop op Veemont, Presiding Bishop of 
 the Church in the United States. 
 
 Et. Eev. Father : — As the question of Eitualism is extensively 
 agitating the Church of England, and has already begun to make 
 itself felt in our own Church, it would give us, and many others, 
 pleasure to know your views of the subject in full : especially as to 
 whether an increase of Eitualism would be advisable among us, or 
 whether the ordinary average of present parochial practice would 
 best carry forward the great work of the Church in such a country 
 as ours. 
 
 We are, Et. Eev. Father, 
 
 Your obedient servants, and 
 
 Sons in the Church, 
 
 MOEGAN DIX, 
 
 J. I. TUCKEE, 
 
 J. FEEEMAN YOUNG, 
 
 P. K. CADY, 
 
 WM. CEOSWELL DOANE, 
 
 C. W. MOEEILL, 
 
 McW. B. NOYES, 
 
 EOBT. B. MINTUEN, 
 JOS. SANDS, 
 
 WILLIAM A. CONSTANT, 
 JOHN ABUETUS, 
 JOS. P. PIESSON, 
 JOHN F. MILLEE, 
 CHAELES CONaDON, 
 FEANCIS MANY.
 
 To the Eev. Des. Dix, Tuckee, and othees of the Cleegy 
 AND Laity. 
 
 My deae Beetheen and Feiends : — I thank you cordially for 
 the value which you seem disposed to attach to my views on the 
 vexed subject of Eitualism ; and cheerfully promise, under Divine 
 favor, to comply with your request, as soon as I can command the 
 necessary leisure from my official duties. 
 
 Your faithful servant in Christ, 
 
 JOHN H. HOPKINS. 
 
 Burlington, Vermont, April 5, 1866. 
 
 UIUC
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 The following pages are a proof that the present discussion 
 toucMng " Eitualism" is not confined to England : they are 
 an exact reprint (except as to type) of a remarkable book 
 published late last year in New York ; its circulation in the 
 United States has already led to the production of a second 
 and cheaper edition.^ The author, Dr. Hopkins, Bishop of 
 Vermont, is the Presiding Bishop of the American Church ; 
 he is now seventy -five years of age, and has held the Episcopal 
 Office for thirty-five years : this is some guarantee that he 
 was not likely to write imprudently on a subject which has 
 aroused strong prejudices and provoked sharp contention 
 among our Transatlantic brethren, though not in the same 
 degree as among ourselves. 
 
 Bishop Hopkins, too, has long been well known both in 
 America and in England as a leading anti-Eoman controver- 
 sialist : the following are two of his principal publications in 
 that character — 1. "The Church of Eome in her primitive 
 purity compared with the Church of Eome of the present 
 day," 1837. This was republished in England, with an 
 Introduction by the Eev. Henry Melvill, in 1839. 2. " The 
 End of Controversy controverted : a Eefutation of Milner's 
 
 ^ This may also be had from the Publisher of this reprint, price 2s.
 
 vi Advertisement. 
 
 End of Controversy ; in a Series of Letters addressed to the 
 Roman Archbishop [Kenrick] of Baltimore," 1854. 
 
 That one so antagonistic, as Bishop Hopkins always has 
 been, to Roman claims and Roman teaching, should now- 
 come forward to examine and to advocate " Ritualism," 
 ought to be a sufficient answer to those who assert that 
 Ritual practices are Romish in their origin, pernicious 
 in their eifects, opposed to the principles of the English 
 Reformation, and contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 It is in the hope of assisting to dispel these illusions that 
 this publication on Ritual by the Bishop of Vermont is now 
 brought under the notice of the English public in the 
 present form. 
 
 London, March, 1867.
 
 €Mt of eContents. 
 
 IfntrotJuction. 
 
 Necessity of Form and Order in the PMio Worship of the 
 Church — What is proposed in this Work — Resemblance to Rome 
 no Objection to Ritualism — No personal Inclination fotoards Ritual- 
 ism Fp. 1 — 5 
 
 dTir^t Cl)apter. 
 
 The Fivine Model of Ritual in the Tabernacle and Temple 
 — Priestly Vestments — Embroidery — Precious Stones — Incense — 
 Anointing Oil — The Golden Candlestick — Choral Service of the 
 Temple — All this by Fivine Command — The Temple resorted to by 
 owr Lord when on Forth Pp. 5 — 7 
 
 ^econtJ Cl)apter. 
 
 Portions of the Mosaic System passed aioay — The rest of that 
 System not abrogated — Our Lord Simself xvas the God of Ancient 
 Israel — The Christian Church at first composed of Jews only — 
 Fijfficulty of admitting the Gentiles to an Equality — The Council 
 of Jerusalem did not free Israel from the Ceremonial Law — All 
 Jeioish Christians zealous of the Latv — St. Paul and St. James — 
 The Mosaic System not superseded but perfected — The Ordina/ry 
 View not in accordance ivith Scriptu/re Pp. 8 — 13 
 
 Cftirtf Ci^apter. 
 
 The Ordina/ry View, as set forth by Bishop Sarold Browne — 
 Refutation of it — Proof that this Vieio consists of unauthorized 
 assmnptions — Passages from the Fpistles to the Romans and the 
 Galatians Pp. 13 — 19
 
 viii Table of Contents. 
 
 Continuation of the Reply to Bisliop Brotvne — The Epistle to tlie 
 Hebrews — The Old Covenant and the New — The Old Covenant 
 not restricted to the Ancient Ritual — Agar and Sarah, Mount 
 Sinai and Jerusalem — The Old Covenant, the Moral Law — The 
 Ceremonial Law a Part of the Covenant of Grace, though not yet 
 fully developed — Misapplication of the Covenant of Works by the 
 Jetvs — This View in Harmony loith Article VII. — The Scriptural 
 position of converted Jews , . Pp. 19 — 27 
 
 dTiftf) Cijaptct:. 
 
 Points of Voluntary Conformity to the Mosaic Ritual, on the 
 Part of the Primitive Church — Orientation — Position of the 
 Altar — The Atrium — Gates and Veils — Separation of Sexes — 
 Texts — Altars — Altars not inseparable from the Notion of Animal 
 Sacrifice — The Altar of Incense — Legs — Stone Altars — Candles 
 or Lamps — Incense — Bowing towards the Altar— Chrism in Con- 
 firmation — Vestments — Sticharia and Tunicles — Orarium — Alb — 
 Dalmatic — No Black in the Mosaic Ritual — The Book of Revelation 
 — White — The Reformation not caused by Ritual — Reasonableness 
 of Variety and Beauty in Ritual — Black introduced by the Preach- 
 ing Friars Pp. 27 — 41 
 
 ^ijrt]^ Ci)aptcr. 
 
 Summary of Points of Conformity between the Gentile Church 
 and the Mosaic System : 1. Threefold Ministry — 2. Three Great 
 Festivals — 3. Psalms, Scriptures, and Liturgy — 4. Incense, Chrism, 
 Lights — 5. Priestly Vestments — 6. Sacred Music, Chanting — 
 7. Magnificence of Church Edifices, Altars, Branches, Flowers, 
 Processions, Consecrations, The Tables of Consanguinity and 
 Affinity, and the Moral Law — The Jeidsh System Divine — Points 
 of Difference from Rome : 1. No Pope in Israel — 2. No Saint 
 Worship — 3. No Priestly Celibacy — 4. No Auricular Confession — 
 5. No Purgatory — 6. No Monasticism — 7. No adding of New 
 Articles of Faith — Good Things not to be rejected because Rome 
 retains them — This the Principle of the English Reformation — 
 The Pope not Antichrist — The Roman Church still a Part of the 
 Koly Catholic Church Pp. 4i — 48
 
 Table of Contents. ix 
 
 ^efteuti) Ci)apter. 
 
 The Legal Position of Ritualism in the Church of England — The 
 Tlnglish Huhrie concerning Ornaments — The Second Year of lEdtoard 
 VI. — The Vestments used at the Consecration of Bishops Kooper 
 and Poynet — Mitre, Cope, and Pastoral Staff — Consecration of 
 Archbishop Parker in Scarlet, xvith Silk Copes, and singing the Litany 
 — Queen Elizabeth favoring Ritual — Thomas Sampson" s Letter to 
 Peter Martyr about Candles, Crucifix, and Vestments — Puritanical 
 Opposition to the Queen — Surplice and Cap—Bishop Andrewes' 
 daily Furniture for the Altar — Bishop Cosin's Notes on the Prayer- 
 Book — His Opinion in favor of Vestments, Lights, Bowings and 
 Crossings, Altars, Albs, Chasubles, Copes, — BurleigKs Chapel — 
 Cosin in favor of the Credence and the Mixed Chalice, but not the 
 Anointing of the Sick with Oil — This Anointing approved of, in 
 Obedience to St. James — Legatine and Provincial Constitutions still 
 in force : 1. The Mixed Chalice ordered — 2. No price to be demanded 
 for Chrism, Oil, Baptism, Visiting or Anointing the Sick, Comr 
 munion, or Burial — List of Matters then in use— None of these 
 Things forbidden — Disused through the influence of Puritanism, but 
 the Laio not obsolete — Dr. Lushington declares it to be Lato still — 
 Burn^s Ecclesiastical Law — No condemnation of Chrism, Extreme 
 Unction, and Prayers for the Dead — Act of Uniformity — The 
 Thirtieth Canon — Modern Dress of Bishops destitute of all Legal 
 authority, except as to the Rochet — No Legal Authority for the 
 Black Goivn and Bands — Position of the English Ritualists justifi- 
 able both in Law and Reason — Ritual does not lead to Popery, but 
 the contrary — Personal preference for greater Simplicity, but allegi- 
 ance due to the Written Word of God — A splendid Ritual cawnot 
 be hostile to a pure faith or to a true Spirituality Pp. 48 — 65 
 
 (Qi%\)i\) Chapter. 
 
 The State of the Question in our own Church — Preface to our 
 American Book — Mere Omission not equivalent to Condemnation or 
 Prohibition — The Common Laio continued after the Revolution — 
 The same Principle applies to the Law Ecclesiastical — Positive 
 Law requisite to abrogate ivhat was Law before — Application of 
 this Principle : 1. Our Church free from the State, and our altered 
 Prayer-Book alone obligatory — 2. The Athanasian Creed omitted, 
 but not condemned — 3. Our Church has laid down no Law about 
 Vestments ; the English Law therefore still binding ; the Black 
 Gown only tolerated, being Popish in its Origin; Custom of no 
 Authority, unless running back beyond Memory — 4*. Impossible to
 
 X Table of Contents. 
 
 find out what our ^Ecclesiastical Vestments are, except from English 
 Law ; Bishops' Costume as noio ivorn absolutely destitute of Legal 
 Warrant ; change hy adopting the Forms of Alb and Surplice, and 
 laying aside Bands and Blach Goivn ; change inform and color 
 probable; not a Subject of indifference — 5. The Choral Service 
 not forbidden — 6. Cathedrals, Crosses, Credences, ^Episcopal Chairs, 
 AUar Cloths, Leans and Chapters, Archdeacons, Metropolitans, 
 Archbishops, not prohibited, therefore laivful among us. — 7. Altar- 
 lights, Chrism, Incense, the Mixed Chalice, Pictwed Windows, all 
 equally lawful Pp, 65—72 
 
 mm)^ CI)aptcr. 
 
 Two classes in the Primitive Church, the Jeios who " Icept the Loajo^^ 
 and the Gentiles loho were Free — Fach respected the other — Fxpedi- 
 ency justifies a similar Livision of Parties as to Ritual now — The 
 Puritanical Flement at work to prevent Unity — Origin of it at 
 Geneva — Better vieios of Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin — The 
 Continental Systems running to Rationalism — This consequence not 
 foreseen in the Sixteenth Century — Lefinition of High Chu/rch and 
 Low Church — The Writer no Partisan of either — Christian Tolera- 
 tion — Puritanism not to he reenacted — -We must not condemn the 
 Bible — The Ritual Experiment to be fairly tried — No Legislor 
 tion to infringe on present Liberty either Way — Ritualism to be 
 proved hy Experience — Probable Growth and Prevalence of Ritual- 
 ism Pp. 72—80 
 
 Approval of Ritualism begins and ends with the Bible — " Glory 
 and Beamtf — A Question of Order, but not essential to Acceptance 
 with Christ — A Living Faith — Ritualism not hostile to it — QuaJcers 
 the straitest Formalists — They are disappearing — Personal Habits 
 not likely to be changed — Ritualism may increase the Growth and 
 Infiuence of the Church, if conducted in Union with true spiHtual 
 Levotion Pp. 81—83
 
 Entrotiuction. 
 
 Necessity of Form and Order in Public WorsMp. 
 
 The subject on which, several of my esteemed brethren 
 are pleased to ask my opinion, has been familiar to my own 
 mind for many years, although it is only of late that it has 
 begun to excite any general attention. Amongst a large 
 proportion of my fellow Christians, the ritual or ceremonial 
 part of divine worship is thought to be a matter of perfect 
 indifference. For, since true religion is acknowledged to be 
 a spiritual life in the soul, granted to the humble disciple 
 of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, through faith, 
 they have concluded that its outward form has received no 
 corresponding care from the Almighty. God looks on the 
 heart. And if that be right, the external expression of 
 devotion is left free to all the varieties of human taste and 
 feeling. 
 
 This, in the judgment of many, seems to be a very satis- 
 factory conclusion. Yet I cannot assent to it, for several 
 reasons. Pirst, because it stands in opposition to the wis- 
 dom of the supreme Lawgiver, when He saw fit to dictate 
 the ritual of the Church established for His own chosen 
 people. Secondly, because it contradicts the analogy of 
 all His other works, where we see that while the life is one 
 thing and the form is another, yet both are ordained by the 
 Word of God. The life of religion is indeed a spiritual 
 principle, but that is no reason why the Lord should be 
 indifferent to its for7n. The soul is spiritual, and yet the 
 Creator has united it to a body, and that body is the work 
 of His Almighty hand. Every thing which His wondrous 
 1
 
 4 Introduction. 
 
 mercy and surpassing love of her glorious Eedeemer, then 
 arises the important inquiry, How shall this sublime duty 
 be performed, in the/or;;^ and order which He has approved, 
 and to which we have the best assurance that He will vouch- 
 safe His blessing ? 
 
 This, therefore, presents the subject embraced in the 
 term " Eitualism." And in my. treatment of it, I propose 
 to advance nothing which is not derived from the Bible — 
 the written Word of God. For I hold that inspired record 
 to be the divine standard of faith and practice. Our own 
 Eeformed Church knows no other, while she adopts the 
 judgment of the primitive Christians as the best and safest 
 intei-preter. In accordance with this established principle, 
 I shall first set forth the claims of the Ritual which the 
 Lord gave to Israel, as being the only model entitled to our 
 highest reverence. Secondly, I shall examine the common 
 opinion that this Eitual has been entirely done away ; which 
 I consider to be a very manifest error. Thirdly, I shall 
 show how the Gentile Church, though free from the cere- 
 monial law, yet took its whole system of Eitualism from 
 the Jewish pattern. Fourthly, the existing law of our 
 Mother Church of England will come under discussion. 
 And lastly, I shall state the merits of the question, as it 
 aifects the growth and prosperity of the Church in the 
 United States. 
 
 I am quite aware, that although my line of argument will 
 be entirely Scriptural, yet the same objection may be made 
 to my conclusions which has been so zealously urged against 
 the English Eitualists, namely, that they are in danger of 
 drawing too near to the Church of Eome. To this I can 
 oidy reply, in advance, that our glorious Eeformation was 
 directed, not against the Ritual'mn of Eome, so far as it 
 retained the sanction of the Bible and the Primitive Church, 
 but against those false and corrupt doctriiies by which she 
 had so grossly innovated upon the pure Creed of the Gospel. 
 The main labors of my ministerial life have been devoted 
 to our controversy with Eome, to the defence of our martyred 
 Eeformers, and to the vindication of our own Scriptural, 
 Apostolic, and really Catholic system. I have nothing to 
 retract or to alter, in aU my former publications on that
 
 Introduction. 5 
 
 subject ; nor is there a sentence in the present work which 
 can justly be considered inconsistent with the position which 
 I have hitherto maintained, as the uncompromising antagonist 
 of Popery. That there are some features of Ritualism, in 
 which the Church of Eome and the Oriental Churches are 
 in closer accordance with the primitive practice than we 
 are, may, indeed, be granted. But it will be seen, in the 
 following pages, that it was otherwise at the time when our 
 Reformation was established under Edward YI., and that 
 these matters do not involve the slightest change in our 
 Liturgy or Articles. Nor do I mean to be understood as 
 recommending any alteration in our ordinary mode of wor- 
 ship. To this, neither my habits nor my advanced age 
 would lead me to incline. But my personal tastes and my 
 life-long associations furnish no sufficient warrant for a 
 judgment which condemns any of my brethren, either here 
 or elsewhere, who seek for a closer accordance with what 
 they regard as a better standard, on the highest authority. 
 On the ground of law, I may be obliged to grant that their 
 argument is entitled to confidence. Yet it does not follow 
 from this that I should take any active part in their course, 
 so long as I feel doubtful of its expediency. 
 
 With these introductory remarks, I shall proceed to dis- 
 cuss the claims of Eitualism, in the proposed order. 
 
 The Divine Model of Ritual in Tabernacle and Temple. 
 
 In every thing connected with the Church of our Divine 
 Eedeemer, our first recourse should be to the Bible — the 
 only unerring guide to the will of God. And therefore I 
 take that sure Word of inspired truth as the best standard 
 on the claims of Eitualism. 
 
 Once only, since the beginning of time, has the Almighty 
 condescended to give His people a minute detail of the rites
 
 6 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 and ceremonies which He required in His public and 
 authorized worship. The Church of the Jews was in all 
 respects a divine institution. Its regulations were impera- 
 tive, on the highest principle, that " Thus saith the Lord." 
 Disobedience was punished by immediate judgments, as 
 in the case of Nadab and Abihu, and Korah, Dathan and 
 Abiram ; and in many of its minor rules so rigid was the 
 law that the soul who transgressed was to be " cut off from 
 his people." 
 
 In that Church we have the first command to erect the 
 Tabernacle in the Wilderness, succeeded by the Temple of 
 Solomon ; and both, in all their parts, were ordered by 
 specific direction from Heaven. 
 
 In that Church we see the first institution of a regular 
 priesthood, threefold in its order, — the High Priest, the 
 Priests and the Levites. 
 
 In that Church we see the complete system aiTanged for 
 the sacrifices, which were all fulfilled in the grand atoning 
 death of Christ, " The Lamb of God, who taketh away the 
 sins of the world." 
 
 In that Church we have the principle established which 
 admitted the infant of eight days to the Covenant of Grace 
 by the same rite of circumcision that was administered to 
 the adult proselyte. 
 
 In that Church we see the utmost display of rich magni- 
 ficence, adapted to produce the strongest emotions of awe 
 and reverence and admiration in every beholder, — carving 
 overlaid with gold in every part, elaborate embroidery, pre- 
 cious stones : the chief workmen, Bezaleel, in the Tabernacle,^ 
 inspired of God to perform his appointed functions, and 
 Hiram, in the erection of the Temple,^ " filled with wisdom 
 and understanding," to accomplish a result so far exceeding, 
 in its wealth of splendor, all that the world had ever known. 
 
 And, passing over many other details, in that Church we 
 see the altar of incense and the golden censers, the holy 
 anointing oil applied in the consecration of the priesthood, 
 and the seven-branched golden candlestick kept ever burn- 
 ing : while the Almighty orders, with the most minute pre- 
 cision, the holy garments of Aaron and his sons, in which 
 J Exod. xxxi. 2, 3. ^ 1 Kings vii. 13, 14.
 
 Ritualism of the Jewish Church. 7 
 
 they should stand to minister before Him. Here, again, we 
 have the same magnificence, — for Aaron, a mitre, and a 
 golden plate inscribed with "Holiness to the Lord;" a 
 breastplate of jewels, a coat of fine linen, a robe of blue, a 
 girdle of scarlet, gold, purple, &c., with other clothing as 
 well for him as for his sons, but all expressly said to be " for 
 glory and for beauty."^ 
 
 Lastly, in that Church we see the largest provision for the 
 praise of God accompanied by all the instruments of music, 
 in the Psalms given by inspiration and chanted morning and 
 evening, eveiy day, by trained and skillful choristers, in which 
 the royal David sometimes bore his part. So that, on the 
 whole, while the doctrine of the Lord was secured by the 
 constant reading of His Word, the ritual and ceremonial 
 order commanded were of the most grand and imposing 
 character. And all this, be it well remembered, was the 
 Law prescribed expressly by the Supreme Lawgiver — by 
 Him who changeth not, but is "the same, yesterday, to-day, 
 and forever." 
 
 Here, then, in the Church established by the condescend- 
 ing love of God for His own chosen people, we behold the 
 great and the only divine model of all ritual worship. I 
 need not remind the reader that it stood until the coming of 
 the glorious Eedeemer; that He honored the Temple as 
 "His Father's house;" that He made it His daily resort 
 when in Jerusalem ; that He cast out, with the strong hand, 
 those buyers and sellers who profaned it ; and that He came 
 " not to destroy the law, but to fulfill." But it is commonly 
 supposed that all this sublime display of the Jewish Church 
 had no application after the Saviour's earthly mission was 
 completed ; and that the whole of the system, so often pro- 
 nounced by the Lord to be " an ordinance forever," was 
 entirely done away by Apostolic authority, under the guidance 
 of the Holy Spirit, when the perfect doctrine of the Gospel 
 was proclaimed "to every creature" in the Church of Christ. 
 This common error must be next examined, and, if I do not 
 much deceive myself, it can be thoroughly dispelled from 
 every mind which is candid enough to be open to conviction. 
 
