.-:.-fe' »••• X^S^ ^^^9 '^:i |^^#^ ^ r.^ m. ,*i,.V .•■• ,.- <^ 1 rn^i'-y'' m-'- L I E) RARY OF THL U N I VLRSITY or ILLINOIS THE PURCHAS JUDGMENT a letter of acfenotoleDgment TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR J. T. COLERIDGE One of ihe Lords of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council BY H. P. LIDDON, D.D. D.C.L. Professor of Exegesis at Oxford, and Canon of St. Paul's ^Offet^ec toitlj a iCcttec to tljc Ciaintec BY THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. Regius Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church Hontion RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE HIGH STREET I TRINITY STREET 1871 My dear Sir John Coleridge, When you do me the great honour to address me in public, it is, I trust, needless for me to say that you are justified in assuming that I shall read whatever you may write with the most respectful attention, and that if I am unable to follow you in every particular, it will always be with great hesita- tion and regret that I shall admit this inability to myself. Apart from some kindnesses of a more personal character, and of which I cherish a grateful memory, you have one claim upon me, as upon many others, which certainly does not grow weaker with the lapse of time. You have made the cha- racter, the work, the home of the best and wisest man whom I have ever known intimately in life, the common property of his countrymen. In your Memoir of my most revered and beloved friend, there are, as I venture to think, some features of his later mind (I can speak of nothing more), which might have been somewhat differently handled by younger men, who cross -questional him as a Teacher while they had the opportunity of doing so. But, as a contemporary and an equal, you naturally took much for granted; while you alone could give us his life, as a whole, from actual knowledge of him, 4 Mr. Keble's miticipations fulfilled, and with the authority of a position which is above discussion. Certainly, the conviction that he would not have been altogether silent at such a painful crisis as that which has been created by the recent judgment, Avas not among the least constraining of the motives which induced me, hesitatingly and unwillingly enough, to join in the chorus of protests with which it has been received. For this judgment does not merely help to fulfil that anticipation of his, to which I have already referred, namely, '' that we shall never have God's blessing on our work in the Church of England while we continue quietly to acquiesce in the present constitution of the Court of Final Appeal." It illustrates his foresight even more strikingly in another respect. A friend had been saying to him, that if the Judicial Committee strained the formu- laries in one direction to admit of the denial of Bap- tismal Grace, and in another to sanction denials of the Inspiration of Scripture and of the endlessness of future punishment, it would at least be consistently tolerant towards High Churchmen, should they here- after be prosecuted by their theological opponents. ** I am not at all sure of that," he said; ^* the same instinct which strains the formularies in order to screen misbelief or unbelief, may narrow them so as to proscribe a strong and clear faith, or that which implies it." These were, I believe, his very words; and we have not had to wait long in order to under- stand their sagacity. For that the late judgment does adopt a construc- tion of the documents before the Court which is, to UfUC. Has Jtistice been done in this Case ? 5 say the least, not the most obvious one, is clearly your own opinion. You " think Mr. Purchas has not had justice done to him in two main points of the late appeal."^ Preferring to the " Ornaments Kubric," you justify this opinion in the following terms: — " Mr. Purchas has been tried before the Committee for offences alleged to have been committed against the provisions of the * Act of Uniformity : ' of this Act the Common Prayer Book is part and parcel. As to the vestments, his conduct was alleged to be in derogation of the Rubric as to the ornaments of the Church and the Ministers thereof, which ordains that such 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 King Edward YI. " The Act of Uniformity is to be construed by the same rules exactly as any Act passed in the last Session of Parliament. The clause in question (by which I mean the Rubric in question) is perfectly unambiguous in language, free from all difficulty as to construction ; it therefore lets in no argument as to intention other than that which the words themselves import. There might be a seeming difficulty in fact, because it might not be knovy'n what vestments were in use by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward YI. ; but this diffi- culty has been removed. It is conceded in the Report that the vestments, the use of which is now condemned, were in use by authority of Parliament in that year. Having that fact, you are bound to construe the Rubric as if those vestments were specifi- cally named in it, instead of being only referred to. If an Act should be passed to-morrow that the uniform of the Guards should henceforth be such as was ordered for them by authority, and used by them in the 1st Geo. I., you would first ascertain what that uniform was ; and, having ascertained it, you would not inquire into the changes which may have been made, many or few, with or without lawful authority, between the 1st Geo. I. and the passing of the new Act ? All these, that Act, specifying the earlier date, would have made wholly immaterial. It would have seemed strange, I suppose, if a commanding officer, disobey- ^ Remarks, p. 5. 6 The Ornaments Rubric, hoiv dealt with. iiig the statute, had said in his defence — ' There have been many changes since the reign of Geo. I. ; and as to " retaining," we put a gloss on that, and thought it might mean only retaining to the Queen's use ; so we have put the uniforms safely in store.' But, I think, it would have seemed more strange to punish and mulct him severely if he had obeyed the law and put no gloss on plain words. " This case stands on the same principle. The Rubric indeed seems to me to imply with some clearness that in the long in- terval between Ed. YI. and the 14th Ch. II. there had been many changes ; biit it does not stay to specify them, or distinguish be- tween what was mere evasion and what was lawful : it quietly passes them all by, and goes back to the legalized usage of the 2nd year of Ed. YI. What had prevailed since, whether by an Archbishop's gloss, by Commissions or even Statutes, whether, in short, legal or illegal, it makes quite immaterial. " I forbear to go through the long inquiry which these last words remind one of — not, I am sure, out of any disrespectful feeling to the learned and reverend authors of the Report, but be- cause it seems to me wholly irrelevant to the