 1 Exod. xxviii. 2, 40.
 
 8 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 <Secont( ffiljapter. 
 
 The Mosaic Si/stem not Siipei'seded, but Perfected. 
 
 That certain portions of tlie Church system prescribed 
 for ancient Israel were designed to pass away into a higher 
 and more extensive form of divine arrangement, when our 
 Lord had finished His marvellous work of obedience and 
 propitiation for our fallen and sinful race, is not to be doubted 
 for a moment. The Apostles were now commissioned to be 
 the lawgivers to all mankind. " As my Father hath sent 
 me," saith the Saviour, "even so send I you." The Holy 
 Ghost came down, on the day of Pentecost, to qualify them 
 for their sublime ministry. Thenceforth, they spake "as 
 the Spirit gave them utterance." Christ Jesus was to be 
 acknowledged as the Great High Priest, exalted to the right 
 hand of the Father in Heaven, and the Apostles were His com- 
 missioned vicegerents upon earth. Of course the limitation 
 of the priesthood to the posterity of Aaron was to pass away 
 into this larger and nobler priesthood, intended no longer 
 for a single nation, but for the whole world. The animal 
 sacrifices would also cease, because they were only types of 
 the great Sacrifice which the Cross of Christ had fulfilled. 
 And He had Himself instituted the new memorial of His 
 precious Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the holy Eu- 
 charist : while the other Sacrament of Baptism in the name 
 of the Trinity was also appointed, after His resurrection. 
 
 But was the rest of the divine system to be abrogated ? 
 Our Lord, as all Christians admit, was the God of ancient 
 Israel. As to His human nature. He was Himself a Jew. 
 All His Apostles were Jews, without exception. And the 
 first Christian Church, gathered together at Jerusalem, con- 
 sisted of Jews only. Being thus born and educated in the 
 Church of their nation, which they justly held to be the only 
 Church ordained by the authority of Heaven, could they pos- 
 sibly dream of forsaking it, without an express command of 
 their Divine Master ? Manifestly not. They held, there- 
 fore, that the laws laid down for the Church of Israel were
 
 Practice of the Apostles. 9 
 
 still binding upon them, as Israelites, with no other change 
 than that which the fulfillment of the sacrifices by the Cross 
 of Christ and the enlarged form of the threefold priesthood 
 rendered imperative. Some time elapsed before the question 
 arose whether the Gentiles, or the heathen nations around 
 them, could be admitted to share in the blessings of the 
 Gospel. But there seems to have been no doubt that, if ad- 
 mitted, they must be subject, like the Jews, to the precepts 
 of the Mosaic system. 
 
 We know from the sacred book of the Acts, how strongly 
 this conviction possessed the minds of the disciples, until it 
 pleased God to enlighten St. Peter by a heavenly vision, and 
 the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost granted to the Gen- 
 tile Cornelius^ made it clear to the Apostle that the Gentiles 
 also should be taken into fellowship, without becoming pro- 
 selytes to the law of Israel. But the difficulty was not yet 
 overcome ; for we read that St. Paul, to whom the same 
 design of divine mercy had been revealed, found himself 
 constantly opposed in his work among the Gentiles by the 
 Christian Jews who held the old opinion ; till at length he 
 determined to go, with Barnabas and certain other brethren, 
 and submit the dispute to the whole Council of the Apostles 
 and Elders at Jerusalem. The fifteenth chapter of the Acts 
 relates that, when they came together to consider the ques- 
 tion, there was " much disputing ;" certain of the Pharisees, 
 who believed the Gospel, insisting that the converts among 
 the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. ^ 
 The result, however, was in accordance with the judgment 
 of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the decree was passed, as dic- 
 tated by St. James, with the approval of the Holy Ghost, 
 which left the Gentiles free to enter the Church of Christ, 
 without submitting to circumcision or any other rite of the 
 ceremonial law, save only in the abstinence from "meats 
 offered to idols, and from blood and from things strangled, 
 and from fornication." These things were called " neces- 
 sary," because, if the Gentile converts failed to observe them, 
 it would be impossible to maintain any intercourse of hos- 
 pitality with their Jewish brethren. 
 
 ^ Acts X. " Acts XV. 5.
 
 10 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 But did this decree abolisli tlie divine law which the Lord 
 had given to His chosen Israel ? I answer, No, without the 
 slightest hesitation. Por in the next chapter we read that 
 St. Paul, on his journey to publish this very act of the Apos- 
 tolic Council, being desirous to have Timothy accompany 
 him, circumcised the young disciple ; although his mother 
 only was an Israelite, while his father was a Greek, so that 
 he was not so much to be accounted a Jew as a Gentile, by 
 the Mosaic law. But we have a much stronger proof in the 
 twenty-first chapter, when, eight years later according to the 
 received chronology, viz., A.D. 60, St. Paul came again to 
 confer with the Apostles in Jerusalem. And here I must 
 ask my readers' especial attention to the language of the 
 sacred historian, as quite conclusive upon this interesting 
 question. 
 
 " The day following," saith St. Luke,^ "■ Paul went in 
 with us unto James ; and all the elders were present. And 
 when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what 
 things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry. 
 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said 
 unto him. Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there 
 are of Jews which believe ; and they are all zealous of the 
 law : and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all 
 the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, 
 saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither 
 to walk after the customs. What is it therefore ? the multi- 
 tude must needs come together : for they will hear that thou 
 art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee : We have 
 four men which have a vow on them ; them take, and purify 
 thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they 
 may shave their heads : and all may know that those things, 
 whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing ; 
 but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the 
 law. As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have 
 written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save 
 only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, 
 and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication." 
 
 The advice thus given to St. Paul was faithfully followed 
 on his part, though his compliance failed to satisfy the pre- 
 i Acts xxi. 18-26.
 
 Jewish Ritual not Abrogated. 11 
 
 judice which his enemies had so successfully raised against 
 him, on account of his supposed opposition to the Mosaic 
 system. 
 
 Here, then, we have a plain and indisputable demonstra- 
 tion that the Apostles, including St. Paul himself, did not 
 hold that the divine Church of Israel was abolished or super- 
 seded, but rather perfected and enlarged, by the Gospel. It 
 had pleased the Lord to establish that Church for His chosen 
 people, the posterity of Abraham ; and although it was now 
 His gracious will to admit the Gentiles to Christian fellow- 
 ship without requiring their adoption of the ancient system 
 in all things, yet this did not affect the Jewish portion of 
 the Church, nor could they consider that their sacred law 
 was done away, unless they had the same express authority 
 from the Supreme Lawgiver for its repeal, which they had 
 for its establishment. And no man can justly question the 
 correctness of their position. Poritis certain that \}iv^ repeal 
 of law demands the same power as its enactment, and its ob- 
 ligations must continue in force, until the authority of the 
 Legislator has done it away. 
 
 It is true, however, that a posterior law, which is plainly 
 inconsistent with a former one, works of necessity a repeal, 
 so far as the difference extends, and hence it is a well-known 
 maxim that Leges posteriores priores contr arias abrogant. The 
 High Priesthood, and the limitation to the posterity of Aaron 
 and the tribe of Levi, passed away ; for the true High Priest, 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, was now revealed, and had gone to 
 the right hand of His Father in Heaven. The Twelve Apos- 
 tles were His vicegerents upon earth, with special regard to 
 the Twelve Tribes of Israel, and a thirteenth was added to 
 be the Apostle of the Gentiles, no one amongst them having 
 a supremacy of government over the rest, but all being ser- 
 vants of the same divine Lord, and all guided by the same 
 Holy Spirit. The animal sacrifices were also done away, as 
 they were types of the Sacrifice of Christ, " the Lamb of 
 God," and were now fulfilled. Instead of these, a new me- 
 morial of His death w^as ordained by Himself, in the Sacra- 
 ment of the Holy Eucharist ; and the other Sacrament of 
 Baptism was established by the same Supreme Authority to 
 be an indispensable rite of initiation into the Church of
 
 13 The Law of RltuaUsin. 
 
 the Redeemer. Eut in all tliing-s else, the ancient Cliurcli of 
 Israel remained as sacred in the eyes of the Jewish disciples 
 as it was before. The Apostles regarded it, not as being 
 superseded, but advanced to its predicted consummation. 
 Like the plant, in which the flowers fall away, only to be 
 succeeded by the fruit, while the root, the stem, the branches, 
 and the leaves remain as before, and it is still the same plant, 
 only brought to maturity : even so they regarded the Church 
 as substantially the same, with no other change than that 
 which was essential to its spiritual perfectiou. 
 
 In this view of the question, it seems easy to account for 
 the course of the Apostles. Indeed, I am unable to conceive 
 how they could have adopted any other, with due respect to 
 the majesty of the divine Law^giver. And hence we see that 
 St. Paul himself regards the Gentile Churches as grafted 
 on the stock of Israel. "Thou bearest not the root," saith 
 he to the Eomans, "but the root thee."^ The Church at 
 Jerusalem, which thus marked its faithful observance of the 
 ceremonial law, continued, as Eusebius informs us, until the 
 destruction of the city by the army of Vespasian, commanded 
 by his son Titus, A.D. 70. And the historian gives the 
 names of the holy men who presided over it, from the time 
 of James the Just, who was its first Bishop. After that 
 event, there ceased to be any Church of Israelites, to keep 
 up the Apostolic reverence for the Mosaic system. The 
 Jewish Christians, who escaped the awful siege, dispersed 
 themselves among the Gentile Churches; and these, wdio 
 were free from the old ceremonial rules, have ever since had 
 the government in their own hands. But yet there has been 
 no abrogation of the ancient law given to Israel. The Jews 
 throughout the world still obey it, so far as their circum- 
 stances allow. And the time shall come, predicted by St. 
 Paul and all the prophets, when they shall be restored to 
 their own land, and acknowledge their true Messiah on the 
 throne of His father David, and embrace His Gospel of Sal- 
 vation and thus be "graffed in again." Then the world 
 shall behold, as we may well believe, a manifestation of the 
 Apostolic reverence for the same substantial principles of the 
 Church, however modified, which the wisdom of God pre- 
 1 Eom. si. 18.
 
 The Common Notion Erroneous. 13 
 
 scribed to His chosen Israel. That Church, remodelled in 
 accordance with His will, shall again be planted on Sion, 
 and shine, from the rising to the setting sun, under the pro- 
 mised reign of the Prince of Peace, who liveth and abideth 
 forever. 
 
 I am perfectly aware that this view of the subject is not 
 in accordance with the generally accepted notions of our 
 authors, who regard the language of St. Paul as quite con- 
 clusive to prove the abolition of the whole ceremonial law. 
 But I cannot reconcile this doctrine with the action of the 
 Apostles, just quoted ; and as they were unanimous, and all 
 inspired, I consider myself bound to show that there is no 
 contradiction between their practical course and the authori- 
 tative teaching of the great Master of the Gentiles, when 
 the subject is properly understood. 
 
 TJie Ordinary View Examined. 
 
 In examining the commonly accepted views of authors 
 on the subject before us, I cannot present them in a better 
 form than that which is adopted by Bishop Browne, in his 
 very excellent work on the XXXIX Articles. 
 
 " We know well," saith this enlightened theologian, " how 
 strongly St. Paul condemns those who adhered to the Jewish 
 ceremonial. Our Lord, indeed, had declared, that one jot 
 or tittle should not pass away till aU was fulfilled. But 
 aU was fulfilled when the sceptre departed from Judah, and 
 so the Jewish Commonwealth was dissolved ; and when the 
 types of the law had their full accomplishment in their great 
 Antitype, our Prophet, Priest, and King. The argument 
 of the whole Epistle to the G-alatians is directed against 
 the observance of Jewish ceremonies. The Epistle to the 
 Hebrews equally shows that the law had waxed old, and 
 was ready to vanish away, and that, its accomplishment 
 being perfected in Christ, there was no longer benefit to be
 
 14 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 gained by adhering to it. Indeed, in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians the Apostle declares, that if a man is circumcised, 
 and strives to keep the law {i. e., the ceremonial law of 
 Moses), Christ has become of no effect to him, he is fallen 
 from grace. "^ 
 
 Now in all this, our learned author only declares the 
 common opinion, adopted by some of the G-entile fathers, 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem, when there was no longer 
 any Church of Jewish Christians upon earth to maintain the 
 contrary. And the same opinion is generally followed to 
 the present day. But I cannot assent to it, because it 
 condemns the blessed Apostles, and the manifest position 
 taken under their guidance by the Mother Church in Jerusa- 
 lem, as set forth in the quotation from the Book of the Acts 
 in the previous chapter. I do not understand by what 
 authority we can presume to differ in judgment from the 
 inspired Messengers of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom He 
 called and qualified to plant His Church throughout the 
 world. Nor can I see the propriety of an interpretation 
 which sets St. Paul against the other Apostles, and even 
 against himself. For the better understanding of this very 
 serious question, however, let me proceed to consider the 
 statement of Bishop Browne, clause by clause, and test its 
 Scriptural consistency. 
 
 "We know well," saith our author, " how^ strongly St. 
 Paul condemns those who adhered to the Jewish Ceremonial 
 Law." I answer that he nowhere condemns them, save 
 only when the observance of that law w^as assumed to be 
 necessary to salvation; a position manifestly at war with 
 the liberty allowed to the converts among the Gentiles, to 
 whom the law of Israel had not been given, and who were 
 therefore acknowledged to be free. That this was the form 
 of the Pharisees' doctrine is plain from the fifteenth chapter 
 of the Acts,2 where we read, that " certain men which came 
 down from Judaea taught the brethren" (sc. the Gentile 
 Christians at Antioch), " and said. Except ye be circumcised 
 after the manner of Moses, ye cannot he saved'' This 
 teaching, of course, was strongly censured by St. Paul, 
 
 ^ Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles, (2d Lond. Ed.) p. 207. 
 ^ Verse 1.
 
 Tlie Law not Necessary to Salvation. 15 
 
 whose favorite doctrine was tliat fundamental truth of the 
 Gospel, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that 
 not of yourselves : it is the gift of God."^ " In Jesus 
 Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncir- 
 cumcision; hwi faith wJiich worketJi by love.''^ "A man is 
 justified by faith, without the deeds of the law."^ " With 
 the heart man believe th unto righteousness."^ "By the 
 deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified. "^ " They 
 which are oi faith, the same are the children of Abraham."^ 
 These, and many other passages, clearly state the spiritual 
 principle of salvation, so that " without faith, it is impossible 
 to please God."'' 
 
 But there were then, as there are now, a class of men 
 who trusted in their orn works for salvation, and placed 
 their hope in their punctual observance of religious forms, 
 without any proper consciousness of their dependence on 
 the perfect righteousness and atoning sacrifice of the Son 
 of God, or their absolute need of the awakening and 
 sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. These men had 
 no true conviction that they were sinners by nature and by 
 practice ; that they could only be pardoned by the free 
 grace of God, granted by the mediation of that Divine E,e- 
 deemer who died for their sins and rose again for their justi- 
 fication; that humble repentance and faith in Him could 
 alone restore them to the Divine favor ; and that no outward 
 act, and no religious ordinance, could be of any avail, where 
 genuine repentance and grateful faith and confidence in 
 Christ were wanting. 
 
 Against these self-righteous slaves of forms and cere- 
 monies, St. Paul contended with zealous constancy. But 
 nowhere does he condemn circumcision amongst the Israel- 
 ites, or blame his Jewish brethren for their adherence to 
 the Mosaic law. On the contrary, in answer to the ques- 
 tion, " What advantage hath the Jew, or what profit is 
 there in circumcision?" he replies, "Much every way."^ 
 And to show the true spiritual character of that ordinance, 
 he saith, that " he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; 
 
 1 Ephes. ii. 8. ^ Qal. v. 6. 3 ^q^ ijj^ 28. 
 
 ^ Eom. X. 10. 5 Horn. iii. 20. ^ Q-ai. iij. 7. 
 
 7 Heb. xi. 6. 8 Eom. iii. 1.
 
 16 Tlie Law of Ritualism. 
 
 neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh : 
 but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is 
 that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose 
 praise is not of men, but of God."^ This language might 
 be applied with equal correctness to the ordinances of the 
 Church. He is not a Christian who is only one outwardly, 
 neither are those sacraments which are merely outward in 
 the flesh. Eut he is a Christian who is one inwardly, and 
 the sacrifice we offer must be that of the heart, in the spirit 
 and not in the letter only, whose praise is not of men but of 
 God. 
 
 But does this doctrine warrant any disregard of the out- 
 ward form, as if it were incompatible with the spirit of in- 
 ward devotion ? It would be mere absurdity to think so. 
 And with respect to St. Paul himself, we know that he could 
 not have condemned circumcision when he administered it 
 to his favorite Timothy, nor did he turn aside from the 
 Mosaic ceremonies, when he accepted the advice of his 
 Apostolic brethren at Jerusalem, and publicly showed his 
 willingness to "walk orderly and keep the law." 
 
 Our author's next statement is as follows : " Our Lord," 
 saith he, " had indeed declared that one jot or one tittle 
 should not pass away till all was fulfilled. But all was ful- 
 filled when the sceptre departed from Judah, and so the 
 Jewish Commonwealth was dissolved; and when the types 
 of the law had their full accomplishment in their great Anti- 
 type, our Prophet, Priest and King." 
 
 This statement seems to me strangely deficient in the 
 nsual accuracy of the learned author. The Saviour saith, 
 that " one jot or one tittle should in nowise pass away till 
 all was fulfilled." All what ? Surely all that was predicted, 
 for the word "fulfill" plainly points to the prophecies. 
 But had not our Lord Himself foretold the end of the world 
 under the present dispensation, and His own second Ad- 
 vent ? And are these sublime events fulfilled ? Had He 
 not said to the Apostles, " In 'the regeneration when the 
 Son of Man shall sit in the throne of His glory, ye also 
 shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the Twelve Tribes 
 of Israel." Is that fulfilled ? The prophet Isaiah points 
 1 Eom. ii. 28-9.
 
 The Law not Repealed. 17 
 
 us to the time when the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, 
 and the lion shall eat straw like the ox ; when men shall 
 beat tlieir swords into ploughshares and their spears into 
 pruning hooks, and learn war no more. Is that fulfilled ? 
 The blessed Redeemer predicted the final resurrection, and 
 the general Judgment, when the angels should gather His 
 elect, and they should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven. Is that fulfilled ? But 
 it is needless to point out any more of those great events 
 which remain as yet in the distant future, but which shall 
 assuredly arrive in their appointed season, for the mouth 
 of the Lord hath spoken it. And if not one jot nor tittle 
 shall pass from the law until the whole be fulfilled, as the 
 Saviour Himself so expressly declared, what language can 
 be found to express a more enduring pei-petuity ? 
 
 The plain fact, therefore, seems to be that our learned 
 author's argument is based on a most unauthorised assump- 
 tion. The first coming, and the wondrous works and yet 
 more wondrous death, resurrection, and ascension of the 
 glorious Eedeemer, only fulfilled a part, though an all-im- 
 portant part, of the sublime plan which His precious Gospel 
 sets before us. The grand result is the prize to which we 
 are all exhorted to press forward, and there we have the 
 hope that is sure and steadfast, as an " anchor" to the soul. 
 
 I proceed to the third clause of our author's statement, 
 where he saith that " the whole Epistle to the Galatians is 
 directed against the observance of Jewish ceremonies." And 
 a little lower down he adds the declaration of the Apostle, 
 " that if a man is circumcised and strives to keep the law 
 {i. e., the ceremonial law of Moses), Christ has become of no 
 effect unto him, he is fallen from grace." But not a word 
 is said about the peculiar circumstances of the case, although 
 it is absolutely necessary to understand these, in order to 
 relieve the character of the Apostle from the grossest incon- 
 sistency. 
 
 The Galatians were a Church of heathen Gentiles, and, 
 of course, they had received the Gospel at the lips of St. 
 Paul, with perfect freedom from the Mosaic law, which had 
 only been ordained for Israel. But after they had become 
 thus established in the faith, they had been led away by 
 2
 
 18 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 some of tlie same Pharisaic Jews, who doubtless persuaded 
 them, as in the case already cited, to adopt circumcision 
 and all the rest of the Mosaic system, or they could not he 
 saved. 
 
 Of course, this, in their circumstances, was an open insult 
 to the authoritative truth of the Apostle's doctrine, which 
 was identical with the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, 
 and was in accordance with the mind of the Holy Spirit. 
 The Ceremonial Law was the special heritage of the Jewish 
 people, and as St. Paul had no right to impose it on the 
 Gentiles, they had no right to make it a law unto them- 
 selves, as being necessary to their salvation. Their doing 
 so, therefore, was an offence against the Holy Ghost. It 
 placed their souls in peril, because it w^as a virtual denial 
 of the sufficiency of the faith in Christ, which was the car- 
 dinal doctrine of the GospeL And thus it called for the 
 severe rebuke of the Apostle, since, through this fatal error, 
 they had " fallen from grace," and the Eedeemer became 
 " of no effect to them." 
 
 Thus, rightly understood, it is surely manifest that the 
 case of the Galatians affords no proof whatever of the abro- 
 gation of the law with respect to Israel. We have already 
 seen that all tlie Apostles, including St. Paul himself, con- 
 sidered the Mosaic ritual to be still binding upon the Jewish 
 Church in Jerusalem. It belonged to them and not to the 
 Gentiles. No Church may presume to change the obliga- 
 tions of religious duty, which must rest solely on the autho- 
 rity of Christ. The Galatians sinned, therefore, in acting 
 against His will concerning them. And the Jewish Church 
 would have been also open to rebuke, if they had laid aside 
 the divine law, so expressly prescribed to Israel, before it 
 had been repealed. 
 
 The remaining portion of our author's argument is in 
 these words, viz. : " The Epistle to the Hebrews," saith he, 
 " equally shows that the law had waxed old, and was ready 
 to vanish away, and that, its accomplishment being perfected 
 in Christ, there was no longer benefit to be gained by ad- 
 hering to it." 
 
 I do not acknowledge the correctness of this conclusion. 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews, when properly examined, will
 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews. 19 
 
 be found limited to a few of the highest and most important 
 doctrines, and does not conflict in any form with the reverence 
 of the Jewish Christians for circumcision, or the general 
 precepts of the Mosaic law. A brief analysis, however, may 
 be desirable, as this Epistle is the stronghold of those who 
 maintain the current hypothesis. 
 
 Jourtl) Cfjapter^ 
 
 The Ordinary View Further Examined. 
 
 The first topic treated in the Epistle to the Hebrews, is 
 the divine nature and majesty of Christ, which is proved 
 from the Psalms of David. Moses was faithful as a ser- 
 vant, but Christ Jesus as the Son of God. He is set forth, 
 next, as our Great High Priest, called after the order of 
 Melchizedek, who was greater than Abraham, because the 
 patriarch paid tithes to him and received his blessing. 
 And as our Lord was now exalted to the heavens, it was 
 evident that perfection could not be by the Levitical priest- 
 hood, which was only a type of the true High-priesthood of 
 Christ. "The priesthood therefore being changed," con- 
 tinues the Apostle, "there is made of necessity a change also 
 of the law." That is, of the law of the priesthood^ for that 
 was the only topic to which he referred. 
 
 The argument of the eighth chapter sets forth the main 
 ground for the current opinion, where we read of the two 
 covenants, the one being the covenant of works, presented 
 by the principle of legal obedience, which the Israelites 
 were constantly breaking ; and the other the covenant of 
 grace, through the merits and sacrifice of the Great High 
 Priest, who gave His OAvn blood to atone for the sins of 
 His chosen people. " If that first covenant had been fault- 
 less," saith the Apostle, "then should no place have been 
 sought for the second. Por, finding fault with them (i. e., 
 the people of Israel), He saith, Behold, ... I will make
 
 20 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 a new covenant with the house of Israel.'" And again : " This 
 is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after 
 those days, saith the Lord ; I will put My laAvs into their 
 mind, and write them in their hearts : and I will be to them 
 a God, and they shall be to Me a people : and they shall 
 not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his 
 brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for all shall hnoio Me, from 
 the least to the greatest. Por I will be merciful to their 
 unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I 
 remember no more. In that He saith, A 7iew coveyiant. He 
 hath made \k^ first old. Now that which decay eth and wax- 
 eth old, is ready to vanish away^^ 
 
 The first question that presents itself in the interpretation 
 of this passage, is the time intended by the phrase, " After 
 those days." The common opinion refers it to the period 
 of the Apostles. But how does that opinion consist with 
 the statement that this covenant should be made " with the 
 house of Israel,'' and should operate so effectually, that '''all 
 should then know the Lord, from the least unto the greatest ?"" 
 The portion of the Jews who embraced the Gospel under 
 the Apostles was a very small fraction of the house of Israel. 
 And hence I should rather conclude that the inspired 
 writer here refers to the times of their restoration and con- 
 version, when, as he elsewhere declares, " All Israel shall be 
 saved: as it is written. There shall come out of Sion the 
 Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob : 
 for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away 
 their sins."^ 
 
 To me it appears very plain that this is the true meaning 
 of the passage ; and if so, the period to which St. Paul alludes 
 has not yet arrived, nor will it arrive until the Jews shall be 
 " graflPed in again," upon their own olive-tree, at the second 
 Advent of their Divine Messiah. 
 
 And this agrees with the conclusion of the Apostle, " In 
 that He saith, A new covenant. He hath made the first old. 
 Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish 
 aivay.'" If St. Paul had here intended to warrant the com- 
 mon opinion adopted by Bishop Browne, he should have 
 said that the old covenant had already vanished away, for 
 1 Heb. viii. 8-13. 2 -^^^^ ^i £6, 27.
 
 The Righteousness of Faith. 31 
 
 this Epistle is set down to A. D. 64, and was therefore 
 written thirty-one years after the Ascension of the Saviour. 
 
 But in truth the old covenant, as the phrase is used in 
 this famous chapter, can with no propriety be applied to 
 the divine system of the Jewish worship. It should rather 
 be understood in accordance with St. Paul's doctrine on 
 the law and the Gospel, to which he so often refers. This 
 he sets forth very clearly in stating the cause why the Jews 
 had rejected the Kedeemer. And I quote his language in 
 full, as the best comment on his meaning : — 
 
 " Brethren," saith the Apostle to the Eomans, " my heart's 
 desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be 
 saved. Por I bear them record that they have a zeal of 
 God, but not according to knowledge. For they being- 
 ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to estab- 
 lish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves 
 unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of 
 the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For 
 Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law. That 
 the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the 
 righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise. Say 
 not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven ? (that is, 
 to bring Christ down from above :) or. Who shall descend 
 into the deep ? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the 
 dead.) But what saith it ? The word is nigh thee, even in 
 thy mouth, and in thy heart : that is, the word of faith, which 
 we preach : That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the 
 Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart thai God hath 
 raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the 
 heart man believeth unto righteousness ; and with the mouth 
 confession is made unto salvation."' 
 
 Still further to prove that the covenant of works, in 
 which the Jews thought they could be saved by their own 
 righteousness, is not to be restricted to the religious ritual 
 of the Church in ancient Israel, I refer to the Epistle to 
 the Galatians,^ where we read as follows : — 
 
 " TeU me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not 
 hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two 
 sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 
 1 Eom. X. 1-11. 2 Q-^^ iy, 21.
 
 22 Tlie Law of Ritualism. 
 
 But lie who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh ; 
 but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things 
 are an allegory ; for these are the Uoo covenants ; the one 
 from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to hondage, which 
 is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and 
 answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage 
 with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, 
 
 which is the mother of us all Now we, brethren, as 
 
 Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that 
 was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after 
 the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the 
 Scripture ? Cast out the bondwoman and her son : for the 
 son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the 
 freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the 
 bondwoman, but of the free."^ 
 
 Here we have a sure key to the meaning of St. Paul, 
 where he speaks of the two covenants. The covenant of 
 works he calls rightly the covenant of bondage, and we 
 must specially note that he refers it to Mount Sinai where 
 God pronounced the Ten Commandments, clearly showing 
 that he was not alluding to religious rites and ceremonies, 
 but to that very moral law which our own, and every other 
 orthodox Church retains. ^ 
 
 This law he calls elsewhere "holy, just, and good." By 
 it is the knowledge of sin, for as sin is rightly defined 
 by him to be " the transgression of the law," and " where 
 
 1 G-al. iv. 21-31. 
 
 2 This word " covenant," is expressly applied to the Tables of the 
 Ten Commandments in the following texts : — 
 
 Exod. xxxiv. 28, " He wrote upon the tables the words of the 
 covenant." 
 
 Deut. ix. 9, " The tables of stone, even the tables of the cove- 
 nant." 
 
 Dent. ix. 11, "The Lord gave me the tivo tables of stone, even the 
 tables of the covenant." 
 
 Deut. ix. 15, " The two tables of the covenant were in my two 
 hands." 
 
 The term is often used with a larger application, but the allusion 
 to Mount Sinai shows the Apostle's meaning clearly, for no other 
 words were there uttered by the Almighty, in the hearing of all 
 Israel. The other communications of the Deity, which were of a 
 legal character, were to Moses alone.
 
 The Two Covenants. 23 
 
 no law is, there is no transgression," it is manifest that 
 men could never learn that they were sinners, in absolute 
 need of the divine mercy and forgiveness through the 
 Saviour, until the standard of the Law was solemnly held 
 up before them, by which alone they could be taught the 
 fearful extent of their iniquity. And hence the Apostle 
 saith most truly that "the law was our schoolmaster to bring 
 us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith'' in His 
 perfect righteousness and atonemesnt,^ since, without Hira, 
 we must be forever in bondage to the condemnation which 
 the Word of God pronounces upon the sinner ; declaring that 
 " cursed is every one that continueth not in all things writ- 
 ten in the book of the law to do them." From this curse, 
 which rests on all men (for all have sinned, and the whole 
 world is guilty), Christ Jesus alone can set us free. And 
 His precious Gospel is therefore the other covenant, the 
 Covenant of Grace, granted by the infinite love and free 
 mercy of the Most High, and accepted by the penitent trans- 
 gressor through faith — a heartfelt trust and confidence in 
 the blessed Eedeemer. 
 
 The Covenant of Works is called the Old Covenant, be- 
 cause it was given to Adam in Paradise, and his happiness 
 was made to depend on his obedience to the law. The 
 Covenant of Grace was instituted after the fall, and sacri- 
 fices were directed as types of the atonement which the 
 promised Seed of the woman — our Lord and Saviour — 
 should accomplish in the appointed time, as the Lamb of 
 God, ordained to take away the sins of the world, and 
 destroy the dominion of the serpent, Satan, by whose 
 temptation our first parents were led astray. In that 
 covenant Abel believed, and the Apostle commemorates his 
 faith and that of the old patriarchs and saints of Israel, 
 near the close of his Epistle to the Hebrews. And it was 
 with reference to the same covenant that the whole re- 
 ligion of the Mosaic system was arranged, " the shadow of 
 good things to come," not that the blood of bulls and goats 
 could take away sins by their inherent efficacy, nor that 
 any outward ordinance, of itself, could purify the soul ; but 
 because the wisdom and the love of God condescended to 
 1 Gal. iii. 24.
 
 24 The Lmo of Ritualism. 
 
 direct it as the best mode to secure the faith and holiness 
 of His chosen people, until the time when the typical por- 
 tion of it should be fulfilled by the actual coming of the 
 divine Redeemer, and all the rest of the sublime system 
 should be matured and fully developed, for the salvation of 
 mankind. 
 
 We have seen the reason which rendered it necessary to 
 republish the covenant of the law from Mount Sinai, viz., 
 to teach the knowledge of sin, and thus to bring men, in 
 repentance and faith, to the promised Saviour. Moses had 
 declared that the " first and great commandment" was to 
 love the Lord our God with all our heart and mind and 
 strength, and our neighbor (or fellow being) as ourselves. 
 This we may well suppose to be the original law of angels 
 and all intelligent creatures throughout the universe. And 
 we may rightly conceive that in this form it was given to 
 Adam and Eve. The Saviour saith that on these two com- 
 mandments hang all the law and the prophets. Hence it 
 is easy to perceive that when it was republished on Mount 
 Sinai, it was the same law essentially, for "love is the ful- 
 filling of the law," — only, it was then drawn out into detail, 
 for the better understanding of the people. 
 
 But the pride and folly of the human heart led to the 
 fearful abuse that the Jews fancied themselves able to keep 
 the commandments of God by outwardly abstaining from 
 gross transgressions, and leading what they regarded as a 
 moral life, totally forgetting that those commandments were 
 founded on the heavenly law of love, and reducing their 
 religion to mere forms and ceremonies. Thus they bound 
 themselves to the covenant of works in a blind confidence of 
 their own sufficiency, without any real consciousness of sin, 
 without humility, repentance, or any true sense of their utter 
 dependence on the divine grace and mercy, satisfied with 
 their own miserable acts of stated observance, and rejecting, 
 in their self-righteous complacency, the whole celestial plan 
 which could alone save them from destruction, and qualify 
 them for the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 This was the terrible misapplication of the covenant of 
 works against which our Lord and His zealous Apostle in- 
 veighed so sharply, for it had become the received system of
 
 The Covenant of Works. 25 
 
 the Pharisees, and of the great mass of the whole Jewish 
 people. Nor was it confined to them, for it is the vice of 
 human nature ; and even amongst those who form the 
 majority of Christian nations, this same covenant of works, 
 this same proud self-righteousness, this same blind confi- 
 dence in themselves, is seen, alas, to govern many within 
 the Church, while there are multitudes beyond her pale who 
 do not care to cover the rebellion of their hearts by even an 
 outward compliance with the forms of religion. 
 
 In my humble judgment, this view of the two covenants 
 seems altogether more consistent with the whole of St. 
 Paul's doctrine than that which is commonly accepted. It 
 presents the real antagonism which turned the Jews away 
 from the faith of the Gospel. It saves the character of the 
 Apostles, himself included, from the charge of gross error, 
 in teaching the Jewish Christians to practise circumcision, 
 and walk orderly, and keep the ceremonial law. It accounts 
 for the adoption of so large a portion of the Mosaic ritual 
 amongst the Gentile Churches, as I shall show in a subse- 
 quent chapter ; and it is in perfect harmony with the seventh 
 Article of our own Church. For that Article must be under- 
 stood to refer to Gentile believers, who were pronounced free 
 by the Council of the Apostles ; since it is certain that there 
 was no Church of Christian Jews on the face of the earth, 
 after the destruction of Jerusalem. 
 
 But if, in the providence of God, a Church should again 
 arise consisting of converted Jews, or if individual Jews 
 should be added, from time to time, as members of a 
 Church which belongs to Gentiles, I do not see by what 
 warrant we could forbid those Jews to imitate the course 
 of the Apostles, or count it an error in them to circumcise 
 their children, and " walk orderly, and keep the law." Por 
 no man can prove that the ritual of Moses was considered 
 as whoUy abrogated by those inspired men, so far as it con- 
 cerned the natural posterity of Israel ; and it would seem 
 to be perilous presumption to assume the authority of 
 that divine Lawgiver who is alone " able to save and to 
 destroy." The command of the Lord gave the law to His 
 own peculiar people, and no human power has the right to 
 take it away.
 
 26 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 Nevertheless, it would by no means be a just inference 
 ttiat, even to the Jew believiiio^ in Christ, circumcision was 
 or can be " necessary to salvation." The true aspect of the 
 matter was expressed by the Apostles when St. Paul was 
 advised by them to conform pul^licly to the Mosaic ritual : 
 "that all men may see," said they, "that thou thyself also 
 walkest orderly, and keepest the law." It seems clear, from 
 this language, that they regarded their ritual as a matter of 
 divine order, and not as a principle of saving faith. Por 
 in Jesus Christ, neither circumcision availeth auy thing nor 
 uncircumcision ; but ''faith tuhich worheth by love''^ This 
 is the doctrine of our eleventh Article, that Ave are justified 
 by faith only. The same terms might be applied even to the 
 outward sacraments of the Church. Our Lord Himself 
 declares that, " Except a man be born of water and of the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." He in- 
 stituted the solemn form of Baptism in the name of the 
 Trinity, and the blessed Eucharistic feast which He conse- 
 crated as the symbols of His Body and His Blood, in the 
 strongest terms of 'obligation. Yet the Church teaches no 
 more than that these sacraments are generally necessary to 
 salvation. True, indeed, it is, that the visible Church of 
 Christ cannot exist without a certain amount of dimne 
 order. It is the Body of Christ, and, like every other body, 
 must have its appointed form, which no one can wilfully 
 violate or disfigure without sin. But faith in the Lord 
 Jesus Christ is the living element which gives value to the 
 form. Without this faith, the form becomes dead, like the 
 human frame when the soul has departed. And therefore, 
 while I should utterly condemn the error of those who would 
 destroy the divine form which the Lord has seen fit to give 
 to His Body, the Church, yet I would not deny that even 
 the most extreme opponent of form — the Friend or Quaker 
 — though he belongs not to the Church on earth, may possess 
 the spiritual grace of faith, and thus, through the mercy of 
 Christ, may attain salvation. 
 
 I shall only add, before I dismiss this branch of my sub- 
 ject, that if the common hypothesis, sustained by Bishop 
 Browne, namely, that the ancient Church of Israel had 
 1 Gal. T. 6.
 
 Honor done to the Temple. 27 
 
 passed entirely away, were really in accordance with tlie 
 judgment of the Apostles, it wonld seem to have been a 
 matter of course that they should avoid the Temple at 
 Jerusalem, and the worship of the Synagogue. But instead 
 of this, the Book of the Acts informs us that they fre- 
 quented the Temple, were daily in the Temple, preached 
 and worked miracles in the Temple. And in the travels 
 of St. Paul, at Antioch, Iconium, Thessalonica, Berea, 
 Athens, and Corinth, it is expressly recorded that he went 
 first to the Jewish synagogue; proclaimed his celestial 
 message first to the literal descendants of Abraham ; and 
 always marked the distinction between the Jew and the 
 Gentile as still subsisting, though the wall of partition was 
 so far broken down by the Gospel that they might live as 
 brethren in the faith of Christ, the Lord of all. And in 
 this there was no incongruity. We all know how, in after 
 ages, the orders of monks had a diiferent rule of life from 
 the rest of the laity, while the rule of faith and the com- 
 munion of the Church were the same. And the Jews were 
 authorized to keep up their distinction, on a far higher 
 ground, because it was the law prescribed to them by the 
 God of Israel. 
 
 Points of Conformity between tJie Mosaic Ritual and the 
 Church. 
 
 Enough has been said, I trust, to vindicate the course 
 of the Apostles and the mother Church in Jerusalem, in 
 their firm adherence to circumcision and the ceremonial law, 
 as being themselves the literal Israelites, to whom the 
 Mosaic ritual was given ; though the Gentiles, to whom it 
 was not given, were declared to be free. I have next to 
 point out the various matters in which those free Gentiles 
 conformed to the " order" of the Mosaic law ; and these
 
 28 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 will be found much more numerous than is commonly ap- 
 prehended. 
 
 1. Commencing with the sacred edifices of the primitive 
 Christians, we find that they were built facing towards the 
 east, like the Temple at Jerusalem ; the chancel, with the 
 altar, being at the west, while the general form was bor- 
 rowed from the same sacred type ; the nave corresponding 
 to the holy place, where the faithful or the communicants 
 were stationed ; and the chancel railed ofi:' from it for the 
 Bishop and the priests, containing the altar, in memorial of 
 the sanctum sanctorum, and for this reason called the sanc- 
 tuary} 
 
 To this position of the sacred edifices, however, there 
 were frequent exceptions, especially after the heathen tem- 
 ples, in which there was little attention to the points of the 
 compass, were converted into churches. But the better rule 
 was that already stated, and hence it was followed in the 
 modern cathedral of E-ome, the famed St. Peter's, where 
 the entrance is toward the east, and the great altar toward 
 the west, in true accordance with the model in ancient 
 Israel. 
 
 Our learned antiquarian, Bingham, to whom I shall fre- 
 quently refer as a standard authority, states that the early 
 Christians had churches, built during the intervals of perse- 
 cution.2 " The proofs of this," saith he, " are abundant in 
 the third century."^ But he concludes that the chancels 
 were towards the east, though not always, as some of the 
 finest structures had the altars at the west end, and the 
 doors at the east, like Solomon's Temple.^ It is to be 
 specially noted, however, that the altars were never placed 
 at the hack wall. That was the position occupied by the 
 Bishop's chair, the seats of the presbyters or priests being 
 on either side of the apse, and the Holy Table or Altar 
 standing lower down, betAveen the Bishop and the congre- 
 gation.^ This is made perfectly plain in the diagram giveii 
 by Bingham, which shows the ground plans of five churches, 
 
 ^ See SaroniuSy Annal., Tom. 1, p. 524-525, and again, p. 533. 
 
 ^ See BinghanCs Antiquities, Yol. 2, p. 370. 
 
 s Ibid. p. 379, &c. 4 Ibid. p. 399. 
 
 5 Ibid. pp. 403, 417, 429, 441.
 
 The Altar of Incense, 29 
 
 the oldest of which we have any precise information. Our 
 author admits that they were built " with some regard to 
 the Jewish Temple. "^ He might have said much more, 
 with perfect truth, as will be abundantly manifest from other 
 parts of his description. 
 
 Thus, in the atrium, or open square before the church, 
 there was commonly a fountain or cistern of water for the 
 people to wash, before they entered.^ This was in accord- 
 ance with the brazen laver before the Tabernacle.^ 
 
 The holy gates and veils, still used in the Oriental 
 Churches, in plain allusion to the Jewish Sanctuary, are 
 also mentioned by Bingham.* 
 
 The men and women occupied separate places, as in the 
 Jewish Synagogue.^ 
 
 Texts of Scripture were w^'itten on the walls, and the 
 Mosaic law speaks of a similar practice. 
 
 The Holy Tables were also called Altars, the terms being 
 used indiiferently to mean the same thing.^ 
 
 They were made of wood at first, but afterwards of stone. ^ 
 For it is certain that this latter material was in use even 
 before the time of Gregory Nyssen,^ because he speaks of 
 the stone altar, in his discourse on baptism. And the first 
 decree of the Church in relation to the matter was passed 
 in A. D. 509, at the Council of Epone, directing that "no 
 altar should be consecrated but such as were made of stone 
 only." The form of an altar rather than that of a table 
 became then common. And thus the matter remained to 
 the present day. 
 
 Here, by the way, I may remark the mistake made by 
 many good Christian men, who confine their notion of an 
 altar to the rite of animal sacrifice. Whereas we read ex- 
 pressly of " the altar of gold for the incense before the Ark."^ 
 And again we see that " the children of Eeuben and the 
 children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there 
 an altar hy Jordan,''^^ " not for burnt offering, nor for sac- 
 
 ^ B'mgJianCs Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 400. 
 
 2 Ibid. p. 403. 2 Exod. xxx. 18. 
 
 * Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 435. * Ibid. pp. 419-421. 
 