point for decision. " This alone I must add, that even were the inquiry relevant, the authorities on which they rely do not appear to me so clear or cogent, nor the analogies relied on so just, as to warrant the conclusion arrived at. For it should never be forgotten that the defendant in a criminal case, acquitted as to this charge by the learned Judge below, was entitled to every presumption in his favour, and could not ^Droperly be condemned but by a judgment free from all reasonable doubt. And this remark acquires addi- tional strength, because the judgment will be final, not only on him but the whole Church for all time, unless reversed by the Legislature." ^ It is difficult to understand liow, if the Court had approached the question before it in the disinterested spirit of an entirely impartial criticism, it could have dealt so summarily with the Ornaments Eubric. For this Eubric, besides forming part of the Eitual law of the Church, is a clause in an Act of Parlia- ^ Remarks, pp. 7-9. Position of the Celebrant^ an open question. 7 ment. Will it not be necessary to determine what legal effect remains to this ** clause " since the date of the recent decision ? And if it should appear that the judgment has practically destroyed its legal effect, what will be said of the appeal to Eoyal ad- vertisements and Ecclesiastical canons by wliich this clause of the Act has been emptied of its force — canons and advertisements which were under the eyes of the Parliament which passed the Act in which the clause occurs ? What would have been said if a decision, based on such an appeal, had been given in a civil case, or against the popular side in the Church ? Certainly it is not for clergymen to depreciate the authority of the canons ; but that they should have been appealed to in order to neutralize the plain sense of an Act of Parliament must, it might be supposed, occasion considerable surprise to all independent lawyers. As to the position of the celebrant in the service of the Holy Communion, you do not think that the report of the Judicial Committee '' can be shown conclusively to be wrong." But neither do you think that it '' ca.n be shown conclusively to be right." I understand you to mean that the ^ failure of justice ' here consists in an attempt to close a question which, if the Eubric is to rule, ought to be left open. You observe : — " In my opinion, ^n such a question as this, where a conclusion is to be arrived at upon the true meaning of Rubrics framed more than two centuries since, and certainly not with a view to any such minute criticism as on these occasions is and must bo applied to them, and where the evidence of facts is by no means clear, none probably can be arrived at free from reasonable objec- 8 Co7iflicting Decisions of tion. What is the consequence ? It will be asked, Is the ques- tion to receive no judicial solution ? I am not afraid to answer. Better far that it should receive none than that injustice should be done. The principles of English law furnish the practical solution : dismiss the party charged, unless his conviction can be based on grounds on which reasonable and competent minds can rest satisfied, and without scruple. And what mighty mischief will result to countervail the application of this rule of justice ? For two centuries our Church has subsisted without an answer to the question which alone gives importance to this inquiry ; and surely has not been without God's blessing for that time, in spite of all much more serious shortcomings."^ At the risk of going over what has now become sufficiently familiar gromid, I will here quote the language of a member of the Lower House of Con- vocation, whose intimate acquaintance with questions of this description is generally acknowledged : — " On the 23rd of December, 1868," he says, " the Judicial Com- mittee, in delivering judgment (Martin v. Mackonochie), quoted the following Rubric before the Prayer of Consecration in the Communion office, — ' When the Priest, standing before the table, hath so ordered the bread and wine that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before the people and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the Prayer of Consecration as follows ' — and then the Court proceeded thus to interpret this instrument : ' Their lordships entertain no doubt on the con- struction of this Rubric, that the priest is intended to continue in one posture during the prayer, and is not to change from stand- ing to kneeling or vice versa. And it appears to them equally certain that the priest is intended to stand and not to kneel. They think that the words ^^ standing before the table " apply to the whole se7itence.* Having made some further remarks their lord- ships then added what had been already before laid down by the Court, to which they were disposed entirely to adhere, viz., that 'in the performance of the services, rites, and ceremonies, ordered by the Prayer Book, the directions contained in it must be strictly observed ; no omission and no addition can be permitted.' ^ Remarks, p. 9. The yudicial Committee, ^ " But though the Judicial Committee on December 23rd, 1868, affirmed that in the judgment of the Court, then indeed entertained without a doubt, the words ' standing before the table ' applied to ' the whole sentence ' which contains the directions for saying the Prayer of Consecration, yet that same tribunal, on February 23rd, 1871, decided that the Prayer of Consecration is to be used at the ' north side of the table ' i. e., in a totally different position — thus not only contradicting its own previous judgment, entertained at the time of its delivery without any doubt, but also ignoring the distinction maintained in the Latin Rubric and expressed by the words ''ante mensam' and ^ coram pojpulo.^ And once again, though the Judicial Committee twice over, viz., on March 21st, 1857, and on December 23rd, 18G8, decided that the 'directions contained' in the Prayer Book 'must be strictly observed, no omission, no addition ' ' can be permitted ' — yet that same tribunal on February 23rd, 1871, gave a judgment announcing its determina- tion to advise her Majesty that a monition should issue against a clergyman, bidding him to desist from observing ' the directions contained ' in the Prayer Book which, according to the previous ruling of their lordships, ' he had strictly observed ' by saying the Prayer of Consecration ' standing before the table,' — and after having ordered the Elements by abstaining from a change of position (for a ceremonial reason now suggested by the Court) from the west to the north side of the table. Such change, moreover, being manifestly 'an addition' to the directions of the Prayer Book which the Court in two previous judgments had decided, could not ' be permitted.' " ^ In sliort, whatever may be the true law of the case, the Judicial Committee would here appear to have given two decisions