 6 Ibid. p. 442. ^ Ibid. p. 446. 
 
 8 A. D. 372. ^ Exod. xl. 5. 
 
 19 Josh. xxii. 10.
 
 30 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 rifice : but tliat it may be a witTiess" between them and 
 tlieir brethren. 1 And they "called the altar Ed: for it 
 shall be a witness between iis,'' said they, " that the Lord is 
 God."2 
 
 Manifestly, therefore, there is no warrant in the Old 
 Testament for limiting the "altar" to the offering of animal 
 sacrifices. And when we come to the New Testament, we 
 see the statement of St. Paul, " We have an altar, w^hereof 
 they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. "^ 
 In the Book of Revelation we read of the souls of the 
 martyrs, " under the altar '''^ Again, St. John saith, that 
 " another angel came and stood at the altar, having a 
 golden censer ; and there was given unto him much in- 
 cense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints 
 upon the golden altar which w^as before the throne."^ And 
 again, saith the same Apostle, " I heard a voice from the 
 four horns of the golden altar which is before God."^ 
 None of these passages can be regarded as favoring the 
 strange notion that the application of the word " altar" to 
 the Communion Table in our Institution Office is unscrip- 
 tural ; but on the contrary, they all prove that the term is 
 eminently entitled to our regard, since there is an altar of 
 incense belonging to the woi:ship of Heaven, and St. Paul 
 himself uses the word wdth a clear reference to the Church 
 on earth. 
 
 As to the other branch of the hypothesis, viz., that the 
 Communion Table must be of wood, "an honest table with 
 legs to it," although there are some very respectable names 
 quoted in its favor, yet I must confess my sui'prise that any 
 importance should be attached to such a restriction. Por it 
 is surely plain to the slightest reflection, that the -word table 
 refers properly to the upper surface, and not to the legs. 
 The chair, the sofa, and the bedstead all have legs, as well 
 as the table. Thus, too, it is common to say table rock, 
 and table land, meaning simply that they have a fiat surface, 
 like a table. And as to the material, there may be tables of 
 gold and silver, and marble and iron, as well as of wood. 
 
 1 Josh. xxii. 26, 27. ^ Ibid, verse 34. 
 
 3 Heb. xiii. 10. "* Eev. vi. 9. 
 
 5 Ibid. viii. 3. « Ibid. ix. 13.
 
 Altar Lights. 31 
 
 Custom has indeed attached the term " altar" to the form in 
 common use after stone was ordered to be employed in the 
 construction. But whether it was called by the one name 
 or the other, the religious meaning of the Holy Table or the 
 Altar was precisely the same. 
 
 The result, as it seems to me, is very plain, that the 
 liberty of the Church is not to be troubled by any censure 
 in this matter. The Holy Table may be constructed law- 
 fully either of wood or of stone, with any kind of support 
 that may be preferred, in the form of an altar or otherwise. 
 And it may be called the Altar or the Holy Table, indif- 
 ferently, as it was by the old Fathers, without the slightest 
 real warrant for blame or censure. 
 
 But to return from this digression, I proceed to some 
 other customs of the Church, which remind us of the 
 Mosaic Ritual. 
 
 That candlesticks or lamps were used universally, is 
 stated by Bingham,^ and these were of gold at Eome, in 
 the time of St. Laurence. Our author, on the authority of 
 St. Jerome, allows that they were lighted by day as well as 
 night. He regards tliis, however, as an innovation, because 
 the first and primitive use of them was a matter of neces- 
 sity, when Christians were forced to meet in nocturnal 
 assemblies for fear of persecution. But Jerome says, that 
 though there was no order of the Church to favor the 
 lighting of candles by day, yet the custom was tolerated in 
 some places, and it was quite free from any suspicion of 
 idolatry .2 
 
 Our author, nevertheless, thinks that it was positively 
 forbidden, and quotes the Council of Eiiberis saying, " Let 
 no one presume to set up lights in the daytime in any 
 cemetery or church, for the spirits of the saints are not to be 
 molested ;" " from whence," saith he, "it is evident that 
 the contrary custom must be new, though prevailing both in 
 the East and in the West, in the time of PauUnus and St. 
 Jerome.''^ 
 
 Here, as it seems to my humble judgment, the learned 
 Bingham reasons very badly. The Council of Eiiberis was 
 not of sufficient importance to represent the Church at 
 
 1 Antiquities, Yol. 2, p. 461. 2 ibid. p. 462. 3 i^id.
 
 32 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 large, and in tlie Canon to which Bingham refers, the 
 reason assigned is so preposterous that it stultifies itself. 
 For who, in his sober senses, believes that the lighting of 
 candles, either by day or by night, could ''molest the spirits 
 of the saints /"' Such a canon could have no possible 
 eff'ect against the fact which our author himself states so 
 plainly, viz. : that this custom was '■'prevailing both in the 
 East and in the West, in the time of Paulinus and St. Jerome." 
 It is notorious that both in the Roman and the Oriental 
 Churches it is universal, and has been so, in the Eastern 
 Churches at least, from the earliest antiquity. 
 
 This point of primitive practice, then, may be fairly 
 claimed as an imitation of the Mosaic Eitual, with reference 
 to the seven-branched candlestick in the Temple at Jeru- 
 salem, which was kept ever burning. It has been thought 
 by some, that the holy place was dark, and hence the con- 
 stant light of this sacred candlestick was necessary. But 
 this is a mistake, for it is expressly stated that " for the 
 house" (i. e. the Temple) Solomon " made windows of nar- 
 row lights. "1 Therefore it was not dark by day ; and the 
 candlestick, like all things else belonging to the sacred 
 edifice, must be understood to have borne a mystical or 
 symbolic meaning, probably with regard to the sevenfold 
 spiritual illumination of the Holy Ghost, stated by the 
 prophet Isaiah^ in words which are still preserved by our 
 Church in the prayer before Confirmation. 
 
 Our author, Bingham, next passes on to the use of in- 
 cense, to which he is strongly opposed, although the authori- 
 ties which he quotes are, on the whole, against him. He 
 says, very truly, that there are " no footsteps of censers or 
 incense in the first three ages of the Church." But these 
 were ages when the Christians sustained, from time to time, 
 many heavy and cruel persecutions, during which their 
 worship was chiefly by night ; and the burning of incense 
 would then be dangerous, because its odor might have 
 betrayed them. But he acknowledges that " the Apostolic 
 Canons mention incense in the time of the oblation :''^ only, 
 he objects to their antiquity, as their date is still uncertain. 
 He also quotes Hippolytus Portuensis in the second century, 
 ^ 1 Kings vi. 4. ^ igaiali xi. 2. ^ Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 462.
 
 Primitive use of Incense. 33 
 
 saying that the Church shall mourn with a very great 
 mourning, because her oblation and incense are not duly 
 performed;" and especially he cites St. Ambrose, who, 
 speaking of the angel's appearing unto Zacharias, standing 
 on "the right side of the altar of incense, says, " I wish the 
 angel may stand by us when we incense the altar, and offer 
 our sacrifice ; yea, doubtless, the angel stands by us, at th« 
 time that Christ stands there and is offered upon the altar." 
 " Here," saith Bingham, " I take it, the sacrificing of 
 Christ and the incensing of the altar are both of the same 
 nature, that is, spiritual and mystical, and therefore, hence, 
 nothing can be concluded for the use of incense and censers 
 in the Christian Church." 
 
 Now this appears to me a very strange specimen of logic. 
 St. Ambrose was speaking of a 7'eal angel, and a real altar. 
 Why is not the incensing of that altar equally real ? Be- 
 cause the sacrificing of Christ, once for all completed on 
 the Cross, could only be symbolical and commemorative, 
 must the incense, which was a constant part of divine 
 worship in the ancient Church, be therefore any more 
 mystical than the altar at which it was offered ? Plainly 
 such reasoning has neither force nor fairness to recom- 
 mend it. Our author admits that Evagrius, who wrote 
 his Church history in the sixth century, mentions golden 
 crosses and golden censers, given by Chosroes to the Church 
 in Constantinople. " By which we may guess,"" saith he, 
 " that crosses and censers were the product of the same 
 age, and came into the Church together. "^ But does 
 Evagrius speak of them as a novelty ? Does he not rather 
 mention them as a proof of the monarch's piety and zeal ? 
 And with what justice can our author ''guess' that they were 
 then introduced for the first time, when he is obliged to 
 acknowledge that they were referred to so plainly in the 
 Apostolic Canons, and by Hippolytus and St. Ambrose, more 
 than two hundred years before ? 
 
 For myself, I can only say that I have no doubt on the 
 
 subject. Nor can I see any reason why the Church, of the 
 
 Gentiles should not have followed the divine law of the 
 
 Mosaic system in the use of incense, for it seems to have 
 
 1 Ibid. p. 464. 
 
 3
 
 34 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 been used as an expressive symbol of the prayers of tbe 
 saints, and is equally appropriate to Jew and Gentile. But 
 tbe strongest proof to my mind is the declaration of the 
 Almighty by the prophet Malachi, " From the rising of the 
 sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall 
 be great among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense 
 shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering : for my 
 name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of 
 Hosts. "1 Here we have express mention of incense which 
 should be offered in every place by those who had been 
 heathen Gentiles. And we have already seen that St. John 
 saw the angel offering incense, with the prayers of the 
 saints, in the court of Heaven. On what ground, then, 
 should it be unlawful to offer it in the Church on earth ? 
 What could be more Scriptural, more natural, nay, more 
 a matter of course, than its early introduction, with the 
 fullest presumed sanction of those Apostles who knew the 
 Jewish Eitual to be divine ? 
 
 I pass next to the custom of bowing toward the altar, so 
 universal amongst the Oriental and Eoman Churches. This 
 is considered by Bingham as a doubtful matter. But he 
 quotes, with seeming approbation, the learned Joseph Mede, 
 who thought that although there was no plain demonstra- 
 tion of it in the ancient writers, yet there was some proba- 
 bility of such a custom in the early Church. " The Jews," 
 saith this writer, " used to bow themselves down towards 
 the mercy-seat. The Christians after them, in the Greek 
 and Oriental Churches, have, time out of mind, and without 
 any known beginning thereof, used to bow in like manner, 
 toward the Altar or Holy Table, saying, ' God be merciful to 
 me a sinner,' as appears by the Liturgies of St. Chrysostom 
 and St. Basil, and as they are still known to do at this day. 
 Which custom of theirs, not being found in the decrees or 
 canons of any Council, and being so agreeable to the use 
 of God's people in the Old Testament, may therefore seem 
 to have been derived to them from very remote and ancient 
 tradition."^ 
 
 A much more important matter, viz., the use of oil or 
 chrism in Confirmation, next demands attention. This, 
 * Mai. i. 11. ' Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 557.
 
 Chrism. 35 
 
 as Bingham admits, is plainly stated by Tertullian to have 
 been the estabKshed practice about the year 300.^ And 
 our author says that " it was this unction at the completion 
 of baptism, to which they ascribed the power of making 
 every Christian, in some sense, partaker of a royal priest- 
 hood, which is not only said by Origen, but by Pope Leo, 
 S. Jerome, and many others." The author of the Constitu- 
 tions states it to be, on man's part, the confirmation of the 
 confessions and compacts made with God in baptism ; and 
 on God's part, the collation of the Holy Spirit, represented 
 by this ceremony of anointing."^ It was the opinion of 
 Bishop Pearson that the use of chrism in Confirmation 
 came into the Church shortly after the time of the Apostles. 
 It was consecrated by the Bishop,^ and is used by the 
 Greek and Oriental Churches, as well as by the Church of 
 Eome, to this day. 
 
 Here, again, we are reminded of the holy anointing oil 
 commanded by the Mosaic Eitual.* And this furnishes 
 another strong feature of the correspondence between the 
 Gentile Church and that divinely ordered system. 
 
 We come now to the matter of the garments adopted by 
 the Primitive Ministry. Baronius quotes from the Fathers 
 some proofs that St. James the Just, first Bishop of Jeru- 
 salem, and also St. John (who presided, in the latter part 
 of his life, over the Churches of Asia Minor, having Bishops 
 under him), wore the golden ornament which was pre- 
 scribed for the mitre of the High Priest in the Mosaic 
 Eitual.5 
 
 He also states, on the same authority, that the primitive 
 Christians wore the pallium after the manner of the Jews, 
 and not the Roman toga.^ 
 
 Bingham says that " in the beginning of the fourth age, 
 when the Church was quietly composed by Constantine and 
 settled in peace, we are sure a distinction was made in the 
 habits and vestments of divine service; Por Constantine 
 himself is said to have given a rich vestment, embroidered 
 vdih. gold, to Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, to be worn 
 
 » Ibid. 4, p. 28. 2 Ibid. p. 29. 
 
 3 Ibid. 3, p. 573. 4 Exod. xxx. 22-34. 
 
 5 Baronius, Ann., Tom. 1, p. 269. « Ibid, p. 521.
 
 36 The Law of Ritualimi. 
 
 by him" in tlie celebration of the sacred offices. Athanasius 
 raised a fund for the linen vestments of the Church. " This 
 is mentioned both by Athanasius and by Sozomen, the one 
 calling them linen sticJiaria, and the other linen tmiicles. 
 which are the same thing." St. Jerome often mentions 
 this distinction of habits as generally observed in his time. 
 In his book against Pelagius he asks, " What harm is it, if 
 a Bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any other of the ecclesias- 
 tical order, come forth in a white vestment when they ad- 
 minister the sacraments?" St. Chrysostom also intimates 
 that the deacons wore a peculiar habit, when he says, "their 
 honor, crown, and glory did not consist so much in their 
 walking about the Church in a white and shining garment, 
 as in their power to repel unworthy communicants from the 
 Lord's table." And Severianus, Bishop of Gabala, con- 
 temporary with Chrysostom, speaking of those deacons, saith, 
 " They resembled the wings of angels, with their veils or 
 tippets on their left shoulders, going about the Church, and 
 crying out, ' Let none of the Catechumens be present at the 
 mysteries.' These white habits were the surplices used in 
 divine service."^ 
 
 " The Council of Laodicea," continues our author, " has 
 two canons concerning the orarium, which was a ' scarf or 
 tippet,' to be worn on the shoulders by Bishops, priests, and 
 deacons, all below these being expressly debarred the use of 
 it by that council. The Pourth Council of Carthage speaks 
 of the alba, or albe. The Pirst Council of Braga speaks of 
 the tunica (tunicle or surplice), and the orarium, as belonging 
 to deacons, and the Third Council of Braga orders priests 
 to wear the orarium on both shoulders. By which we 
 learn," says Bingham, "that the tunica or surplice was 
 common to all the clergy, the orarium on the left shoulder 
 proper to deacons, and on both shoulders the distinguishing 
 badge of priests."^ 
 
 The Fourth Council of Toledo is more particular, specify- 
 ing, for a Bishop, the orarium, ring, and staff ; for a presby- 
 ter, the orarium and planeta ; for a deacon the orarium and 
 alba, or albe — the orarium being on his left shoulder only.^ 
 
 1 Antiquities, Yol. 4, p. 321-324. 2 i^id. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 325.
 
 Primitive Vestments. 37 
 
 The author of the " Questions on the Old and New Testa- 
 ment," under the name of St. Austin, speaks also of the 
 dalmatica?- 
 
 Our author gives no more information on the subject of 
 garments. So far, however, as this account extends, it 
 agrees in the main with the same principle so often stated, 
 viz. : that the Mosaic Eitual was the guide of the Gentile 
 Church. Por there we know that the Lord commanded 
 His priests to have sacred garments " for glory and for 
 beauty," and that white linen was the material to be em- 
 ployed ; while those directed for the High JPriest were ex- 
 ceedingly splendid, consisting of white linen, with gold, 
 purple, blue, and crimson. But we see the entire exclusion 
 of blacJc, which is the symbol of sin and mourning ; and 
 we may reverently believe that white was adopted as the true 
 outward symbol of purity and joy. 
 
 The same symbolism appears in the Book of Eevelation, 
 where the Church in glory is represented. " The marriage 
 of the Lamb is come," saith the voice of the great multitude, 
 " and His wife hath made herself ready. And to her was 
 granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and 
 white: for the^^ze linen is the ri(/hteousness of saints.''^ 
 
 Nor is this without support from various other parts of 
 Scripture. Thus the prophet Daniel saw the " Ancient of 
 days," " whose garment was white as snow."'*^ In the trans- 
 figuration of our Lord, His raiment appeared white as the 
 light.'* Thus, too, the angels always showed themselves 
 clothed in white. Speaking of the saints, the Redeemer 
 saith, " They shall walk with me in ivhite : for they are 
 worthy."^ And again, " He that overcometh, the same shall 
 be clothed in white raiment."^ To the souls of the martyrs 
 were given white robes. And the saints are said to have 
 " washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of 
 the Lamb."7 
 
 But all this bears reference to Christ, who is the " end 
 of the law for righteousness." Tor every thing in His 
 
 ^ Ibid. p. 326. 2 i>ev. xix. 7, 8. 
 
 3 Dan. vii. 9. ^ St. Mat. xvii. 2. 
 
 5 Eev. iii. 4. ^ Ibid. iii. 5, &c. 
 7 Ibid. vii. 14.
 
 38 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 Church should have a meaning, appropriate to His work 
 of mercy to our fallen and perishing world. And hence 
 the official garments of His ministers should remind the 
 beholder of His purity and love, and express, as far as they 
 can express, their relation to their divine Master. They 
 are ambassadors from the King of Heaven ; and as the 
 ambassadors of every earthly sovereign are expected to 
 appear officially, on public occasions, in the insignia of 
 their respective governments, much more should the repre- 
 sentatives of Christ bear some plain mark of their distinc- 
 tive character. • Thus the garments of the High Priest 
 were all symbolical of Christ. The breastplate, contain- 
 ing the TJrim and Tliummim, was a symbol of His divine 
 judgment and omniscience : the purple and gold, of His 
 royalty ; the crimson, of His atoning blood ; the blue, of His 
 heavenly kingdom : and the white, of His perfect righteous- 
 ness, extended to His faithful people. And this last, which 
 presented the principle to be most constantly followed by 
 the Church, whose union to Christ is the only ground of 
 salvation, was therefore the chief mark in the garments of 
 the sacred priesthood among the Jews, and passed from 
 them, as we have seen, to the Gentiles, on the strongest 
 ground of Scriptural consistency. 
 
 There are many good and respectable Christians in our 
 day, who regard this matter of distinctive ministerial gar- 
 ments with contempt, and sometimes even with positive 
 aversion, because they look upon it as one of the corrup- 
 tions of Romanism, But the ancient Church of God is not 
 to be regarded with contempt by any man who professes to 
 believe the Bible. That sacred institution was divine, and 
 was given by the Almighty Himself, to His own chosen 
 and peculiar people. None but a fool would say that the 
 Church of the Jews had any connection with the system 
 of Popery. Nor will any sensible man pretend that the 
 Reformation of the sixteenth century was occasioned by the 
 dress or ecclesiastical order of the Church of Rome, which 
 are in no respect more splendid or imposing than the usages 
 of the Oriental Churches of Greece and Russia. It would 
 have been mere madness to plunge the religion of Europe 
 into confusion for a cause of no more consequence than
 
 No Reformation against Vestments. 39 
 
 this. It was not ministerial dress, but corruption in doc- 
 trine, and government, and morals, which, called for Refor- 
 mation. The despotic tyranny of the Pope, sustained by 
 bloody wars of persecution ; the worship of the Virgin and 
 the saints ; the adoration of the consecrated wafer and 
 images and relics ; the irresponsible dominion of the priests 
 in auricular confession; the usurpation of tradition over 
 the Word of God; the moral abuses of sacerdotal and 
 monastic celibacy; the exaction of property through the 
 false delusions of purgatory and indulgences ; the marvellous 
 presumption which undertook to add twelve articles to 
 the Creed of the Apostles : these terrible invasions of divine 
 truth and pure faith, were the real evils against which 
 the Eeformation was directed. And the mind that fancies 
 it to have made its assault against the priestly dress, or 
 other harmless matters of outward ceremonial, had need 
 to go to school, and learn the plainest lessons in ecclesias- 
 tical history. 
 
 In the view of reason, however, this contempt of minis- 
 terial garments has no justification. Most certain, indeed, 
 it is, that God looks on the heart, and that faith, in the 
 heart changed and sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit, 
 must be the animating principle of all acceptable worship. 
 But does this interfere with a due correspondence in outward 
 forms ? Did the Lord of heaven and earth make a mistake, 
 when He ordered Aaron and his sons to make priestly gar- 
 ments " for glory and for beauty ?" Can He be supposed 
 indifterent to these things in His earthly sanctuary, when 
 He has been pleased to spread " glory and beauty" through 
 all His works ? The sun, traveling in light ; the moon 
 walking in brightness ; the clouds of crimson and gold ; 
 the rich and varied vegetation ; the gorgeous plumage of 
 the birds ; the shining splendor even of the insects ; the 
 brilliant hues of the flowers and the incense of their sweet 
 perfume : aU prove that the Creator not only rejoices to 
 spread abroad His works of "glory and of beauty," but 
 that man, wlio was made in the image of God, and placed 
 in the dominion over this wondrous world, should delight 
 in the display of so much divine benevolence. Por to this 
 end, the love of " glory and of beauty" was planted in our
 
 40 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 nature ; and we are forced to admire them in every thing 
 else, however a blind and absurd prejudice may have per- 
 verted our common sense, by persuading us to exclude them 
 from the duty of religion, 
 
 Eeason itself, therefore, must approve the rule laid down 
 in the Mosaic system as the only rule which is consistent 
 with the majesty of God. Nay, it is the only rule con- 
 sistent with the laws of human nature. Por men are not, 
 and cannot be made, indifferent, to the outward dress. 
 Take away the official dress from the army, and how would 
 the " glory" of war disappear ? Take away the dress which 
 taste requires in civilized society, and what substitute could 
 make it attractive ? We all know that the dress is not the 
 man or the woman, yet what man or woman can be in- 
 sensible to its power ? The ritual given to Israel, therefore, 
 in this matter, is in perfect harmony with reason ; and if 
 in the Church of Eome, we find the principle associated 
 with superstition and dangerous error, it is none the less 
 our duty to take all that the Scripture and the reason of the 
 case can justify, and thus preserve the good, while we cast 
 the evil away. " Glory and beauty" were ordained by the 
 Almighty for the sanctuary, and for the garments of His 
 chosen priesthood. And " glory and beauty" ought still to 
 be their characteristics in His Church on earth, as they will 
 be, in a far more sublime sense, when the Bride of the 
 Lamb, in her white linen garments, becomes the sharer of 
 His felicity in the Church of Heaven. 
 
 For myself, I must honestly confess that I regret the 
 retention of any black whatever, in the dress of the Ministry. 
 The white is Scriptural and of divine authority, having a 
 clear symbolical reference to the Saviour and the righteous- 
 ness of the saints. The use of black came in, at first, 
 through the monks, and it was the authority of the Pope 
 which introduced it into the Churches of Europe, when he 
 gave his sanction to the Black Priars {Fratres Predicatores), 
 and made them the preachers everywhere, long before the 
 Reformation. This was the real origin of the custom which 
 led the people throughout the whole Continent to look upon 
 black as the proper color for the preacher. But it is totally 
 unwarranted by Scripture and the Primitive Church. And
 
 Points of Conformity to the Jewish System. 41 
 
 it is equally unwarranted by riglit reason. For the ambas- 
 sadors of Christ are the heralds of the Gospel, — " good 
 tidings of great joy to all people." And their garments 
 should be the emblems of purity and joy, and not those of 
 sin and mourning. 
 
 Stxtl) Cfjapter. 
 
 Further' Points of Conformity and Contrast. 
 
 I SHALL now proceed to present my readers with a sum- 
 mary of the matters in which the Gentile Church conformed 
 to the Jewish system. And this agreement will be found, 
 substantially in the following particulars : — 
 
 1st. In the threefold order of the Ministry, the old 
 Fathers regarding the Bishop, the priests, and the deacons, 
 as corresponding to the High Priest, the priests, and the 
 Levites. To the Jewish Hierarchy were committed the 
 charge over the Sanctuary, the duty of instructing the 
 people in the Word of God, the order of divine worship 
 in praise and prayer, and the administration of the sacred 
 ordinances, all of Avhich were placed under their entire 
 control. And the Hierarchy of the Gentile Church occupied 
 the same relative position, with which, in both cases, no 
 other powers had the right to interfere. 
 
 2d. In the three great festivals of the year ; for the Easter 
 service corresponded to the Jewish Passover, Whitsun-day 
 to the Jewish Pentecost, and Christmas to the Jewish feast 
 of Tabernacles. 
 
 3d. In worship, the Psalms of the Jewish ritual were 
 continued in the Gentile Church ; the Scriptures were read 
 according to a settled order, as in the Synagogue ; while the 
 prayers were offered in the same form of a fixed Liturgy. 
 And all these arrangements are still found in the Jewish 
 system of the present day. 
 
 4th. In the use of incense, chrism and lights, the whole
 
 42 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 Gentile Cliurch, for centuries before the great schism be- 
 tween the East and the West, followed the Jewish model laid 
 down for the Temple service. The Church of Eome and the 
 Churches of Grreece and Eussia continue the ancient course. 
 And it will be seen, in the ensuing chapters, that our own 
 branch of the Church followed the same rule in the early 
 years of the Reformation, and that the law of the English 
 Prayer-Book remains unchanged. 
 
 5th. In the garments of the priesthood, the whole Gen- 
 tile Church took the Jewish ritual for her pattern, and we 
 retain the cardinal feature of that system without any 
 essential variation. Modern practice has indeed laid aside 
 some portions of its ancient splendor, but the main distinc- 
 tion of the "white linen" continues the same. 
 
 6th. In the music of the Gentile Churches, the chanting 
 of the Psalms has been adopted from the custom of ancient 
 Israel, and their use of instruments to aid the voice justifies 
 our organs, on the same principle. 
 
 7th. The magnificence of Church edifices, the altars, the 
 branches and the flowers, the festal processions, the cere- 
 mony of consecration, the table of consanguinity and affinity 
 which regulates marriage, the reference to Isaac and Rebecca 
 in the ceremony itself, as also the mode of burying the dead, 
 are all derived from the Jewish original. And the great 
 code of the moral law, given from Mount Sinai, is confessedly 
 the same to Jew and Gentile. 
 
 Por the whole of these particulars it is easy to account, 
 when we remember that the Jewish system was Divine, 
 and reaUy dictated by the same Son of God, whom we 
 acknowledge as the incarnate Deity — the Lord and Saviour 
 of the world ; that the Apostles of Christ were all Jews, and 
 brought up in that very system ; that the Holy Spirit, by 
 whom they were enlightened and fitted for their wondrous 
 work, could not be supposed to depart from the previous 
 plan of celestial wisdom without reason ; and therefore that 
 every part of that plan, which was as suitable to the Gentiles 
 as to the Jews, would of course be retained. Por if there 
 be a maxim in religious truth which must be universally 
 admitted, it is surely this : that we dare not, without His 
 own express warrant, impute change to that glorious Creator,
 
 F The Jeiohli Church not Popish. 43 
 
 who declares that He " changeth not," but is " the same, 
 yesterday, and to day, and forever !" 
 
 But now, to show, on the negative side, the harmony of 
 the principle which I advocate, it may be well to add a brief 
 statement of those points in which the Mosaic system directly 
 conflicts with Eomanism, or Popery. 
 
 1. There was no sacerdotal personage in the Jewish 
 Church claiming to be the sole Vicar of God, asserting the 
 right to dethrone kings and princes, dooming heretics to 
 the flames, undertaking to deliver every departed soul from 
 purgatory, canonizing those whom he chose to call the saints, 
 and seating himself on the Altar as an object of worship. In 
 a word, there was no Pope in Israel. Their system was a 
 pure Theocracy. God was the Head of their Church, and 
 He appointed no priestly viceroy. They had, indeed, a High 
 Priest, possessed of a certain authority ; but his powers and 
 duties were specifically defined, and the responses given by 
 the Urim and Thummim placed in the breastplate, were ac- 
 cepted as the answers vouchsafed by the God of Israel, and 
 not as the dictates of the High Priest's official infallibility. 
 We find, moreover, that the Urim and Thummim, signifying 
 lights and perfections, disappeared after a season, through the 
 unfaithfulness of Judah, while the office of the High Priest 
 remained. And in the time of our Lord, we see that He 
 was brought to trial before the Comicil ; and it was the voice 
 of the Council, rather than the authority of the High Priest, 
 by which He was pronounced to be "worthy of death." 
 Thus, in the office of the High Priest, there is not the 
 slightest warrant for the despotic sovereignty of the papal 
 prerogative, to say nothing of the difference between the 
 moderate authority vested in him as the chief priest of a 
 single nation, and the monstrous assumption of the Pope, 
 who calls himself the spiritual monarch of the whole world ! 
 
 2. We discover, secondly, in the Jewish Church, no trace 
 of worship paid to men, however eminent. No prayers were 
 ofl'ered to Abel, Enoch, Noah, nor even to Abraham, though 
 he was called " the friend of God, and the father of the faith- 
 ful." No act of canonization was allowed in favor of Moses, 
 Aaron, David, Elijah, Elisha, and the other prophets, not- 
 withstanding the fact that they were the special instruments
 
 44 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 of the Lord, and, in many cases, the workers of stupendous 
 miracles. This perilous species of idolatry, carried to such 
 an awful extent in the worship of the Virgin Mary and the 
 Saints in the Church of Home, is utterly condemned by the 
 whole character of the system given to Israel. 
 
 3. I may next remark that the divine code of the Jewish 
 Church yields no encouragement whatever to priestly or 
 monastic celibacy. Marriage, on the contrary, was the rule, 
 and celibacy was only the permitted and occasional excep- 
 tion. 
 
 4. Neither do we find, in the Mosaic system, the least ap- 
 proach to auricular confession, or private absolution, which 
 forms so large a part of the priestly domination exercised by 
 the Church of Rome. The confession of sin was indeed the 
 duty of every Israelite, but only to God, the Searcher of 
 hearts, and not to the priest, much less to any of the saints 
 departed. And the absolution of sins was believed to be the 
 prerogative of Grod alone. True, the Roman priest claims 
 his warrant from the promise of Christ to. the Apostles, say- 
 ing, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
 them ; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained." 
 But he ignores the important characteristics of this divine 
 authority, 1st, That the Apostles were "filled with the Holy 
 Ghost," inspired as no priest nor pope can pretend to be. 
 2d, That even the Apostles set no example oi private confes- 
 sion and absolution, but exercised their powers in connection 
 with the sacraments, remitting sins in baptism, excommuni- 
 cating the unworthy from the Eucharist and the Church, and 
 readmitting them on satisfactory repentance. 3d, That all 
 this was public, and never buried in the secrecy of a confes- 
 sional. And 4th, That St. Paul expressly commands Timo- 
 thy, the first Bishop of Ephesus, to avoid privacy in this 
 whole matter, saying, " Them that sin rebuke before all, that 
 others also may fear." The discipline thus exercised did 
 not difi'er, in principle, from the system of Israel. The keys 
 of the Church indeed were now transferred from the Jewish 
 priests to the Apostles and their successors, by the supreme 
 authority of Christ; but the mode in which they were ap- 
 plied was substantially the same. Por the Jews had long 
 practised a baptism, which they held to symbolize a cleansing
 
 Poi?its of Contrast. 45 
 
 from sin, when tliey circumcised a proselyte. They excom- 
 municated the unworthy member from the Synagogue, and 
 if repentant admitted him again. And therefore, while we 
 may well maintain that a far higher spiritual grace attended 
 the administration of the Sacraments under the perfect Gos- 
 pel, yet there was a true accordance in the general adminis- 
 tration of Church discipline, to Jew and Gentile. Nor is 
 this strange when we remember the doctrine of our Seventh 
 Article, which declares that " the Old Testament is not con- 
 trary to the New, for both in the Old and New Testament, 
 everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the 
 only Mediator between God and man." If then, the Faitk 
 is really the same, there is surely the best possible reason to 
 expect that the Ritualism should be, substantially, similar. 
 And I need only add that the Primitive Church, as all the 
 Fathers testify, observed the administration of ecclesiastical 
 discipline precisely as I have stated it. Nor was it until 
 after the lapse of many centuries that it became so sadly 
 perverted by the priestly despotism of Eome. All that cor- 
 ruption, also, was swept away from our Church by the Re- 
 formation, and we have retained nothing but what is in true 
 accordance with the original divine and Apostolic system. 
 
 5 . The Eomish invention of Purgatory, with all the super- 
 stition that followed in its train, has not the slightest color 
 of authority from the divine code of the chosen people. Nor 
 was there any trace of it during the first four centuries in 
 the Gentile Churches. 
 
 6. The formation of societies, bound together under a 
 perpetual vow of poverty, celibacy, and obedience to a 
 human superior, as in the Eomish system of monks and 
 nuns, has quite as little warrant from the Jewish law. And 
 St. Jerome testifies, in the fourth century, that it was then 
 entirely unknown in the Church of Eome. Its principle, 
 indeed, is clearly liable to the gravest objection, because it 
 professes to set up a more perfect plan of human duty than 
 the divine wisdom has required ; and thus, indirectly at 
 least, seems to cast a censure on the Almighty, who had not 
 established the best and highest rule of holiness in His 
 earthly kingdom. 
 
 7. And lastly, the divine code of the Jews expressly for-
 
 46 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 bids the presumption of Popery, in daring, by such unwar- 
 rantable dictation, to prescribe its laws, as if it wielded the 
 sceptre of celestial authority. For thus saith the legislator 
 of Israel, " Ye shall not add unto the word which I com- 
 mand you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye 
 may keep the commandments of the Lord your God."^ It 
 is by this awful assumption that the Pope has acquired 
 among Protestants the name of Antichrist, " who opposeth 
 and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that 
 is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of 
 God, showing himself that he is God."^ Por my own part, 
 however, I cannot adopt this opinion. I acknowledge the 
 Church of Eome to be a true Church, so far as she has pre- 
 served the essential faith of the Gospel, committed to us in 
 the Scriptures, and summed up in the ancient pure and 
 Catholic Creeds. And I hold her to have become a false 
 and corrupted Church, by reason of the unlawful power she 
 has assumed, in adding her traditions to those Holy Scrip- 
 tures, and new Articles to those Creeds, acting as the sole 
 Dictator to Christendom, and claiming the infallible and 
 divine authority which belongs to the Lord alone, while she 
 fulminates her anathemas against all who deny that " obedi- 
 ence to the Pope is necessary to salvation."^ 
 
 Towards my Eoman brethren, personally, I cherish no 
 feelings but those of affection and respect, and I have known 
 many of them, in whose integrity, piety, and worth I should 
 be willing to place the highest confidence. But the peculiar 
 
 1 Deut. iv. 2. 2 2 Thes. ii. 4. 
 
 2 This statement, to some minds, may seem to be contradictory, 
 for how can the same Church be true and false at the same time ? 
 Yet the explanation is perfectly simple when we remember that the 
 Church of Rome has never formally renounced the Scriptures, the 
 ancient pure Creeds, or any part of the original Apostolic doctrine, 
 government, and discipline. Thus far, she is a true Church, be- 
 cause thus far she maintains the truth. But she has added to all 
 this a monstrous mass of new doctrines, new government and new 
 discipline, tyrannical, superstitious, idolatrous, perilous to the soul, 
 and entirely unknown to the first pure ages of Christianity. In 
 these she is false and corrupted. And therefore she exhibits a com- 
 pound of saving truth and dangerous error. A true Church with 
 reference to the one. A. false Church with respect to the other.
 
 Rome a True Ckwrd^ 47 
 
 dogmas of their Church, so different from the Word of God 
 and the doctrine of the Primitive Christians, cannot for a 
 moment be tolerated by any intelligent mind which rests its 
 faith on the Bible. Those dogmas, with all their attendant 
 corruptions, I repudiate with all my heart. Nevertheless, 
 there would be no justice in rejecting what is good, because, 
 in the case of Eome, it may be linked with what is evil. It 
 is no argument against the Holy Scriptures, that they are 
 retained in their inspired character by the Church of Eome. 
 It is no argument against the Apostolic government, that 
 there are Bishops in the Church of Eome. It is no argu- 
 ment against a form of prayer that there is a Liturgy in the 
 Church of Eome. And just as little argument can I see 
 against the garments, the lights, the incense, and the chrism 
 used in the ancient Gentile Eituals, because these also may 
 be found in the Church of Eome. The true question should 
 be, Did the divine Eedeemer, the true Head of the Church 
 of Israel, appoint them ? Are they authorized by the su- 
 preme authority of God ? If so, shall the Church of Eome 
 deprive us of their proper use ? Must we give up any por- 
 tion of the "glory and beauty" established by the Lord 
 Himself for His earthly worship, because the Church of 
 Eome may have associated them with superstition ? The 
 answer seems to me too plain for hesitation. And it is in 
 full accordance with the principles pursued, in the main, 
 by our martyred Eeformers, that nothing which was right in 
 itself should be abandoned, through hatred to Eomanism; 
 that the Bible was the standard of aU religious truth ; and 
 that the Primitive Church, which followed the Jewish model, 
 should be taken as furnishing, on the whole, the best Eule 
 of Eitualism. 
 
 But, as I should be sorry to do injustice, even to the 
 Papal Church, though she holds me for a heretic, I must 
 add the reason why I do not subscribe to the prejudice so 
 common among my Protestant brethren, in calling the 
 Pope the great Antichrist of Scripture. The Apostle John 
 expressly saith, " He is Antichrist, that denieth the Pather 
 and the Son."^ Now the Pope has never uttered any 
 such denial. St. Paul describes Antichrist as he " who 
 » 1 Jo. ii. 22.
 
 48 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 opposetli and exaltetli himself above all that is called God, 
 01- that is worshiped ; so that he as God sitteth in the 
 temple of God, showing himself that he is God.''^ But 
 surely we cannot fairly apply this langua^^e to the Pope, 
 who has never claimed any title higher than that of the 
 sole Vicar of Christ, and has always rested his supposed 
 rights on the interpretation which he gives to our Lord's 
 own words, addre^ed to St. Peter. That this assumption 
 is a monstrous error, and totally indefensible on every 
 ground of Scripture and primitive authority, I hold most 
 firmly. But so long as the Church of Eome maintains the 
 Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds, and acknowledges the 
 truth of the Bible, I must refuse to call the Pope Antichrist, 
 in the sense for which so many learned writers have in- 
 geniously contended. Notwithstanding the corrupt inven- 
 tions which she has added to her Creed, her persecutions, 
 her idolatry of the Virgin and the Saints, and her priestly 
 despotism, she is still a part of the Holy Catholic Church, 
 by reason of the original and universal truth which she 
 retains, and in which we and all other Orthodox Churches 
 agree with her. It was only her false and uncathoUc addi- 
 tions which the Eeformation was intended to sweep away. 
 Would to God that she could have her eyes opened to her 
 real position, and return to the pure and undeiiled faith of 
 her first love, when the Written Word was her standard 
 of belief, and none but her heathen enemies had aught to 
 say against her ! 
 
 <S£&enti) Chapter. 
 
 The Law of Ritual i?i the Church of England. 
 
 Having now, as I trust, sufiiciently explained the prin- 
 ciples of Eitualism, on the sure ground of the Sacred 
 Scriptures, and in accordance with that authority which is 
 alone divine, I proceed to consider the specific questions 
 presented in the request of my respected brethren, viz., 
 
 1 2 Thes. ii. 4
 
 The English Prayer-Book. 49 
 
 first, What is tlie legal position of the advocates of Eitual- 
 ism in our Mother Church of England ? and, secondly, 
 Would the increase of Eitualism be advisable amongst our- 
 selves ? 
 
 On the first of these questions, there is no doubt about 
 the rule laid down in the English Prayer-Book, viz., " that 
 such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof, 
 at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be 
 in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority 
 of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward 
 the Sixth." 
 
 Now the reign of this admirable young sovereign com- 
 menced on the 28th day of January, 1547. The first 
 Prayer-Book, as Bishop Burnet states, was agreed to in the 
 following Parliament, but not passed by the House of Lords 
 before the 15th of January, 1548.^ 
 
 The second Prayer-Book was confirmed by Parliament, 
 in 1552, on the 6th of April.^ Pour years, therefore, 
 appear to have elapsed, between the first and the second 
 Books in this reign. And hence I must agree with the 
 Rev. Mr. Palmer in the opinion that the usage in the 
 second year of Edward VL, must be referred to the practice 
 of the Church when the first Book received the authority 
 of Parliament. Por his reign began Januaiy 28th, 1547. 
 The first Book passed the House of Lords on the 15th of 
 January, 1548. It was voted for the third time in the 
 House of Commons on the 21st of January, and if the 
 Eoyal assent was given only one week afterwards (a very 
 short interval to allow for it), we shall have reached the 
 commencement of the second year of King Edward's reign. 
 This, therefore, appears to me the better view of the matter. 
 And it concurs with the statement of Bishops Cosin and 
 Andrewes in their notes to Nichols, which is certainly high 
 authority.^ 
 
 The best proof that at this time, and long after it, the 
 vestments of the ministry continued unchanged, is furnished 
 by the fact that they were used in the consecration of two 
 Bishops, Hooper and Poynet, in the year 1550. 
 
 1 History of Eef. iii. 122. 2 ibid. 248. 
 
 3 Perry's Lawful Ornaments, p. 7. 
 4
 
 50 The LaiD of Ritualimn. 
 
 Hooper had been nominated for the diocese of Glouces- 
 ter in 1549. But being strongly inclined to the extreme 
 views of the Continental Eeformers, he "refused to be con- 
 secrated in the Episcopal garments. He held that they 
 were human inventions not suitable to the simplicity of the 
 Christian religion ; that all such ceremonies were con- 
 demned by St. Paul as beggarly elements -} that these vest- 
 ments had been invented chiefly for celebrating the Mass 
 with much pomp, and had been consecrated for that effect. 
 Therefore he desired to be excused from the use of them. 
 
 " Cranmer and Ridley, on the other hand, alleged that 
 traditions in matters of faitli were justly rejected ; but in 
 matters of rites and ceremonies, custom was often a good 
 argument for the continuance of that which had been long 
 used. Those places of St. Paul did only relate to the 
 observance of the Jewish ceremonies, which some, in the 
 Apostles' times, pleaded were still to be retained, upon the 
 authority of their first institution by Moses : so this imply- 
 ing that the Messias was not yet come, in whom all these 
 had their accomplishment, the Apostles did condemn the 
 use of them on any such account : though when the bare 
 observing them, without the opinion of any such necessity in 
 them, was likely to gain the Jews, they both used circum- 
 cision, and purified themselves in the Temple. And the 
 abuse that had been formerly was no better reason to take 
 away the use of these vestments, than it was to throw down 
 churches and take away the bells, because the one had been 
 consecrated and the other baptized, with many superstitious 
 ceremonies. Therefore they required Hooper to conform 
 himself to the law'" 
 
 I have transcribed the above in full from Burnet,- be- 
 cause it is the first plain exhibition of the puritanical ele- 
 
 >. ^ This word, heggarly, \a not authorized by the original G-reek, 
 wjiich is -aruxK signifying poor, and Parkhurst, referring to the 
 very verse, defines it truly, ^^ Poor, unahle to confer spiritual 
 riches." (Gal. iv. 9.) But beggarly is an expression of contempt 
 which we cannot suppose the Apostle felt toward the divine law, 
 however wrong it might be for the Gentiles to assume it as need- 
 ful to their salvation, after the Holy Spirit had pronounced them 
 #ee. 
 