which rest upon contradic- tory constructions of a single sentence. The words '' standing before the table " do govern the whole Rubric in which they occur, or they do not govern it. If they do not, Mr. Mackonochie was not wrong in kneeling at any time during the Prayer of Conse- cration. But, it having been decided that the words ^ Rev. James Wayland Joyce, letter of March G, 1871, inserted in the John Bull and Church Times, lo Sense imposed on the word ^^ Beforel' in question do govern the Kubric throughout, and that therefore Mr. Mackonochie had no legal right to kneel at any time during the Prayer of Consecra- tion, Mr. Purchas surely obeyed the law in '' standing before the table " during the Prayer of Consecration. It is pleaded that, in the case of Mr. Mackonochie, the kneeling or standing posture of the celebrant was alone before the Court ; while, in Mr. Purchas's case, the celebrant's position relatively to the Holy Table was alone before them. But this plea does not justify two contradictory constructions of the same words. The true construction cannot depend upon '' the question before the Court," since it is itself strictly a question of grammatical truth ; and if rightly decided once, is decided once for all. It is not argued that the word '^ standing " applies to the whole Eubric, while the words ''before the table " do not. The escape from the difficulty is held to lie in the sense of the preposition ''before." Their Lordships say that " the words ' before the table ' do not necessarily mean between the table and the people, and are not intended to limit to any side."^ Practically, "they think that the Prayer of Conse- cration is to be used at the north side of the table, so that the minister looks south." ^ "Before the table," then, means, in the judgment of their Lord- ships, "at the north end of" the table; and this sense is imposed upon the preposition "before" by ^ Judo-ment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Hebbert versus Purchas. Edited by Edward Bullock, Esq., p. 38. 2 Ibid, p. 39. Irreconcilable with its sense elsewhere. 1 1 the direction that '* the priest is to stand so that he may with more readiness and decency break the bread before the people." In construing an Act of Parliament, especially when penal consequences to a large number of per- sons depend on its construction, it would be natural if not necessary to insist upon attaching the same sense to the same expression or clause, wherever it might occur in the Act. In the eye of the law, the Prayer Book is an Act of Parliament : and we are therefore confronted by the question, how it is pos- sible to reconcile the sense imposed upon the words *' before the table " by the recent judgment of the Committee of the Privy Council, with the sense which these words have always borne, and must, from the necessity of the case, always bear, in the following Kubric in the Marriage Service : — The Psalm ended, and tlie man and woman kneeling hefore the LorcVs TaUe, the Priest standing of the table, and turning his face toiuards them shall say. It is notorious that '' before " is here understood to mean " on the west side of " the Holy Table, in the practice of married couples, with the sanction of bishops and clergymen, all over England. And this sense of the Eubric is in exact accordance with the direction in the Sarum book, from which it is a translation. It appears to be incompatible with the sense recently assigned to the phrase by the Judicial Committee, for reasons which are too obvious to be insisted on. But we are reminded that, for some years after the Keformation period, the tables stood in the middle of the chancel, and with the narrow 12 Appeal to Cosin in ihe Judgment, end towards the wall, so that it was possible to stand ** before " the table, and yet to '^ break the bread in the sight of the people," by standing on the north side of the table thus placed. Yet, since the Ee- storation at least, the position of the Holy Table has been what it is now. Is this position, which has held its ground almost universally during two out of the three centuries that have passed since the Keforma- tion, to be violently changed, in order to justify a judgment of the Committee of the Privy Council ? *' Before the table," taken in connection with the position which the Holy Table has continuously occupied since the Primacy of Laud, can, surely in common sense, only mean that precise position which the Judicial Committee has recently condemned ? On this part of the judgment the present Eegius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford has observed as follows : " In regard to the position of tlie Priest in Consecration it would appear that the Judicial Committee attached some value to the words of the Bishop — then only Archdeacon — Cosin, in his Visitation Articles of 1G27. He there presumes that the celebrant will remain at the north side of the table, except when reading the gospel, preaching, * delivering the Sacrament, or on other occasions of the like nature.' Does this illustrate the interpreta- tion of ' before the table ' in our Consecration Rubric ? Hardly so ; for when Cosin thus wrote, the Consecration Rubric ran simply, ' Then the Priest, standing up, shall say as followeth.' Not one word about ' standing before the table, ordering the bread and wine, taking the elements into his hands before the people.' The Rubric, as it now stands, was drawn up thirty- our years after this archidiaconal visitation, and was apparently written by Cosin himself. What would he mean by it ? That is, would he mean to direct the Priest to consecrate in front of the table ? In support of the affirmative view, we may observe (1) that Cosin, when Canon of Durham, had been accused by a open to Criticism. 13 violently puritanical brother Canon, Peter Smart, in 1630, of ' administering the Communion,' — a phrase which must here mean consecrating — ' with his back to the people, and his face to the east ; ' and this, although the Prayer Book then in use said, nothing about ' standing before the table ' (any more than about the ' Manual Rites ' in consecration, which yet, as is well known, were generally observed, as a matter of usage, by well-instructed Priests). And then (2) the editor of Cosin's correspondence tells us that Cosin appears to have been in the habit of standing at the north side except at the Consecration Prayer, which he repeated 'standing in front of the altar,' (Cosin's Correspondence, I. p. xxvii, 199). Further (3), Cosin must have had in mind throughout the revision of 1661, that Scottish Prayer Book of 1636, which, as the President of Magdalen well remarks, ' was destined to exercise a material influence on the service book of England.' (Variations of Com. and Bapt. Off., p. xxiii, 19.) Now, that Prayer Book had a Consecration Rubric of considerable significance ; ' The Presbyter during the time of consecration shall stand at