 2 History of Ref. vol. 3, p. 200.
 
 Episcopal Vestments Retained. 51 
 
 ment which gave such serious trouble to the Church of 
 England at the commencement of the Eeformation, and 
 still remains to the present day. But it is worthy of note 
 that Bucer and Peter Martyr approved the doctrine of 
 Cranmer and Eidley, and condemned the course of Hooper.^ 
 As for him, he was suspended from preaching, in punish- 
 ment of his contumacy. At last, however, he gave up his 
 opposition, and in March, 1550, he was consecrated in 
 the Eomish vestments, with the understanding that he 
 must wear them when he preached before the King, or iu 
 his Cathedral. At other times he was permitted to do as 
 he pleased. 2 
 
 In the month of June following, John Poynet, D.D., 
 was consecrated Bishop of Kochester, and Strype relates 
 that the occasion was marked " with all the usual ceremonies 
 and habits, probably for this reason, to give as little occasion 
 to Papists as might be, and to keep close to the old usages, 
 avoiding superstition." The mitre of the Archbishop, the 
 cope, and the pastoral staff, are all specified, in his account 
 of this consecration ; and thus we have another proof of 
 the course pursued by the first Eeformers in this matter of 
 Eitualism, two years before the second Book of Edward 
 brought in a change.^ 
 
 The accession of Queen Mary drove the Church back 
 again to Popery. And the progress of the Eeformation 
 seemed hopeless, until Elizabeth came to the throne, in 
 November, A. D. 1558, to the general joy of the nation^. 
 The Prayer-Book, with some few changes, was restored in 
 accordance with the second Book of Edward, and aU things 
 were put, for the most part, in the form which they still 
 retain, yet with some difference in Eitualism. Eor we see 
 this .plainly from the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 
 the reign of Queen Elizabeth, which is thus described by 
 Str3rpe : " He wore a long scarlet gown and a hood, with 
 four torches carried before him ; Bishop Barlow had a silk 
 cope, being to administer the Sacrament ; four archdeacons 
 who attended him wearing silk copes also. The Bishop 
 elect of Chichester sung the Litany, the choir answering 
 him." But the historian says nothing about the pastoral 
 > Ibid. 2 Ibid. p. 218. 3 Perry, p. 63.
 
 53 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 staff being delivered to the Arclibishop, nor does it appear 
 that any mitres were worn, and Miles Coverdale (formerly 
 Bishop of Exeter), had no garment " but a long cloth 
 gown."^ 
 
 Here we perceive the result of Queen Mary's reign, the 
 cruelties of which naturally intensified the hatred towards 
 Popery, while the residence of many of the reformers on 
 the continent, where they had fled to avoid the dangers of 
 the time, inclined them, after their return, to confonn, in 
 some degree, to the Calvinistic pattern. But the Ritual 
 still retained much of its former state, and the Queen stood 
 opposed to many of her Bishops, in her attachment to the 
 ancient ceremonial. 
 
 In proof of this, it may suffice to quote a single specimen 
 out of many documents, viz., the letter written by Thomas 
 Sampson, one of the Puritanical Protestants in England, to 
 Peter Martyr, January, 1560 : — 
 
 " my father," saith the writer, " what can I hope for, 
 when the ministry of Christ is banished from Court, while 
 the image of the crucifix is allowed with lights burning 
 before it ? The altars indeed are removed, and images 
 also throughout the kingdom : the crucifix and candles are 
 retained at Court alone, and the wretched multitude are 
 not only rejoicing at this, but will imitate it of their own 
 accord. What can I hope, when three of our lately ap- 
 pointed bishops are to officiate at the table of the Lord, 
 one as priest, another as a deacon, and a third as sub- 
 deacon, before the image of the crucifix, or at least not far 
 from it, with candles, and habited in the goldeyi vestments of 
 the Papacy, and are thus to celebrate the Lord's Supper, 
 without any sermon ? What hope is there of any good, 
 when our friends are disposed to look for religion in those 
 dumb remnants of idolatry, and not in the preaching of the 
 lively Word of God."2 
 
 Such was the general strain of Puritanical lamentation. 
 But the judgment of the Queen was of another sort, and is 
 thus stated by Collier : " She was not," saith the historian, 
 " without a regard for the ancient appearance of religion ; 
 she thought ornament and representation no unserviceable 
 1 Perry, 154. 2 peny, 159.
 
 Chapel of Bishop Andrewes. 53 
 
 circumstance ; slie was of opinion that the service of God 
 in her brother's reign" (referring, I presume, to the latter 
 part of it), " wanted something of beauty and magnificence 
 to recommend it. In short, her aim was to settle both 
 ceremonies and doctrine upon a temper, that there might 
 be a due latitude for general approbation and belief. This 
 she apprehended to be the best expedient to unite the 
 nation, and preserve a great part of her subjects from going 
 off to the Church of Rome."^ 
 
 The spirit of the Puritans had now become so active ia 
 the Church of England, that it was impossible for the best 
 disposed among the Bishops to secure any uniformity in the 
 performance of divine worship. The variety of practice is 
 stated by Strype,^ but neither the " dissatisfaction of the 
 Queen, nor the efforts of Archbishop Parker, could prevent 
 it."^ The surplice and the cap next fell under Puritan cen- 
 sure, and the Lutherans were said to be little better than 
 the Papists themselves !^ The Queen, however, continued 
 in the same mind, though the reverence even for her did not 
 prevent the malcontents from addressing to the Parliament 
 what they called " An Admonition," in which they charge 
 the Eoyal Chapel with being "the pattern and precedent to 
 the people of all superdition.'"^ 
 
 The views of this subject entertained by Bishop Andrewes 
 who occupied the See of Winchester in the subsequent reigns 
 of James and Charles the First, may here be considered, as 
 well worthy of attention. The list of matters established in 
 his own chapel, among the " daily furniture for the altar," 
 contains the following, viz : — 
 
 1. "Two candlesticks with tapers. 
 
 2. The silver and gilt canister for the wafers. 
 
 3. A linen napkin to cover the chalice, embroidered with 
 colored silks. 
 
 4. A round ball with a screw cover, whereout issued three 
 pipes for the water of mixture. 
 
 5. A side table on which the elements stand before com- 
 munion, with two napkins. 
 
 1 Perry, p. 157. 2 Pe^ry, p. 201. 
 
 3 Ibid. p. 207. 4 Ibid. 
 
 5 Strype's Annals, quoted by Perry, p. 207.
 
 54 The Law of Ritualism, 
 
 6. A basin and ewer, to wasli before consecration. 
 
 7. A triquertral censer, wherein the clerk putteth incense 
 at the reading of the first lesson. 
 
 8. The navicula, out of which the frankincense is poured. 
 
 9. Pive copes. "^ 
 
 We have here a close conformity with the old E,itual, 
 though nothing appears about the chrism, which was cer- 
 tainly the usage of the Church in TertuUian's time, namely, 
 the close of the second century, and probably held its place 
 in the second year of Edward VI. and three years after. 
 
 The elaborate work of the Eev. T. W. Perry, on " Lawful 
 Church Ornaments," quoted so frequently, gives some very 
 interesting extracts from the learned Bishop Cosin's Notes 
 on the Prayer-Book, which furnish many valuable statements 
 on the subject. And I insert them here in full, as the work 
 itself is rare among our clergy. That eminent prelate was 
 the Dean of Peterborough, when the Puritans deprived him 
 of his preferments, and even went so far as to impeach him 
 on a charge of being inclined to Popery. This induced 
 him to retire to Prance, where he remained until the restora- 
 tion of Charles the Second. On his return, the King raised 
 him to the Bishopric of Durham, and he retained his office 
 until his death, in A. D. 1672. 
 
 Speaking of Bucer's censure upon the first Prayer-Book 
 of King Edward, Bishop Cosin saith : — " He likewise finds 
 fault there with those ministers that still used vestments 
 and lights in the Church, with the gestures of boAving and 
 crossing ; with making clean the chalice ; taking the bread 
 and wine into the priest's hand when he repeats the words 
 of institution over them ; setting the table in the same place 
 where the altar stood ; and with showing the bread and 
 the cup (though they did not elevate) to old doting and 
 superstitious persons, who were ready to adore them. All 
 which he wished to have altered. And so it was, in the fifth 
 of Edward VI." 
 
 " But in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth, all the orna- 
 ments of the Church were restored again, by the Act of 
 Uniformity ; and the posture of the table where the altar 
 stood, was specially appointed, by the Queen's injunction." 
 1 Perry, pp. 351, 352.
 
 Bishop Cosins Notes. 55 
 
 So too, in commeriting on the words " as were in use," 
 in the Eabric of Elizabeth's Book, Bishop Cosin saith, 
 *' There were in use, not a surplice and hood, as we now use, 
 but a plain white alb, with a vestment or cope over it : and 
 therefore, according to this rubric, we are all still bound to 
 wear albs and vestments, as they have been so long time 
 worn in the Church of God, howsoever it is neglected. Por 
 the disuse of these ornaments, we may thank them that came 
 from Geneva, and in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's 
 reign, being set in places of government, suffered every 
 negligent priest to do what him listed, so he would but 
 profess a difference and opposition in all things (though 
 never so lawful otherwise) against the Church of Rome, and 
 the ceremonies therein used." 
 
 Again, speaking of the abolition of ornaments in Edward's 
 second Book, Bishop Cosin remarks, that "by the Act of 
 Uniformity (of Elizabeth) the Parliament thought fit not to 
 continue this last order, but to restore the first again ; which 
 since that time was never altered by any other law, and 
 therefore it is still in force at this day." 
 
 With regard to the two lights upon the altar, the Bishop 
 writes as follows, viz. : — 
 
 "Among other ornaments of the Church also in use 
 in the second year of Edward VI. there were two lights 
 appointed by his injunctions (which the Parliament had 
 authorized him to make, and whereof they otherwhiles 
 make mention as acknowledging them to be binding), to 
 be set upon the high altar, as a significant ceremony of 
 the light which Christ's Gospel brought into the world; 
 and this at the same time when all other lights and tapers, 
 superstitiously set before images, were by the same injunc- 
 tions, with many other absurd ceremonies and superfluities, 
 taken away. These lights were (by virtue of this present 
 rubric of Elizabeth, refening to what was in use in the 
 second year of Edward), afterwards continued in all the 
 Queen's chapels during her whole reign, and so are they 
 ' in the King's, and in many Cathedral churches, besides 
 the chapels of divers noblemen, Bishops, and colleges, to 
 this day." 
 
 " It was well known that the Lord Treasurer, Burleigh
 
 56 The Law of Ritimlism. 
 
 (who was no friend to superstition or Popery), used them 
 constantly in his chapel, with other ornaments of fronts, 
 palls, and books, upon his altar. The like did Bishop 
 Andrewes, wdio was a man that knew well what he did, 
 and as free from Popish superstition as any in the kingdom 
 besides." 
 
 With respect to altars. Bishop Cosin saith, " It will be 
 worthy of noting that no Cathedral church had any pulling 
 down, removing, or changing the altar into a table, no 
 more than in the Court, but in such places only where 
 deans and bishops and prebends were preferred, that suffered 
 themselves more to be led by the fashions which they had 
 seen at Strasburg in Germany, and Greneva in Prance, and 
 Zurich in Switzerland, than by the orders of the Church of 
 England established and continued in her Majesty's family, 
 the likeliest to understand the meaning of the Church and 
 State. Therefore they that will not either endure that we 
 should have, or they that will not believe we have, any Altar 
 allowed and continued in our Church (howsoever as it is 
 here, and as it is in most of the Fathers sometimes, called 
 a table), let them go to the King's Court, and to most of 
 our Cathedral churches, and inquire how long they have 
 stood there, and kept that name only, as being indeed the 
 most eminent and the most usual among Christians." 
 
 That Bishop Cosin allowed a Credence Table, or ProtJiesis^ 
 is plain by his quoting with approval the following passage 
 from Bishop Andrewes : " Into his hands the priest, from 
 a by-standing table on the south side, reacheth first the 
 wafer bread, in a canister close covered, and lined with 
 linen. Secondly, the wine in a barrel on a cradle with four 
 feet. These the bishop offereth in the name of the whole 
 congregation, upon the altar." 
 
 Moreover this learned prelate did not consider the mixed 
 chalice to be contrary to the law of the Church of England, 
 for, after quoting some of the Pathers on the necessity of 
 using wine, he proceeds to say, " This were enough to free 
 our Church from any heinous offence, though it uses not 
 commonly to mix water with wine, as the Church of Rome 
 doth, and yet we must confess the custom is very ancient, 
 consonant to the figures of the Old Testament, which St.
 
 Anointing the Sick. 57 
 
 Cyprian reckons up, and of tlie New, where water and 
 blood issued out of Christ's side ; and agreeable (as there 
 is great probability) to Christ's own practice, when He did 
 first institute this Holy Sacrament. Our Church forbids it 
 not, for aught I know ; and they that think fit may use it, 
 as some most eminent among us do at this day." 
 
 With respect to anointing the sick. Bishop Cosin saith, 
 "If we anoint not now with the oil, it is because we doubt 
 whether it be lawful to continue, that extraordinary and 
 miraculous custom, that was well used in St. James's time." 
 
 These copious extracts I have taken from the book of 
 the Eev. Mr. Perry, pages 454-457. But I confess that I 
 cannot understand the last paragraph, which does not ap- 
 pear to me consistent with the language of Scripture. Por 
 the anointing directed by St. James was 7iot miraculous. 
 The healing of the sick is not attributed by the Apostle to 
 the oil, but to the " prayer of faith," and that prayer is still 
 used by the Church, for the same purpose. The learned 
 Bishop says nothing of the chrism, or holy oil used by the 
 Primitive Christians so early as the second century. But 
 the same argument which justifies any other religious rite 
 would apply to this : namely, that it had the warrant of 
 divine command in the Church of Israel, and was plainly 
 adopted by the Gentile Church, in the purest period of her 
 history. 
 
 The next important point, urged by our English brethren, 
 who contend for the restoration of the Eitual as it stood 
 in the second year of Edward VL, is derived from the 
 Statute 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, § 2. And they quote the 
 following passages from the high authority of Burn's Ec- 
 clesiastical Law.i 
 
 " Besides the foreign Canon Law, we have our legatine 
 and provincial Constitutions." 
 
 " Concerning this whole body of the Canon Law, it is 
 enacted by the Statute 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, as followeth : 
 — ' That such canons, constitutions, ordinances, and synodals 
 provincial, being already made, which be not contrariant or 
 repugnant to the laws, statutes, and customs of this realm, 
 
 1 Yol. I., Preface, p. xxiii., Phillimore's Ed. 1842.
 
 18 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 nor to the damage or hurt of the king's prerogative royal, 
 shall now still be used and executed as they were before 
 the making of this act, till such time as they be -sdewed, 
 searched or otherwise ordered and determined by the said 
 two and thirty men (who were to be appointed to revise 
 them), according to the tenor, form, and effect of this 
 present act.' "^ 
 
 The legal force of this is clearly set forth in Blackstone's 
 Commentaries. For thus saith that learned Judge : — " There 
 is also a kind of National Canon Law, composed of legatiim 
 and provincial Constitutions, and adapted only to the exigen- 
 cies of this Church and kingdom. Tlie legatine Constitu- 
 tions were ecclesiastical laws, enacted in national synods, 
 lield under the Cardinals Otho and Othobon, about the 
 years 1220 and 1268. The provincial Constitutions are 
 principally the decrees of provincial synods, held under 
 divers Archbishops of Canterbury, from Stephen Langton 
 in the reign of Henry III., to Henry Chichele in the reign 
 of Henry V., and adopted also by the province of York, 
 in the reign of Henry VI. At the dawn of the Eeformation, 
 in the reign of Henry YIII., it was enacted in Parliament 
 that a review should be had of the Canon Law, and till such 
 review should be made, all canons, constitutions, ordinances 
 and synodals provincial, being then already made, and not 
 repugnant to the law of the land or the king's prerogative, 
 should still be used and executed. And as no such review 
 has yet been perfected, upon this statute now depends the 
 authority of the Canon Law in England. "^ 
 
 It becomes important, therefore, to ascertain whether this 
 law enjoins those portions of the old ritual which are now 
 sought to be revived, having undergone no change from 
 subsequent legislation. The legatine and provincial Consti- 
 tutions were translated by the learned Johnson, and from 
 them I extract the following, viz. : — 
 
 1. The priest is expressly directed ''always to mingle 
 water with the wine. Por the wine betokeneth our redemp- 
 tion through Christ's blood, and the water betokeneth the 
 people for whom He suffered."^ 
 
 2. " That no price be demanded for chrism, oi], baptism, 
 » Ibifl. 2 Commentaries, Yol. I. p. 83. ^ Pen-y, 475.
 
 Lecjatine and Tromicial Conditutions. 59 
 
 visiting or anointing the sick, for the communion of the 
 body of Christ, or for burial."^ 
 
 And again, " We ordain and charge that the Sacraments 
 of the Church, as also the holy oil and chrism^ be purely and 
 devoutly administered by the ministers of the Church, with- 
 out any spice of covetousness."^ 
 
 In the list of matters stated as then in established use, we 
 have these items, viz. : — 
 
 1. Processional Cross. 
 
 2. Two Lights on the Altar. 
 
 3. A Censer and Incense. 
 
 4. Altar Cross and Chancel-screen Cross. 
 
 5. Surplice. 
 
 6. Alb. 
 
 7. Girdle. 
 
 8. Stole. 
 
 9. Dalmatic. 
 
 10. Tunicle. 
 
 11. Chasuble or Vestment. 
 
 12. Cope. 
 
 13. Amice. 
 
 14. Cape or Tippet. 
 
 15. Maniple. 
 
 16. Hood. 
 
 17. Cassock. 
 
 The question, therefore, resolves itself into this simple 
 form : — Did the first Book of Edward YI., which was in 
 force in the second year of his reign, and for three years 
 after, forbid the use of those things ? Surely not ; for that 
 Book nowhere pronounces any condemnation of the cere- 
 monial or Eitual, as it previously existed in the days of 
 Henry VIII. : and we have already seen, from the consecra- 
 tions of Bishops Hooper and Poynet ; from the complaints 
 of the Puritans against the retention of the crucifix, the 
 lights and the vestments by Queen Elizabeth in the Eoyal 
 Chapel ; from the scarlet robe, the torches and the copes 
 used at the consecration of Archbishop Parker ; from the 
 lights, the incense, and the garments retained by Bishop 
 Andrewes, and from the testimony of Bishop Cosin ; how 
 » Ibid. 485. 2 Ibid. 486.
 
 60 The Law of RituaUsm. 
 
 the judgment of tlie best and most learned minds in our 
 Mother Church regarded the strictly legal aspect of the old 
 ecclesiastical order. 
 
 True, indeed, it is, that these ritual observances have 
 disappeared for many generations, and it is only of late 
 years that any effort has been made to revive them. True 
 it is, that the increasing influence of Puritanism and Cal- 
 vinism induced the Church of England to lay aside much 
 of her " glory and beauty," in the vain hope of making an 
 acceptable compromise with the spirit of dissent. And 
 therefore it may plausibly be said that the order of these 
 matters in the second year of Edward VI. has become 
 obsolete, and that the rule of law has virtually passed 
 away. 
 
 But this notion is without any authority. Dr. Lushing- 
 ton himself utterly repudiates it. " I wholly deny," saith 
 he, " that the Statute of Edward the Sixth, passed in the 
 second year of his reign, or the Statute of Uniformity, can 
 be affected by non-usage. By the law of England, no 
 etatute can fall into desuetude. It is true that a statute 
 may become obsolete in one sense ; that is, not enforced. 
 It is true that no call may be made on the judges of the 
 land to enforce it ; that by common consent a statute may 
 lie dormant. But if once a court is called upon to cany it 
 into execution, it must do so."^ 
 
 And the Prayer-Book of England furnishes a standing 
 evidence that the law is unchanged, because the Rubric is 
 still there, requiring, in express words, that " such orna- 
 ments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, at all 
 times of their ministration, sJiall be retained and be in use, 
 as were in this Church of England, by the authority of 
 Parliament, in the second year of the reign of Edward the 
 Sixth." 
 
 I shall only add, from the Eighth Edition of Burn's 
 Ecclesiastical Law, corrected and enlarged by Tyrwhitt, 
 and published in 1824, a few paragraphs, to close this 
 chapter. It is hardly necessary to remind my readers that 
 this work stands in the rank of the highest authority. 
 
 The writer states expressly that the first Book of Edward 
 1 Perry, p. 533.
 
 i Burn 8 Statement of the Law. 61 
 
 VI. belongs to the second year of liis reign, wliicli is in 
 accordance with my own opinion as already given. ^ 
 
 " Thus stood the Liturgy," saith our author, " until the 
 fifth year of Edward VI. But because some things were 
 contained in that Liturgy which showed a compliance with 
 the superstition of those times, and some exceptions were 
 taken to it by some learned men at home, and by Calvin 
 abroad, therefore it was reviewed, in which Martin Bucer 
 was consulted, and some alterations were made in it, which 
 consisted in adding the General Confession and Absolution, 
 and the Communion to begin with the Ten Commandments. 
 Tlie use of oil in Confirmation and Extreme TJnction tvas left 
 out, and also prayers for souls departed'"^ 
 
 But here I would observe that although these were left 
 out, yet there has been no condemnation of them. The case 
 is much the same as that of Lay Baptism. The Church 
 recognized its validity in the first Book of Edward VL, and 
 directions were laid down for its performance when a priest 
 could not be called in time. These directions were left out 
 afterwards, but no proliihition was put forth, nor has any 
 well-informed Churchman ever doubted that a layman may 
 lawfully baptize, in the hour of extremity, just as before. 
 