such a part of the Holy Table, where he may -with the more ease and decency use both his hands ; ' a direction well understood by the Puritan assailants of that liturgy to mean that the celebrant was to consecrate, not at one end of, but in front of, a table placed — as a previous Rubric prescribed ' at the uppermost part of the chancel or church' — that is, altar- wise — north and south, along the east wall. " But another point deserves consideration. It has been said that, as the Rubric about the position of the table 'in the body of the church or chancel,' suggests a different position for it — in fact, apparently, supposes (though certainly it does not expressly order) the table to be-set lengthways with its long sides north and south {See Mr. Walton's able Pamphlet on the 'Celebrant's Position'); we cannot interpret ' before the table' in our Consecration Rubric, as necessarily meaning ' in front of it;' but the revisers of 1661, who framed this latter Rubric, were thinking of a table set, as was then the case, altar-wise, along or in front of the east wall. This arrangement, the great ' Ritual- istic Innovation ' of Charles the First's time, had made good its ground; it was established in practice though not enjoined by law ; and to ' stand before ' a table thus placed, is to stand either, if there be room, behind it, in the old Basilican manner, or else in front of its western side. 14 Witness of the Coronation Service, " But the words ' before tlie people ' have often been supposed to forbid the Priest to consecrate in this position. An illustra- tion, however, of the true meaning of this phrase may be derived from a somewhat similar phrase in the Coronation Office. After certain promises have been made by the sovereign, she goes to the altar steps, and there kneeling, touches the Bible held out to her by the Archbishop. Here she is evidently looking away from the people, and looking towards the altar. Yet, she is said by the Rubric to be then making ' her solemn oath in the sight of all the ^people: " (" Maskell, Mon. Rit.," iii. 105.) ^ If the Judicial Committee had distinctly claimed to be inspired or infallible, it would be more than indecorous in any, who admitted such a claim, to criticise its arguments. But it makes no such claim for itself, although some writers, who generally reject other inspirations and infallibilities, seem disposed to make one for it. If the Committee does not merely announce its decisions, but condescends to argue in their favour, we must presume that it invites honest criticism. We have, indeed, lately been told by the more passionate advocates of the recent judgment, that such criticism is inconsistent with the duties of a good citizen; but the substance of your letter proves that you, at least, do not assent to a doctrine which would be more consistent in an Ultramontane Bishop, enforcing " interior assent " to the decisions of the Vatican. And criticism must pronounce that the materials before the Court have been subjected to a somewhat violent process in order to make them yield the result which popular Puritanism demands. It is inconceivable, that if any but a theological interest had been at stake, any English Court could have pronounced a penal condemnation on Mr. * Letter to the Guardian. The Mixed Chalice. 15 Pirrchas for '^ standing before the Holy Table " during the Prayer of Consecration. You seem to imply, and it is not for me to deny, that in all other respects the judgment is in accord- ance with the Law ; but there is one other point at least which it is difficult to pass over in silence. Mr. Purchas is condemned for mixing water with the wine used in celebrating the Holy Communion. The Dean of the Arches had decided that it was illegal to mix water with the wine at the time of the service of the Holy Communion ; but he ruled also that this mixture might be permitted, if it was not made at the time of the celebration. Their Lordships dis- allow even this scanty concession to the feeling of every Christian scholar who knows anything of the practice of Primitive Christendom : Bishop Horsley practised the condemned mixture without offence, in days when there was as yet no organized ^'Associa- tion" for the suppression of primitive usages.^ But their Lordships endeavour to reconcile Churchmen to their decision by observing that, whilst the act of mingling water with the wine in the Communion Service has prevailed in the East and the West, and is of great antiquity, the '' private mingling " has not prevailed at all. On this point Professor Bright remarks that : — " Not the least distressing feature in the recent judgment in the Purchas case is the prohibition of any, even the most unobtrusive, observance of that most venerable usage, the mixture of water with the wine prepared for the Holy Eucharist. There is no ^ Of this I have the highest presumptive evidence in a letter from the Rev. G. Horsley Palmer. 1 6 Relative Importance of Points Decided, need to cite the testimony of St. Justin Martyr, or other ancient testimonies on this point. It is, as many will feel, a grievance that the clergy of a church which professes to follow primitive antiquity should be forbidden — as far as the present Court of Appeal can forbid them — to observe in any way whatever a Eucharistic custom, probably Apostolic, and, at any rate, as old as the first half of the second century. Granting that the public mixing of water with the wine at the time of the Offertory was to be treated as illegal ; why should the private mixing, done in the vestry before service, be thus rigorously disallowed ? Their lordships, we all know, had not the advantage of hearing counsel for the side against which they pronounced. Had it been other- wise, they would hardly have been left to think that the private mixture was ' not likely, in default of the public to find favour with any ' or that, in fact, ' it had not prevailed at all.' It has only prevailed in the whole Eastern Church, as is plain from the Preparation OfiBce, said in the side chapel of the Prothesis before the Liturgy begins ; as it did prevail at low celebrations in the mediaeval English Church, according to the use of Sarum. ' When Low Masses first began,' says the learned editor of the Sarum Missal in English, p. xliv, * the priest was in the habit of putting the wine and water here (in the sacristy) before mass.' " ^ Of the three points in the judgment to which I have referred, the last, probably, is the most direct contravention of that profession of conformity to the practice of the Primitive Church of Christ, which is and has always been made in the face of the world by the Reformed Church of England. The first, as you have pointed out, is the least reconcilable with the actual law of the Church and Realm ; while the ruling as to the position of the celebrating Priest, in the Ser- vice for the Holy Communion, is the most calculated to cause perplexity, and in some cases more than perplexity, to a large number of the EngHsh clergy. Certainly the last point would seem to be practically of ^Letter to the Guardian of March 8, 1871. Conditions of a valid Eucharist. 1 7 the greatest importance : it is, by widespread consent, in the popular apprehension, more closely connected than the other two with the maintenance of Eucha- ristic truth. Of course, a great many epigrams may be easily composed respecting the absurdity of con- necting any particular posture of a Christian^ minister with the representative character of his ministerial work. In the same way, much may be and has been said about the folly of supposing that a bodily pos- ture, like kneeling, has anything really to do with that internal homage of the soul, which is of the essence of prayer. Yet we know that, in the long run and on the whole, men who never kneel do not often pray ; and that, practically, between kneeling and prayer, — such is the relation that subsists between our souls and bodies, — the connection is so intimate that it cannot be ignored with spiritual impunity. The Sacrament of Divine Love is indeed complete wherever there is an apostolically-ordained Presbyter who will claim Christ's unfailing promise by blessing a little bread and wine, with Christ's own creative words of Institution ; whatever be the dress, or pos- ture of the man ; whatever the shape or position of the altar or table at which he ministers ; whatever the scene in which that most real transaction — for such it is — between earth and heaven, may take place. Yet this would not justify us in insisting that the bare Eucharistic action should be stripped of all acces- sories, whether liturgical or ceremonial ; and thus the question is really one of degree, to be regulated by considerations of spiritual expediency. And here it is natural to think that, notwithstanding some amusing c 1 8 No Imputation on the paradoxes which the Dean of Westminster has ad- vanced, the prevailing practice of Christendom, an- cient and modern, may be allowed to decide that the eastward position of the Celebrant is the most con- venient, as well as the most full of reverent meaning. Whether that position is, as you hold, according to the rubrics, a fairly open question, will now, perhaps, be reconsidered by the Court ; but if the Court should reconsider any part of its decision, it would, I pre- sume, be least able to re-affirm that in which you hold it to have most clearly made a mistake ; — its decision, I mean, as to the Ornaments Eubric. When I observed that '^ it was difficult to believe that the Judicial Committee was incapable of regard- ing the documents before it in the light of a plastic material, which might be made to support conclu- sions held to be advisable at the moment, and on independent grounds," I certainly did not mean to impute any dishonourable conduct to the Judges. Any such insinuation would have been absurd on the face of it, and I claim no credit for not having been guilty of what the world would have deemed a blunder as well as a crime. But I did suppose, and meant to suggest, that the Judges looked upon them- selves as entitled to exercise a discretion, which is more properly an attribute of the makers than of the administrators of the law. No one would imagine this to hold good in the case of any other English Court of Justice ; but the anomalous circumstances of the Church appeared to yield an explanation of the apparent exception. The Church of England is a living body, the vitality, indeed, of which has been Character of the J^cdges, 19 exceptionally vigorous of late years, but which, it is held, must be governed, at all hazards, without a legislature. In this land of free institutions, the Church alone is not self-governing; her convocations '^ contribute something to the formation of opinion ; " but we know how almost every attempt at legislative action on the part of these bodies is practically and jealously forbidden. There is, for reasons on which I do not dwell, a bright side to this state of things; Provincial Synods have no Divine warrant of iner- rancy, and on more occasions than one a Convoca- tion, free to legislate, might have cost us dear. But such a situation might go far to explain, if it does not justify, the assumption of quasi-legislative powers by the Judicial Committee. At least, whether I am right or wrong, I certainly meant to impute no sort of '^ dishonesty" to members of the Committee for taking a view of their duties which such circum- stances would make sufficiently natural ; and persons of very high authority, who look at these matters from an altogether different point of view from any that I could adopt, agree in this estimate of the functions of the Court. '^ It is a Court," said the Bishop of Manchester the other day, ^' composed of men who look at things, not merely with the eyes of lawyers, but also with the eyes of statesmen."^ In other words, it is a Court which exercises some- thing like a legislative as well as a judicial control over the questions before it.^ ^ Quoted, Guardian, Api'il 5, 1871. ^ Compare tlie quotations in the Postscript to this Letter, pp. 50, 51. 20 Legislative '' Discretion " ascribed to the Court, Indeed, this theory of the action of the Court has been so commonly accepted among those to whom I have been accustomed, ever since I took Orders, nineteen years ago, to look with the greatest respect, that I was surprised at the somewhat intemperate vehemence with which it has recently been contra- dicted by eminent promoters of the recent prosecu- tions. If the functions of the Court are indeed exclusively judicial, it is not easy to justify such decisions as that in the Gorham case. The singular process by which the plain words of the Prayer Book, '' Seeing now that this child is regenerate," were made to bear the now legal sense of ''We hope that this child may possibly be re- generate," is unintelligible as a matter of interpreta- tion of language; but it is not unintelligible if the Court was anxious to keep the Low Church party within the pale of the Established Church, and was authoritatively imposing a somewhat unnatural sense upon the Sacramental language of the Prayer Book in order to do so. The decision in the ''Essays and Pieviews " case appeared to be justifiable only on the same kind of grounds, and for reasons which Dr. Pusey pointed out at the time. So on the recent occasion, it was natural to surmise that, if the Court conceived itself to have a legislative discretion, the contradictory constructions of the Eubric before the Consecration Prayer, by which Mr. Mackonochie and Mr. Purchas were successively condemned, ad- mitted of an explanation. This explanation neces- sarily exposes the Court to the inconveniences which must attend a confusion of legislative with judicial Will the Jiidgment be obeyed ? 