 The second Book of Edward was abolished by Queen 
 Mary, and it was enacted that the service should stand as it 
 was most commonly used in the last year of Henry VIII.^ 
 Of course the old Sarum Liturgy was thus restored. 
 
 Queen Elizabeth brought back the second Prayer-Book 
 of Edward, and it was ratified with a few alterations, by 
 Parliament. But the clause was then inserted that "such 
 ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof should 
 be retained and used, as was in this Church of England in 
 the second year of Edward," and such is the law at the 
 present day.* 
 
 The last Act of Uniformity is that which was passed in 
 the reign of Charles II., when the same clause was retained. 
 Some slight changes and additions were also adopted, and 
 the whole result was made obligatory. 
 
 But the Eubric referring to the second year of Edward VL, 
 "makes it necessary," saith our author, "to recur to the 
 
 1 lb. p. 237. 2 lb. p. 239. 3 lb. p. 240. ^ ib. p. 244.
 
 62 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 Prayer-Book, as then establislied." And here he sets forth 
 the following extracts as the law prescribed therein : — 
 
 " In the saying or singing of Matins and Even-songe, bap- 
 tizing and burying, the minister in parishe churches and 
 chapels annexed to the same, shall use a surples. And in 
 all Cathedral churches and coUedges, the archdeacons, deanes, || 
 provostes, maisters, prebendaries and fellows, being graduates, 
 may use in the quire, beside their surplesses, such hoodes as 
 pertaineth to their several degrees which they have taken 
 in any universitie within this realm. But in all other 
 places, every minister shall be at libertie to use any surples 
 or no."i 
 
 On this, the author observes, " that in manying, church- 
 ing of women and other offices not here specified, it seemeth 
 that a surplice is not necessary. And the reason why it is 
 not enjoined for the Holy Communion in particular, is, be- 
 cause other vestments are appointed for that ministration, 
 which are as followeth : Upon the day, and at the time ap- 
 pointed for ministration of the Holy Communion, the priest 
 that shall execute the Holy Ministry shall put upon him the 
 vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say, a 
 white albe plain, with a vestment, or cope. And where there 
 be many priests or deacons, there so many shall be ready to 
 . help the priest in the ministration, as shall be requisite, and 
 shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for 
 their ministry, that is to say, albes with tunicles.'"^ 
 
 "Note, the alb differs from the surplice, in being close- 
 sleeved."3 
 
 "And whensoever the Bishop shall celebrate the Holy 
 Communion in the Church, or execute any other public 
 ministration, he shall have upon him, besides his rochet, a 
 surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pas- 
 toral staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his 
 chaplain."* 
 
 Such seems to be the clear law of the Church of England 
 concerning vestments, at this day, although it has been so 
 long and so generally disregarded. Yet one cannot but 
 observe how plainly the thirtieth Canon of that Church lays 
 down the true principle, namely, that it was not " the pur- 
 1 Perry, p. 265. - Ibid. ' Ibid. " Ibid.
 
 The Thirtieth Canon, 63 
 
 pose of the Churck of England to forsake and reject the 
 Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like 
 Churches," excepting "in those particular points wherein 
 they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient in- 
 tegrity, and from the Apostolic Churches which were their 
 first founders." 
 
 This was, undoubtedly, the original design of the Eefor- 
 mation. Indeed, it was the only ground on which reforma- 
 tion could be justified. And hence I confess myself unable 
 to perceive the wisdom or the justice of any needless altera- 
 tion. For why should we object to those solemn and im- 
 pressive features in the worship of God which had their 
 origin in the divine system given to Israel, — which were 
 adopted by the early Chi'istian Gentiles, — which were in 
 general use throughout the whole East and West before 
 the sixteenth century, — which remained in the Eeformed 
 Church of England during the first five years of Edward VI., 
 and were then believed, by her best divines, to need no 
 change ? 
 
 It would require a veiy laborious examination to decide, 
 with certainty, upon every distinct point of ritual order 
 which our English brethren seem bent on reviving. But it 
 cannot be denied that there is abundant room for improve- 
 ment. The modern dress of the Bishops is destitute of aU 
 legal authority, save only as it respects the rochet, nor can I 
 find when or by whom the present fashion was introduced. 
 It is equally certain that the garment worn in the adminis- 
 tration of the Eucharist is not according to law, for that 
 prescribes the cope, which has been so long discontinued, 
 that few know any thing about its proper form. As to the 
 black gown, worn by the preacher so generally, there is not 
 a particle of English legislation to warrant it. And quite 
 as little can be said in favor of that formal trifle, the bands. 
 This queer invention, as Burn plainly declares, "forms no 
 part of the canonical habit; being not so ancient as any 
 Canon of the Church." But it "came in with the Puritans 
 and other sectaries, upon the downfall of Episcopacy," and 
 afterwards became the common habit of men of all denomi- 
 nations and professions, which giving way in its turn, was 
 yet retained by the gentlemen of the long robe (both ec-
 
 64 The Laio of Ritualism. 
 
 clesiastical and temporal), only because tliey would not follow 
 every caprice of fashion. "^ 
 
 We have just seen the express law of our Mother Church, 
 directing- the pastoral staff in the ministration of the Bishop. 
 And it is stated by Strype that the mitre was worn by Cran- 
 mer and his colleagues, at the consecration of Bishops Hooper 
 and Poynet. Both of these have disappeared, in spite of 
 law, and are now found only in effigy, upon Episcopal 
 chairs and seals — as a sort of fossilized memorial of what 
 was once an expressive reality. Thank God, we still have 
 the Bible, the Prayer-Book, the two great Sacraments, Con- 
 firmation, and the Surplice derived from the linen garment of 
 the priests 2 in ancient Israel! And doubtless the Church 
 can live and grow with these, and fulfill the objects of her 
 mission, although she has unhappily been led to put aside 
 so much of her own prescribed order, and lost a large por- 
 tion of the "glory and beauty" designed for the service of 
 the Sanctuary by the wisdom and love of her divine Lord 
 and Master ! 
 
 To my mind, therefore, the legal position of our English 
 brethren in this matter of Ritualism, is justifiable with respect 
 to its main design, and stands on a far higher ground of 
 Scripture, law, and reason, than that of their adversaries. 
 So long as the great doctrines of the Reformation are faith- 
 fully preached by the clergy, I can see no danger that a 
 solemn, rich, and attractive ritual will ever lead any one to 
 Popery. Is it not more reasonable to believe that the restor- 
 ation of the old ceremonial, which existed in the second year 
 of Edward the Sixth, would give our Church the advantage 
 which now forms the most alluring characteristic of Rome ? 
 Por what but her superior claim of outward grandeur and 
 impressiveness, operates so powerfully to keep her own 
 votaries steadfast in their allegiance, and to draw so many 
 others into the snare of error ? Has not truth as good a 
 right as falsehood, to be adorned with beauty ? And is it 
 to be questioned that religion should favorably affect the 
 senses, in order that it may better reach the soul ? 
 
 1 Burn's i:cc. Law, Vol. III. pp. 207, 208. 
 
 2 The general color of the ephod was white : though the " robe of 
 the ephod," a separate garment, was blue. See Exod. xxviii. 31.
 
 Ritual m the Church of America. |65 
 
 I say not this because I feel tlie slightest inclination toward 
 the old Eitual, which was certainly the established rule in 
 the second year of King Edward VI. Personally, I pre- 
 fer the more simple ceremonial to which I have been accus- 
 tomed all my life, and men can hardly be expected to adopt 
 new tastes and habits at the age of seventy-five. But I 
 cannot condemn the ordinances which the wisdom of God 
 appointed for His chosen people. I cannot argue against 
 the Gentile Churches for taking the Church of Israel for 
 their model, because that was the only model which was in 
 truth divine. Whatever my individual taste and habits may 
 be, I owe all my religious allegiance, in this and every other 
 subject connected with the Gospel, to the Written Word 
 OF God. And when I see that the Rubric of the English 
 Prayer-Book is in accordance with that Word, substantially 
 enjoining the same principles of "glory and beauty" in the 
 outward ceremonial of the Sanctuary, my reverence for the 
 Bible compels me to acknowledge that a splendid and im- 
 pressive Eitual can neither be hostile to the doctrines of 
 a pure faith, nor unfavorable to the exercise of a spiritual 
 devotion. 
 
 3Eis{jtfj ffiljapter. 
 
 TJie Law of Ritual in the Church of America, 
 
 Having thus endeavored to prove, at least with candid 
 impartiality, that the advocates for the old Ritualism in 
 the Church of England have the Scriptures, the Primitive 
 Church, and their own law upon their side, I come next to 
 the important question, How far are we, an independent 
 branch of the Holy Catholic Church, bound by the same 
 principles ? 
 
 And here I would first direct the reader to the language 
 of the Preface to our American Book of Common Prayer, 
 where we read that '* this Church is far from intending to 
 5
 
 66 The Law of Rihialism. 
 
 depart from the Churcli of England in any essential point 
 of doctrine, discipline, or worship ; or farther than local cir- 
 cumstances require." 
 
 Whether this word '* essential" be understood to mean, 
 essential to the attainment of salvation, or essential to the 
 existence of the Church, or essential to the succession of 
 her ministry, the purity of her faith, the administration of 
 her sacraments, the exercise of her discipline, and the 
 established form of her worship, there can be no question 
 that in any and all of these senses our Church has not 
 departed from the Church of England, but is, in all respects, 
 substantially the same. 
 
 But now the important inquiry is presented, namely : — Is 
 the omission of certain other matters in the English system 
 to be understood as a departure from it, in such a sense, 
 that we are no longer at liberty to maintain any thing in 
 doctrine, discipline, or worship, which, though fully estab- 
 lished by law in the Church of England, is not specifically 
 ordered in our own ? 
 
 Here, undoubtedly, is a question to be settled. Eor it is 
 certain that our Church does not enjoin or require many 
 things which are enjoined and required in our Mother 
 Church. Are we to suppose that those things, with us, 
 are therefore to be held unlawful ? Or, in other words, do 
 omission and prohibition bear the same meaning ? 
 
 To maintain that these terms are synonymous, and that 
 omission and prohibition are precisely equivalent, is an 
 absurdity so gross, that I cannot suppose any reasonable 
 man would deliberately adopt such a preposterous proposi- 
 tion. Yet there are many in our Church whose attention 
 has never been directed to the subject ; and hence their 
 notions are unavoidably confused and indistinct, needing a 
 plain explanation. In the hope of aiding them to form a 
 clear and just conclusion on this important point, I ask 
 their consideration of the following statements : — 
 
 It is a well-settled rule, in all our courts of justice, that 
 every part of the Common and Statute Laws of England^ 
 which were in force throughout the Colonies, and adapted 
 to their circumstances before the war of Independence (with 
 the single exception of what concerned the rights of the
 
 Colonial Law continued. 67 
 
 Crown), continued to be the laws of the land, notwithstand- 
 ing the Eevolution, and are still obligatory, unless changed 
 and done away by subsequent acts of our own legislation. 
 Of that proposition, there is, andean be, no doubt whatever. 
 
 This well-known principle supplies the true legal founda- 
 tion, on which our American Church can rest securely with- 
 out danger of mistake. 
 
 Before the Eevolution, the English Prayer-Book was the 
 Prayer-Book of the Colonies, and the Rubric directing the 
 ornaments of the Church and her Ministers to be in accord- 
 ance with the usage of the second year of Edward VI., was 
 as binding in America as it was in England, though, in 
 both, that Rubric had long been practically disregarded. 
 All the other rules of the Church of England belonged also 
 to the Colonies, because the Church was the same Churchy 
 having the same doctrines, the same forms, the same dis- 
 cipline in every respect, notwithstanding the fact that the 
 Colonial Churches, under the force of circumstances, were 
 not enabled to carry them into full execution, having no 
 Bishops, nor organized dioceses, nor Cathedral services. 
 Nevertheless the law was there, and so far as law was con- 
 cerned, there was no difference. 
 
 If, then, the laws of England (with the single exception 
 stated), continued to be the laws of the United States after 
 the Revolution, save only so far as they were changed or 
 superseded by actual legislation, much more does the prin- 
 ciple apply to the Church of Christ, whose "kingdom is 
 not of this world." Eor in the Church there was no Revolu- 
 tion. The Church in the Colonies did not seek to separate 
 her ministers or members from their Mother ; nor claim her 
 independence by any revolt against the spiritual authority 
 from which she derived her very being. And therefore 
 when she asked for an independent ecclesiastical organiza- 
 tion, she did it on the ground of necessity, after England 
 had acknowledged the political independence of the United 
 States, and a treaty of peace had been ratified between their 
 respective governments. The request thus dutifully made 
 was received most graciously. Our Mother Church not 
 only admitted the validity of the plea, but cheerfully granted 
 the application. The Parliament passed a law for the
 
 68 Tlie Law of Ritualism. 
 
 special purpose of consecrating our first three American 
 Bishops : and thus with magnanimous kindness and true 
 Christian sympathy, they enabled us to commence our new 
 career. 
 
 Having now become an independent Church, we acquired, 
 of course, the power to legislate for ourselves, as completely 
 as the United States possessed authority to make their laws, 
 and alter them at pleasure. And as the law of England 
 before the Eevolution continued to be the law of the United 
 States after the Eevolution, until it was done away by the 
 exercise of this independent power, even so the law of the 
 Church of England continues to be our law to this day, so 
 far as it has not been superseded by positive ecclesiastical 
 legislation. 
 
 For, as we have seen in the quotation from Dr. Lushing- 
 ton himself,^ "No statute can be affected by non-usage.''' 
 It needs the authority of the legislature itself to alter what 
 the legislature has established. No other power but that 
 which creates, can destroy the law. The omission to legis- 
 late cannot alter the law. The neglect to obey it cannot 
 alter the law. The creation of a prejudice ag-ainst it cannot 
 alter the law. In a word, no law'can be deprived of its 
 binding obligation, until some other law is passed which, 
 of necessity, does it away. 
 
 All this is so manifest to the slightest refl.ection, that I 
 should be ashamed to set it forth in such detail, if the very 
 common misconceptions of many amongst my most highly 
 esteemed brethren did not seem to render the explanation 
 necessary. 
 
 The application of the principle to our actual position, 
 however, may help to clear the truth of the case from the 
 possibility of misconception. 
 
 1. Our Church in the United States, by virtue of the 
 Act of Parliament which authorized the consecration of our 
 first three Bishops without the acknowledgment of any relation 
 to the civil power, is perfectly free from all those parts of 
 the English law wherein the secular government was directly 
 concerned ; while all that belonged to the doctrines, disci- 
 pline, and worship of the Church herself considered as a 
 1 Perry, p. 78.
 
 Omission is not Prohibition. 69 
 
 spiritual society, remained in force, until a change sliould 
 be made by our own independent legislation. This is the 
 fundamental legal principle. And in accordance with it, 
 we have re-arranged our Liturgy, our Offices, and Articles, 
 agreeing in the main with the standard Book of our Mother 
 Church ; in all of which, of course, our own law is alone 
 obligatory. 
 
 3. We have omitted the Athanasian Creed from its place 
 in our former English Liturgy, because some persons ob- 
 jected to the damnatory clause, which saith, that this is the 
 Catholic Faith, "which Faith, except every one do keep 
 whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish ever- 
 lastingly.'' But our Church has nowhere prohibited the 
 doctrine, nor passed any censure on our Mother Church 
 for maintaining it. While it is true, therefore, that this 
 Creed cannot be lawfully introduced into the public Lit- 
 urgy, which is fixed by our legislative authority, yet it is no 
 less true that every clergyman is at liberty to preach it, 
 precisely as it stands in the English book, if he thinks it 
 advisable. And were he inclined to enforce the damnatory 
 clause itself from the pulpit, although very few, even 
 amongst our English brethren, would praise his discretion, 
 still it is most certain that our Church has set forth nothing 
 that would justify any formal sentence of rebuke or con- 
 demnation. 
 
 3. Our American standards have laid down no law for 
 the vestments of the deacon or the priest, but our Church 
 has simply continued her practice under the law of our 
 venerated Mother which expressly enjoins the use of the 
 surplice. This law we have never changed, and therefore it 
 is still, and doubtless ever will be, binding : for it has its 
 derivation from the Primitive Church, which adopted it from 
 the divine law of Israel. 
 
 The Church of England has never given any legal authority 
 to the black gown, as the proper habit of the preacher^ 
 But she has suffered it, ever since the Pope of Eome brought 
 in the fashion by authorizing the Black Eriars {Fratres 
 Predicatores) to preach wherever they pleased throughout 
 Europe. This sifferance was continued, and our Church 
 received the practice from her venerable Mother, both re-
 
 70 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 maining in the same position to the present day, while very- 
 few in either of the Churches, seem to remember that this 
 dress — supposed to be especially evangelical, because it was 
 favored by our Lutheran and Presbyterian brethren, — had 
 its real origin from the Monks, and from the Papacy, long 
 before the Eeformation. 
 
 There are many, however, who plead in its behalf the 
 authority of custom y not being aware, I presume, that no 
 custom has the force of law, unless it be so old, that, in 
 accordance with the legal phraseology, "the memory of 
 man runneth not to the contrary."^ Strictly speaking, 
 therefore, this matter has no right to be called custom, in 
 the sense of legality. Por we know its beginning from the 
 Monks and the Pope, and hence this common apology has 
 no true foundation. 
 
 4. Our Church has set forth no rule for the vestments 
 of her Bishops, save that the Ordinal mentions the rochet. 
 The only law which includes the whole is the law of our 
 Mother Church, referring to the second year of Edward 
 VI., and that law is as binding on us as it is on them, until 
 we think fit to make another. The present fashion, in 
 both the Churches, is the same, but it is absolutely desti- 
 tute of any legal warrant. It cannot claim authority from 
 custom, for the reason already assigned. We know, from 
 the historical account of Archbishop Parker's consecration, 
 that this fashion was not introduced in the reign of Eliza- 
 beth. When it came in, or by tohose agency, I doubt whether 
 any man can tell. Most probably it was brought about 
 by the influence of Puritanism, in the dangerous spirit 
 of compromise with those zealous antagonists of the Church 
 system ; who, however, as experience has fully proved, 
 were never conciliated, but still continue to declaim against 
 our supposed leaning towards Popery as persistently as 
 ever. 
 
 Many years ago, I took the liberty to improve my o^ti 
 vestments by adopting the forms of the alb and the surplice, 
 which are appointed by the law of the Church ; as also by 
 laying aside the bands, and the black gown, in the sei'vice 
 of the Sanctuary. This, however, so far as I know, was 
 1 Blackstone, Vol. I. p. 67.
 
 The Choral Service legal. 71 
 
 attributed, not to any reverence for ecclesiastical consistency, 
 but rather to an affectation of singularity. But the time 
 may come when the question will demand attention; and, 
 then, if I am not much mistaken, a far more extensive 
 change will be adopted by my respected brethren, not only 
 in form, but in color also. Men may endeavor to make 
 light of these matters, as being things of indifference. But 
 nothing should be esteemed of indifference which stands 
 connected with religious worship. And no Christian who 
 reveres the Bible will undervalue the subject of ministerial 
 costume, when he remembers that it was thought worthy of 
 being specially regulated by the God of Israel. 
 
 5. Another instance where the law of our Mother Church 
 is followed, presents itself in the chanting of the Psalms, the 
 Eesponses, &c., although our Prayer-Book does not express 
 the alternative " said or sung" as in the Church of England, 
 but only prescribes that they shall be " said :" the words 
 " or sung" being omitted. Yet this does not prevent our 
 chanting them, nor does it hinder us from singing them as 
 anthems, according to the established practice in the English 
 Cathedrals. Eor our Church has used no terms of prohibi- 
 tion. She directs that they shall be " said," and the words 
 may certainly be said, i. e., pronounced audibly, whether with 
 music or without it. But she has never decreed that they 
 shall not be sung. And therefore singing them is no viola- 
 tion of the law ; thus proving again that omission and 
 prohibition are matters which are perfectly distinct, and 
 never to be confounded with each other. 
 
 6. It may next be observed that nothing is said, in our 
 American standards, to authorize Cathedrals, crosses, cre- 
 dences, episcopal chairs, altar cloths, &c. Neither have 
 we set forth any declaration approving Deans and Chapters, 
 Archdeacons, Metropolitans or Archbishops. But on the 
 other hand, nothing is said against them. They are all 
 found in the records of the Primitive Church. They are 
 all found in the Mother Church of England. And we have 
 proclaimed to the whole Christian world, in the Preface to 
 our Book of Common Prayer, that our Church did not 
 intend "to depart from the Church of England any farther 
 than local circumstances require." Whenever, therefore.
 
 72 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 local circumstances do not require any departure from the 
 established laws of the Church of England, have we not 
 here virtually pledged ourselves to comply with them ? And 
 as we have enacted no laws of our own in any of these 
 matters, how can we be charged with a violation of law if we 
 choose to introduce them ? 
 
 7. The same liberty exists with regard to lights upon or 
 behind the Altar, the use of chrism and incense, the mixing 
 of water with the wine of the Holy Eucharist, and the repre- 
 sentation of figures and emblems in stained glass windows ; 
 for all of these v^ere established by usage in the second 
 year of Edward YI., and our Church has uttered no pro- 
 hibition concerning any of them, but has merely omitted to 
 notice them, directly or indirectly, in her whole legislation. 
 It is certain that none of these things interfere with our 
 Liturgy, because they may be used without deviating, in 
 the slightest degree from our prescribed forms. And the 
 plain result would seem to be that their introduction, 
 whether expedient or not, can never be justly considered 
 unlawful. 
 