21 functions, but it is strictly reconcilable with the entire good faith of judges who had the interests of the Church of England, as they understood those interests, throughout in view. But if you assure me that the Judges take no such view of their duties, I must of course bow unreservedly to your authority ; although at the cost of nev/ difficulties in explaining to myself their proceedings as critics who mean only to *^ ascertain" and ^'interpret" the law, and who disavow all wish to provide for the interests of the Church by decisions which are not forced upon them by the obvious construction of the letter of the documents which they have to interpret. That many of the clergy intend to offer a passive resistance to the judgment is more than probable. If it is difficult to urge men to face difficulties which may be greater than others can share or understand, still less possible is it to condemn those who do face them. When you characterize such conduct as '' disobedience to the Law," you appeal to a consideration, the force of which every subject of the Crown, and especially every clergyman, is bound to keep well in view. But the legal decision of a disputed archaeological question is not itself any part of absolute morality, and there are occasions on which, without any factious intent, the law is tacitly ignored. The ''Ecclesias- tical Titles Bill " has been, unhappily, we may think, from the date of its enactment, so entirely without effect, that it is now proposed to repeal it. Another Act of Parliament does not prevent, although it ought to prevent, general smoking in railway carriages. Here the legislation of opinion, whether 2 2 Spiritual Expediency of Obedience, rightly or wrongly, amends the legislation of Parlia- ment itself ; and the result is recognized without im- putations of factiousness or disloyalty. The " passive resistance " of the clergy to this Judgment means in some cases that they will not ohey it unless it is en- forced ; in others, that if it is enforced they will take the consequences of disobedience. In favour of the first of these resolutions it may he urged that a clergy- man is supposed to learn his duty, not from the reports of judicial decisions which appear in the public prints, but from his Bishop. In favour of the second, there is, I would respectfully submit, more to be said than you are willing to allow. Of course, if a Civil Court dealing with religious matters wielded an authority which could claim Divine sanction, there would be an end of all discussion. Of that more presently : but the "" resisting " clergy do not recognize in this Court any authority which makes unhesitating obedi- ence a matter of duty. In deciding whether to obey or not, they are thrown back upon the question of the spiritual expediency of obedience in a particular case. Or rather they have to balance against each other two opposing expediencies ; the expediency of not giving an example of resistance to the law (I do not undervalue this), and the expediency of not undoing the work of years, of not alienating the most devoted members of their flocks, of not abandoning to Eome, or — far worse — to indiffer- ence, souls which, as it has been said, '^ are more precious to a good man than the safety of the Esta- blishment." For this Judgment, if obeyed, will simply revolutionize, in many a Church, the whole Grave Difficttlties of the Clergy, 2 3 character of its most solemn Service. It will in- volve the abandonment of usages which, in the minds of many most devout Christians, are the very out- works of inward reverence. To many who do not think accurately, or who are perhaps too much dependent upon those aids to faith which, in God's good providence, are furnished through the avenues of imagination and of sense, obedience to this judg- ment will appear to involve nothing less than a re- pudiation of portions of the revealed doctrine of the Eucharist. It is no answer to say that such infer- ences will be irrational. The clergy have not to deal with ideal reason ; but with average human minds as they actually are. And it will be felt by thousands that a changed service means something more than an outw^ard change — something much more serious. How is a clergyman to justify this sudden revolu- tion to his people ? Is he to say, I obey the Bishop ? But is it really the Bishop who imposes the order ? Would any considerable number of the Bishops im- pose it, if they were taking counsel only for the good of the Church ? No ; behind the Bishop, there rises the form of the Judicial Committee. The Bishop is not here acting as a chief pastor of souls, freely dealing with his vast responsibilities ; he is reduced to the position of a legal officer ; and his moral dignity is overshadowed by the Civil Court, whose behests he obeys. One of the many mischiefs en- tailed upon us by the existing Court of x^ppeal is that it has done so much to impair the already en- feebled moral authority of our Fathers in Christ. But if they should enforce this Judgment, they must, 24 Will '' Ike Laio " be enforced impartially ? we may be sure, enforce it upon a principle. The judgment only forms a part, on any supposition, of the whole Rubric al Law of the Church ; and the Bishops must enforce the whole Rubrical Law of the Church or no part of it. The recent decision of the Final Court, if confirmed by the Queen, is not *' law " in any sense in which the duty of administering the Holy Sacrament, with a separate repetition of the words of Administration, to each communicant, is not *' law." Do the Bishops mean to enforce the ^^law " in this respect upon the Low Church Clergy ? It is a parallel case. If the vest- ments and the eastward position of the celebrant give pain and distress to one set of communicants, the off-handed irreverence of *'railful administrations," as they are termed, gives at least an equal amount of pain to another set. They see in it, and surely not quite without reason, a very significant symbolism — the symbolism of a persistent depreciation of the Sacraments of Christ.^ In those precious moments, unlike any others that are passed on earth, when the soul meets its Maker and its Redeemer in the intimate embrace of an ineffable communion, the perfunctory officialism which seems to say, '' The sooner we get this all over the better," is a source of sharp pain to reverent and believing minds. Others I know have felt it; I myself have felt it; and compared with this pain, I should think, any annoy- ance caused by differences of dress, or differences of posture, to those who too often do not suppose them- ^ I have myself heard an " Evangelical " preacher refer to the Sacraments as " wood, hay, and stubble," in the pulpit. Do the Bishops obey ^^ the Law V 25 selves to be doing anything more serious than taking a little bread and wine in public, in memory of an absent Christ, would be very endurable indeed. There is a question which it is not, I trust, disre- spectful to ask, since it cannot, in justice, be ignored in this connection. Is it not the case that, since this judgment has been delivered, at the recent Eoyal Marriage, the Service prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer was largely mutilated by the offici- ating bishop or bishops ? Is not the Marriage Service part of an Act of Parliament, and could its mutilation be legally authorized without the consent of Parlia- ment ? It is easy to understand the difficulty in which the bishops may have been placed ; probably any one else in their circumstances, considering the ']us Vituv- gicum inherent in the Episcopate, would have acted as they did. But this does not alter the fact that they broke the '' law^ ; " as indeed they break it on other occasions, which it w^ould be as unwelcome as it is needless to specify. Can they then, with a good conscience, admonish, suspend, deprive their clergy for doing that which they have done, either actually or by connivance, themselves ? A higher than any living bishop has, in another connection, written words which appeal to the profoundest instincts of our common human conscience, and which must, I feel sure, stay the hand and silence the voice of more than one of our Fathers in God. It was to the typi- cal Jew, making his boast in the Mosaic law, that St. Paul preached a doctrine of justice which is, historically speaking, older and broader than that Gospel which is based on it : " Wherein thou judgest 26 Reassuring Statements of the Primate, another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things Thou, there- fore, which teachest another, teachest thou not thy- self ? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal ? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery ? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacri- lege ? "' The Archbishop of Canterbury, indeed, when re- cently anticipating his answer to the Clergy who were still signing the remonstrance against the recent judgment, hastens to relieve the anxieties of the remonstrants in the following terms : — " You fear lest the liberty of the clergy raay be unduly inter- fered with, and you deprecate the evil which might arise from the sudden introduction in many parishes of changes from prac- tices which you believe have given no offence, and which have been adopted under the conscientious conviction that they were not irreconcilable with the law. I will not, therefore, hesitate to remind you that the whole practice of the Episcopate of England in the administration of its duties, is averse to anything like tyrannical interference with individual liberty. We have long learned by experience that we can trust our clergy ; and, except when complaints are made against their mode of performing divine service, our rule is to leave them to act according to their own consciences, under direction of the Rubrics. " I have already intimated to others that what I conceive this judgment has done is, to state the law in reference to the ille- gality of the so-called sacrificial vestments, and in reference to the position of the officiating minister at the celebration of the Holy Communion. The Rubrics, interpreted by the Supreme Court, form the lawful rule of divine service, to which the clergy are bound to yield a loyal obedience, and of which they are bound to observe every particular when required by authority. But certainly, as a matter of fact, not all the clergy are expected ' Rom. ii. 1, 21, 22. What ivill be their Practical Value ? 27 by their parisliioners, or required by their Bishops, rigidly to observe every point in the Rubrics at all times and under all cir- cumstances. " No doubt in such matters the clergy will be ready to listen to the paternal advice of their Bishops, which, I feel sure, will always be given with full consideration of the particular circum- stances of our parishes, and of the delicacy and difficulty of introducing changes from established usage. Still, in points where the law is clear, the chief officers of the Church must of course be prepared to enforce its observance in cases which are brouo-ht before them in a les-al way "1 When bis Grace observes tbat, ^' as a matter of fact, not all tbe Clergy are expected by their pa- rishioners, or required by their Bishops, rigidly to observe every point in the Eubrics at all times and under all circumstances," he is keeping within the truth, since the statement probably applies to nine- tenths of the Clergy of the Church of England. It is applicable in a very emphatic sense to the Low Church party, as every one knows who attends their ministrations and is moderately acquainted with the Prayer Book and its Rubrics. There is no intention on the part of the Episcopate to enforce literal obedience to the Rubric on the Low Church Clergy. The great mistake of the surplice crusade of 1844 is not likely to be repeated. The Primate, with his eye on this grave fact, is too equitable to use the language which alone would satisfy a section of the Puritan and anti-religious press. He appears to imply that the Bishops will not, of their own motion, enforce the judgment. But they will enforce it ^^ in cases which are brought before them in a legal way." It is, therefore, of the utmost practical importance to 1 Daily News, April 12, 1871. 28 What will the Church Association do ? ask whether they will be pressed to enforce the judgment ; and on this point we have, I regret to say, no reason for entertaining a doubt. On Wednesday, March 1st, the Church Association held its sixth annual meeting in St. James's Hall, and a full report of its proceedings appeared in the Becorcl of Friday, March 3rd. The attendance was very large ; and, after a great party triumph, it was natural that there should be an interchange of warm congratulations, and that the tone of the meeting should be jubilant. If the only object of the Church Association had been, as is sometimes asserted, to *^ ascertain the law" by a course of litigation, it would have been natural to say to the defeated party, '^ We have vindicated our opinion as to the legal sense of the formularies of the Church of England ; and, having done this, we are glad to let a distressing controversy drop as quietly and as entirely as may be." But in a leading article the Becorcl informs us that : — " The key-note was sounded in the excellent opening address of the Vice-chairman of the Coancil, and the tone of mingled thankfulness for the past (more especially for the Purchas judg- ment), and firm adherence to principle in view of the future, characterized the remaining proceedings."