 Such, in my humble opinion, is the fair view which ought 
 to be received on the legal aspect of the question. The last 
 point to be considered is the very serious inquiry presented 
 by ray respected brethren, namely, " Whether an increase 
 of Eitualism would be advisable among us ; or whether the 
 ordinary average of present parochial practice would best 
 carry forward the great work of the Church in such a 
 country as ours." And to this I shall devote my next and 
 concluding chapter. 
 
 Expediency of Mutual Toleration. 
 
 I HAVE stated, at large, my reasons for believing that the 
 divine law, which it pleased the Lord to bind upon His 
 favored chosen people, has never been repealed : though
 
 Two FartieB in the Chwch. 73 
 
 the sacrifices ceased, being types of the Atonement accom- 
 plished by the death of our glorious Eedeemer, and the 
 priesthood passed from Aaron's sons to the Apostles, and 
 baptism in the sacred name of the Trinity and the Sacra- 
 ment of the Holy Eucharist were instituted by our Great 
 High Priest ; all of which were not to be understood as an 
 abrogation of the law, but rather as a further development of 
 the sublime plan for its designed perfection, in accordance 
 with the declaration of the Saviour Himself, that He " came 
 not to destroy the law, but to fulfill." 
 
 I have also shown that while the Gentile portion of the 
 Church was pronounced to be free from the ceremonial law 
 of Israel, by the Council of the Apostles, under the guidance 
 of the Holy Spirit at Jerusalem, yet they adopted, as the 
 only divine model, the principal features of the Mosaic 
 system in their external order : the great principle of faith 
 IN Cheist, with all its attendant graces, being of course, in 
 both branches of the Church, precisely the same. 
 
 This being understood, we see, under the administration 
 of the inspired Apostles, two classes in the one undivided 
 Church — the Jewish converts, who practised circumcision, 
 and " walked orderly, and kept the ceremonial law ;" and 
 the Gentile converts, who were free, and only borrowed 
 from that law such parts as they deemed to be best 
 adapted to edification. In the essential principles of sav- 
 ing faith these two classes were perfectly united. They 
 worshiped together. They lived together as friends and 
 brethren, in mutual love and harmony, each respecting the 
 distinctive position of the other with regard to the Mosaic 
 system, while all maintained that the only requisites essential 
 to salvation consisted in " repentance toward God, and faith 
 in our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 Here, therefore, as it seems to me, we have a plain guide 
 in the question of expediency, with regard to the present 
 controversy about Eitualism. Por it proves that there 
 may be, with the approval of the Holy Spirit, different 
 classes in the same Church of Christ ; even as there were 
 in the far less comprehensive Church of Israel. That it 
 must be so, to some extent, seems, indeed, inevitable. Our 
 own Church has had, since the era of the Eefonnation, two
 
 74 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 parties, more distinct in feeling, and sometimes, unhappily, 
 more bitter in hostility, than the Jews and the Gentiles in 
 Jerusalem and Antioch. The Church of England suffered 
 grievously from their dissensions, in the time of Elizabeth. 
 Their opposite partialities were in exercise even in the 
 days of Edward VI., when that good man, Hooper, chose to 
 be suspended from preaching for nine months, before he 
 would consent to be consecrated, as Bishop, with the vest- 
 ments used in the Church of Eome. The Puritanical 
 element reached its height in the reign of the unfortunate 
 Charles I., when Archbishop Laud and the King himself 
 were doomed to the scaffold, and the Liturgy and the Epis- 
 copate seemed to be banished from the land. And al- 
 though, in the good providence of God, the Church re- 
 tained the love both of her priests and her people, and was 
 restored to honor under Charles 11. , yet the leaven has re- 
 mained, which is always at work to prevent her perfect 
 unity, and she continues to be more or less divided by party- 
 spirit, to this day. 
 
 The origin of this difference is well known to all who are 
 familiar with the history of the Eeformation in the sixteenth 
 century. That great movement began in Germany, under 
 the celebrated Luther, in A. D., 1517, and he was quickly 
 followed by Calvin and Zuinglius, while Henry VIIL was 
 still a zealous partizan of Popery. All of these reformers 
 were compelled by necessity, to proceed without the Apos- 
 tolic system of Episcopal government, because they had 
 no bishops in their party. Deprived of that restraining 
 authority, they went to the extremes which usually attend 
 a popular revolution, and discarded every thing which they 
 saw in the Church of Eome, as a mark of Antichrist. 
 Happily, however, they retained their reverence for the 
 Bible, although they could not see why the precepts, which 
 God Himself had laid down for the Church of Israel, should 
 be accepted as a pattern for the Church of Christ. Yet 
 their doctrines concerning the faith were, for the most part, 
 thoroughly agreeable to the Scriptures. Their writings 
 were admirable for their piety and learning, and were spread 
 abroad in England with great success. And the whole 
 work of the Eeformation, notwithstanding the quarrel be-
 
 i Evils from the Want of Bishops. 75 
 
 tween Henry and tlie Pope, remained in their hands, until 
 the accession of Edward VI., in 1547 ; — full thirty years 
 having thus elapsed from the beginning of Luther's labors, 
 before the real commencement of the English Eeformation. 
 Calvin, at Geneva, was then at the zenith of his fame ; 
 and his great work, the " Institutes of the Christian Ke- 
 ligion," was the favorite text-book with the vast majority 
 of those who longed for a deliverance from the tyranny and 
 corruption of the Papal system. And that majority were 
 naturally led to take his society at Geneva as the best pattern 
 of what the Church of Christ should be, and to submit, with 
 entire confidence, to his dictation. 
 
 But the leading English Eeformers were men of a dif- 
 ferent stamp, and performed their arduous task with a wiser 
 and more discriminating spirit. Cranmer and Eidley were 
 Bishops, under no temptation to set aside the principles 
 of Apostolic law and order. Their marvellous young king 
 had too much respect for his father's memory to rush into 
 extremes, and his counsellors had no desire to differ from 
 the Church of Eome, except in those grave points of doctrine, 
 government and M^orship wherein she differed from the 
 Primitive Church, and from the Bible. While they felt aU 
 due regard for the work of Luther and Calvin, they cherished 
 a deeper reverence for the voice of Christian antiquity ; and 
 therefore, in the Word of God, interpreted by the Fathers, 
 they sought and found that true system, which they might 
 have looked for at Geneva in vain. 
 
 It would be unjust, however, to Luther and Melancthon, 
 and even to Calvin himself, if we were to charge them with 
 any positive hostility to Episcopal Government, or to a 
 Scriptural and pure Liturgy. On the contrary they would 
 wiUingly have retained them, if they could. Their error 
 consisted in omitting to state their convictions on those 
 points in their public confessions, with such clearness as 
 should have established a skmding rule for their respective 
 adherents. The plea of necessity might well have been 
 admitted under their peculiar circumstances ; but it should 
 have been plainly expressed, and accompanied with a dis- 
 tinct proviso that the want of Episcopal Government should 
 be supplied as soon as Providence might put it in their
 
 76 Tlie Law of Ritualism. 
 
 power ; and their Liturgy should have been made ohligatory 
 on their ministers instead of leaving the use of it to every 
 man's discretion. Unhappily, however, they chose to pre- 
 sent their respective systems as sufficiently complete; and 
 the consequence was what might have been expected. Their 
 followers were led to believe that Church Government might 
 be lawfully put into any form which human expediency 
 chose to dictate, so that it was clear of Popery; that 
 Episcopacy Avas neither obligatory nor desirable ; and that 
 the extemporaneous mode of worship was preferable to a 
 Liturgy, through its encouragement to zeal, and its freedom 
 from formality. And the result has been that the faith of 
 the Gospel lost all its ancient guards against innovation. 
 The irruption of heresy, schism, neology, rationalism, panthe- 
 ism, and infidelity, has devastated the heritage of Luther 
 and Calvin to a fearful extent ; while the Church of England 
 has preserved her integrity and orthodoxy without any 
 serious inroad to the present day, and now exerts a more 
 extended and salutary influence than ever. 
 
 These consequences were not foreseen in the sixteenth 
 century. If they had been, the German, Swiss, and French 
 Keformers would doubtless have taken better care of the 
 principles so essential to conservatism. But the two classes 
 of English theologians who were then found to differ so 
 widely in their ecclesiastical views, have come down to our 
 own times ; and still continue to differ, under the modern 
 phrases of High Church and Loio Church, the first being 
 strongly attached to the primitive forms of government and 
 worship, and the second being disposed to favor the license 
 adopted by the Calvinistic school. These two parties, as is 
 well known, sometimes talk very hardly of each other. But 
 the Church embraces them both ; for, after all their occa- 
 sional strifes and contentions, they are held together by the 
 strong bonds of Apostolic system, agreeing, substantially, in 
 the great doctrines of saving faith, and maintaining the 
 authority of the Prayer-Book ; while men of unquestionable 
 zeal, learning, and piety may be found on either side, equally 
 conscientious and sincere, and quite convinced that their 
 views are in perfect accordance with the Bible. 
 
 As an humble member and office-bearer in the House
 
 The Spirit of Turitanism . .77 
 
 of God, I have avoided tlie names of party, content with 
 being" a consistent Churchman, disposed to regard my breth- 
 ren, whether High or Low, with true fraternal cordiality, 
 but always ready to defend what I believed to be the truth, 
 without fear, favor or affection, whether popular or unpopular, 
 so that I had the testimony of my own conscience, and the 
 wan-ant of the unerring guide in the Word of my Divine 
 Master. 
 
 For I hold it to be impossible, under the inevitable con- 
 ditions of human infirmity, that all men should think alike, 
 even in the best and purest Church existing. True, indeed, 
 it is, that the great Apostle of the Gentiles condemned divi- 
 sions. " I beseech you, brethren," saith he to the Corin- 
 thians,^ "by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all 
 speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among 
 you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same 
 mind and in the same judgment." And yet he saith to the 
 .Eomans,^ " Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not 
 to doubtful disputations. Por one believeth that he may eat 
 all things : another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not 
 him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not 
 him which eateth not judge him that eateth : for God hath 
 received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's 
 servant ? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, 
 he shall be holden up : for God is able to make him stand. 
 One man esteemeth one day above another : another esteem- 
 eth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in 
 
 his own mind Let us, therefore, follow after the 
 
 things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may 
 edify another." 
 
 Here we have from St. Paul himself, the true principle of 
 Christian toleration in lesser things, so long as the essential 
 faith of the Gospel, and the established laws of Church order, 
 are not invaded. If indulgence in minor differences were 
 thus allowed, even under the rule of an inspired Apostle, 
 how much more must they be allowed in these days of re- 
 ligious diversity ? Do we not all condemn the Puntan spirit 
 which quarreled with our Mother Church about caps and 
 surplices, and altars and crosses, as bearing, in their opinion, 
 1 1 Cor. i. 10. 2 jiom, xiv. 1-5, 19,
 
 78 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 too close an affinity with Popery? And shall we imitate 
 their course by quarreling with our brethren about their 
 vestments, or their lights, or their incense, or their music, or 
 their reverential bowings at the altar, merely for the same 
 Puritanical reason, namely, that they have too close a resem- 
 blance to the Church of Eome? Above all, shall Ave pre- 
 sume to condemn any thing belonging to the worship of 
 God, which He commanded in the Church of Israel, and 
 which the Primitive Church of the Gentiles retained ? Must 
 we quarrel with our Bible, censure the wisdom of the Al- 
 mighty, and blame the very martyrs who died for the faith, 
 because the Church of Eome and the Oriental Churches 
 conduct some parts of their ceremonial worship on the same 
 principle ? 
 
 Surely, then, if ever there was a case of difference in 
 lesser things which called for kindly toleration, the claim of 
 liberty for our brethren who desire to restore the ancient 
 Eitual would seem to have the strongest right of allowance. 
 And this is the extent to which I should be willing to go, on 
 the point of expediency. I have shown, at large, my reasons 
 for believing, as I certainly do believe, that they have the 
 latv of the Church on their side. But if I had the power, I 
 would not seek to enforce that law, after it has been so long 
 disused, — disused, indeed, until neither our ministers nor our 
 people, for the most part, have any knowledge of its history 
 or meaning. I regard the object of the Eitualists as legally 
 defensible, and have sustained it accordingly. At this day, 
 however, it must be considered an experiment, which I am 
 quite willing to have fairly tried, but on whose beneficial 
 results, upon the whole, I do not feel qualified to pronounce 
 any positive judgment. 
 
 If our Church consisted of Christian Israelites, I have 
 already shown my reasons for maintaining that the old cere- 
 monial law was still in force, and therefore, as Israelites, we 
 should be bound by it, as we know that the Holy Apostles 
 and the first Church in Jerusalem considered themselves 
 to be. 
 
 But we are a Church of Gentiles, and the same Apostles, 
 guided by the Holy Spirit, declared that the Gentiles were 
 free. We acknowledge ourselves bound, therefore, only by
 
 The Ritualists legally right. 79 
 
 wliat those Apostles instituted. We take the testimony of 
 the old Fathers, who lived nearest to their time, as the best 
 evidence next aftey the Scriptures, of what those inspired 
 master-builders of the Church approved. Yet it may be 
 reasonably said that this evidence, on the details of Kitual- 
 ism, is not always sufficiently precise ; and that much of it 
 is not sufficiently early to supply the lack of proof in the 
 New Testament, so as to remove all doubt, and reduce the 
 question to absolute certainty. And therefore, although I 
 deem that the testimony of the Fathers is a fair warrant 
 for a verdict in favor of the Ritualists, and that the rubric 
 referring to the second year of Edward YI. is yet more 
 authoritative in its character, I could not recommend any 
 legislation which should infringe on the liberty which our 
 Church has so long enjoyed ; nor would I disturb the peace 
 of those who might be alarmed, and perhaps alienated, by 
 any Conventional act that would appear to them, however 
 erroneously, to favor Eomanism. 
 
 Yet, on the other hand, I should not advocate any 
 authoritative interference with those who desired to conform, 
 in this matter of Eitualism, to the ancient standard. They 
 do not propose to add or diminish, with respect to the doc- 
 trines or the Liturgy of the Church. They only desire to 
 present her solemn service in the manner that prevailed in 
 the early years of the Reformation ; and this, in my opinion, 
 they have a legal right to do. In England, they have found 
 that many congregations have zealously sustained them. 
 Nor can I doubt that many will sustain them amongst our- 
 selves. It would probably become, therefore, only a more 
 marked distinction between parties which already exist ; and 
 as the Church has included these parties from the beginning 
 of her history, I do not perceive that any danger would be 
 incurred by allowing them to appear in a more decided form. 
 Unity in the same faith, the same government, and the same 
 Liturgy, need not, and, as it seems to me could not, be un- 
 favorably affected by a richer ministerial dress, by two 
 lights burning on the altar, by burning a little frankincense, 
 or by a greater manifestation of outward reverence. And ijf 
 these things are found to be attractive to many, and operate 
 beneficially in bringing them to the House of Grod, and en-
 
 80 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 abling tliem to take a pleasure in the forms of religion, why 
 should not the Church most willingly allow instead of trying 
 to repress them ? 
 
 Time will decide, and nothing but time can decide, the 
 question, " whether an increase of Eitualism is advisable, or 
 whether the present average of parochial practice is best 
 fitted to carry on the work of the Church, in such a country 
 as ours." I doubt whether any man can estimate, with 
 sufficient accuracy, the various elements which belong to 
 such a subject, so as to form anything like a positive opinion. 
 Success, after all, must be the ultimate standard. And that 
 can only be determined by time, after a fair trial. 
 
 I am willing, however, to state my impressions, and the 
 reader may take them for what they may be worth, according 
 to his own judgment. I incline, then, to regard it as most 
 probable that this Eitualism will grow into favor, by degrees, 
 until it becomes the prevailing system. The old, the fixed, 
 and the fearful will resist it. But the young, the ardent, 
 and the impressible will follow it more and more. The spirit 
 of the age will favor it, because it is an age of excitement 
 and sensation. The lovers of "glory and of beauty" will 
 favor it, because it appeals with far more eftect to the 
 natural tastes and feelings of humanity. The rising genera- 
 tion of the clergy will favor it, because it adds so much to 
 the solemn character of their Office, and the interest of their 
 service in the House of God. And the opposition arising 
 from its resemblance to Eomanism will die away, as men 
 learn to understand that Popery does not consist in the 
 Eitualism which it pleased the Lord to order for His own 
 chosen people ; but in Papal and priestly despotism, in false 
 doctrine, in the worship of the Virgin and the Saints, in 
 Purgatory and Indulgences, in Transubstantiation and pre- 
 tended miracles, in persecution and intolerance, and in all 
 the other perilous corruptions which are in direct conflict 
 with the unerring Word of God, These, and not matters of 
 mere Eitual, are properly Eomanism, And these, and only 
 these, called for the work of Eeformation.
 
 81 
 
 Conclusion. 
 
 Probable Increase of Ritualism. 
 
 In conclusion, I would only say, that my approval of 
 Eitualism begins and ends with the Bible. There I find 
 the celestial guidance which, rightly intei-preted, can lead 
 no man astray. And when I read the system of divine 
 worship prescribed by the Lord HimseK for His chosen 
 people, and see that He commanded the incense, and the 
 holy anointing oil, and the seven-branched light, and the 
 ministerial garments of " glory and beauty," for His minis- 
 ters, how shall I doubt that these things must always be 
 acceptable in His sight, when they stand connected with 
 that pure faith which is the only animating spirit of devo- 
 tion ? 
 
 I reverence the Apostles, when I read that they held the 
 law of the Almighty to be not abrogated, but fulfilled, ex- 
 tended, and still binding upon those to whom it was given 
 —the chosen Israel. I reverence the decree of the Holy 
 Spirit, which, with kind indulgence, left the Gentiles free. 
 I reverence the Primitive Church of those Gentiles, who, 
 being free, piously and justly took their pattern from the 
 divine system of the Old Testament. I reverence my 
 Mother Church, when I behold her law preserving the main 
 features of the original model, and directing her blessed 
 Eeformation solely against those gross corruptions which 
 needed to be reformed. But all this reverence refers to 
 the only sure foundation of Christian faith and practice — 
 the Word of God, which "maketh wise unto salvation." 
 And I venerate our Church above all the Churches of the 
 world, precisely because she is, so strongly and preemi- 
 nently, the Church of the Bible, and is grafted surely upon 
 the stock of Israel. 
 
 Yet, while on strictly Scriptural grounds I approve this 
 Eitualism, I do it as a matter of external order, in nowise 
 essential to our acceptance with Christ. " By grace ye are 
 saved through Paith," said the Apostle, " and that not of
 
 82 The Law of Ritualism. 
 
 yourselves, it is tlie gift of God." If the ceremonial law 
 were essential to salvation, tlie Gentiles could not have 
 been declared free. The heart must be changed and sanc- 
 tified by the Holy Spirit, or outward forms can profit us 
 nothing. Eor forms are but the Body of religion. The 
 living, loving, animating Faith in the glorious Eedeemer is 
 its Soul. 
 
 I have no fear, however, that the advocates of Kitualism 
 are in any danger of forgetting this fundamental principle of 
 the Gospel. Nor can I comprehend the notion that the use 
 of solemn, beautiful and impressive forms must be hostile to 
 the spirit of Christian devotion. 
 
 This Puritanical discovery was brought to full-blown 
 perfection by George Fox, the favorite apostle of the Friends, 
 or Quakers, who dismissed all the forms with which the 
 wisdom of the Most High had invested religion, and set 
 the women to preaching in the face of Scripture, and finally 
 succeeded in making his followers, after their own fashion, 
 the most formal sect in the world — formal in dress, formal 
 in speech, formal in every thing which the Lord had left 
 free, and only enemies to forms where He had expressly 
 commanded them. 
 
 But success was impossible in a scheme which stood in 
 such manifest opposition to the Word of God, and the laws 
 which He had given to humanity. The pure morals, the love 
 of peace, the strict discipline, the quiet zeal, and the active 
 benevolence of the Quakers, have always won for them a 
 high degree of estimation. Yet the whole of these, admir- 
 able as they were, could not secure a lasting, much less a 
 growing, influence. They have gradually diminished, until 
 comparatively few remain, even in the city of William Penn, 
 once the stronghold of their society. And thousands of 
 their descendants have found in the Church that true sys- 
 tem where the worship of God is conformed to the nature 
 of man, and the spirit and the form of religion are united 
 together. 
 
 Enough has been written, however, and perhaps more 
 than enough, to be a satisfactory answer to the application 
 of my respected brethren. I have only to state in conclu- 
 sion, that I am an advocate for Eitualism, so far as it is
 
 Restoration of Ritual. 83 
 
 fairly warranted by the Bible and the law of the Church, 
 and can make its way with the free choice of Ministers and 
 people. It is not likely that I shall bear any active part in 
 it, as my age is too advanced for my habits to be changed. 
 But I have little doubt that my children will behold the 
 " glory and the beauty" of our public worship brought back 
 to the' first stage in the Eeformation, in accordance with the 
 rule which has never been formally renounced, and still 
 remains in the rubric of the English Prayer-Book. And I 
 trust that the work, conducted as it should be, in the spirit 
 of a pure and living Paith, and with the Christian grace of 
 peace and charity, will add attractiveness to the cause of 
 truth, and increase the influence of the glorious Gospel. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 JOSEPH MAS'JEES AKD SON, FBIJfTEES, ALDEESGATE STEEET, LOKDON.