^ Turning then to the speech of the chairman, I find him using very distinct language, and I italicise the sentences which appear to me to have most practical significance of a serious character. He thinks that the Judgment will generally be obeyed, but then he proceeds to say that : — ^Becorcl, March 3, 1871. The Bishops are to " have no Peaces 29 " Where there is disobedience we must remit these men to the kind consideration of the Bisnops. (Hear, hear.) It will ill become me to say one word against the Bishops. They have been very cautious. (Hear, hear.) They perhaps have had some colour for their non-action ; but at least they have not been in haste to mark these men as offenders. But whatever justification they had, were it as flimsy as a cobweb, that is now put on one side, and no ingenuity can now justify non-action on the part of the Bishops. (Cheers.) The name of the Bishop of London is mentioned in the Report, and I think too good of his Lordship to say that he has any sympathy at all with Ritualism or Ritualists. (Hear, hear.) I believe him to be a perfectly sincere and conscien- tious man. I have no doubt that he is a cautious man, that he is a man Avho likes peace. He is placed so as to preside over a Church that is comprehensive, and we cannot blame him for being cautious. But I believe that now the law is defined the Bishop of London will be as firm in enforcing obedience to that law as he has been pertinacious hitherto in not taking any active measures. (Hear, hear.) But while endeavouring to place a load on the Bishops' shoulders, let us not forget that we our- selves have a duty to perform. The law is so clearly defined now that we can have no doubt about it ; and the Church Association intend to emhody in a handy-hoolc the late judgment^ so that no man or ivoman can plead ignorance as to luhat is the laiv and what is not the lavj. (Cheers.) It is om^ duty as members of the Church of England to see that the law is obeyed. Let not the Bishops have this excuse, 'We have no complaints.' When there is a viola- tion of the law, let there be an abundance of complaints. (Cheers.) Do you, the laity of the Church of England, be faithful, he vigilant, he iinsjparing. Be not petulant, hasty, or equivocal; but wherever there is a clear infraction of this authori- tative decision, let the Bishop have no peace until he interferes. (Loud and repeated cheers.) I am old enough to remember that that arch-agitator, Mr. O'Connell, used the words "Agitate, agitate, agitate." Well, now, the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. Do you take a leaf out of his book, and you may depend upon this, that a faithful laity wiU make a vigilant clergy."^ The Rev. J. C. Ryle appears to follow in the same sense : — Speech of Mr. T. R. Andrews, Uecord^ March 3, 187L 30 Apparent Unanimity of the Association. " We have been warned about what Ritualists may do, but I .should like to know what the Bishops intend to do. What has recently passed in the Upper House in Convocation makes me not only desire that Convocation may be reformed root and branch, but that in the meantime the members might have a muzzle put on their lips. After what took place the other day in the Upper House of Convocation, I feel rather shy in speaking about the Bishops, but, nevertheless, I hope the Bishops will not forget that the law has now been made clear, plain, and definite on the points upon which Mr. Purchas has been prosecuted. (Hear, hear.) The Bishops will no longer plead uncertainty. (Hear, hear.) They can no longer plead that these questions are not settled by law : they can no longer hide themselves, as it were> in a jungle, and say that these matters are left without legal decision. (Cheers.) There is a legal decision; the law has been plainly laid down ; and now what the Bishops will be expected to do may be summed up in an application of the words of the immortal Nelson on the day of Trafalgar. The Church of England will expect the Bishops to " do their duty." (Loud cheers.) — Mecord, March 3, 1871. Had the chairman's remarks been unwelcome to the meetmg, it might have been expected that the Dean of Carhsle, as the only dignitary of the Church who was present on the occasion, would have softened or explained them. But the Dean opened his speech by saying : — " I always think it very pleasant and anticipate much satisfac- tion from being well abused by enemies, because I get equally well applauded by friends, and that comforts me on the other side. (Hear, and laughter.) I have been invited to come here and support the good cause, and what I have heard has given me the greatest satisfaction. I have loved this institution from its very commencement. I have watched its progress, and, so far as I know and believe, I approve of everything that it has done. (Cheers.) I have been surprised from time to time at the great Avisdom Avith which its afiairs have been conducted." — Becord, March 3, 1871. The Dean is not without hope that, in a still // Co7tdemns the *' Cotirt of Arches!^ 31 graver case which must come before it, the Judicial Committee will prove itself equally satisfactory to the Church Association : — " There is one point which has not been alluded to in the important judgment which has recently been given. That judg- ment is not a declaration merely against the use of certain dresses in the Church, but there is a distinct reference to them as being unlawful because they are sacrificial. I have read the judgment carefully several times, and find that the Committee of Council has decided against all these things because they represent ' sacrificing priests.' Having adopted that principle in regard to vestments, they cannot go from it when they give their next judgment; on doctrine in the case of Mr. Bennett, and therefore ere long I anticipate the final result of your labours in that case." (Cheers.)-— Eecort?, March 3, 1871. The meeting was naturally enthusiastic in its praises of the Judicial Committee, but its enthusiasm was not extended to any of our existing Church Courts. The Court of Arches, in particular, had not deserved well of the Association, and the Dean alludes to it in terms which I do not call ^' disloyal," whatever else may or may not be rightly said of them : — " Perhaps you are not all aware Avhat is the nature of tlie Ecclesiastical Courts. First of all, there is your own beloved Court of Arches hero in London. The Report tells us that " the mode of procedure in the Ecclesiastical Courts has long been felt to be cumbrous, dilatory, and expensive." There could not be a better description of them than that. These old Courts are in the present day quite out of date. It is just as if any one were to bring out the arquebusses and blunderbusses of former times and pit them against the French chassepots and the Prussian needle- guns. (Laughter.) These Courts are quite out of keeping with the times ; they won't go off, they won't move, they are of no use ; while, as regards expense, we have spent £18,000 in carry- ing on our proceedings. It is high time that those Courts reformed their ways. (Hear, hear.) This Court of Arches — (" Dark Arches," and laughter) — yes, Gothic arches of the middle 32 Danger of an organised Espionage. ages (laugliter) — this Court is, I say, called, humorously enough, h^ i>A^