would be an interesting question, were it not an impertinent one. I revere his memory too much to drag it into controversy. I leave to their own sober reflections those who are seeking to narrow its influence by identifying it with a party, those who use it to embitter controversy, and these who wound the most sacred feelings of their brethren whose love for his name and character has never led them to surrender their right of thinking for themselves. one So now we have this whole movement defined, in a party which is "going out from us, because they are not of us. In that clamorous meeting of the "Church Union," voice was raised in behalf of these sound old principles of Bishop Ken, and of the Reformation; but it was drowned in contemptuous outcries, and hooted as well as voted down. Before this was done, however, one memorable warning was uttered against the morality of No. 90 and the Eirenicon. It was the voice of a Romish layman who has tasted all the sweets of concordats and de fide, and whose suspiria de profundis might well have suggested wisdom even to an assembly which would have tasked the Town Clerk of Ephesus to keep it in order. "As a Roman Catholic," said the Count Montalembert, as quoted by Mr. Gurney, "I wish what I believe to be the truth to triumph; but when I consider the moral bearings of the question, the high tone of moral integrity that is preserved by the Church of England and the English people, I must confess I fear the consequences of reunion with us as we are would be to draw you down to our level instead of raising us up to yours." In spite of this warning, the assembly went on to confirm the principle of Tract No. 90, by which an English Churchman may subscribe the Thirty-Nine Articles consistent with all Roman Doctrine ! Alas! ever since the appearance of that baleful tract, the process pointed out by the Count Montalembert has been going on in the Church of England among all who have accepted it. We see the results in this Trentine party, and its unblushing "audacity." Had the English Bishops who denounced it five-and-twenty years ago been unshackled by State interference, they would have refused to ordain the triflers with God and man who had subscribed the Articles on such principles, and so it would have been nipped in the bud. But they were not able to do this, and now there is a set of men in the Church who claim, as an established right, this liberty to equivocate and swear falsely. I saw the fatal mistake from the outset, and I deplored it. Now when I am in a responsible position, myself, I find an effort made to transplant this noisome pestilence and to naturalize it in our Church; I have resisted it, and have taken occasion before the evil gets head, to let the youth committed to my care understand how I intend to deal with it, should it ever be heard of in this Diocese. I am not responsible for other parts of the flock of Christ; but I know what I have undertaken to do for the fold over which the Master has set me as Chief Shepherd. Let all who may be concerned understand that I have said nothing which I am afraid to make good. home like one 66 I acknowledge the pain and grief it gives me to oppose the sayings and doings of such a min as Dr. Pusey; if his were a less eminent and respectable name, however, there would be no need of opposition. Such a delusive and impracticable scheme as his has no other vitality than that which his prestige imparts to it. But who can forget the sacred interests which his dream endangers, simply because it is a prophet that prefers his dreams to God's Word? Who can read his own account of his doings in France, without blushing for him as well as for the spectacle to which he has reduced our Church by his unauthorized diplomacy? He comes caught with chaff: " he reports his sayings and doings among Romish theologians, and hints that he has been dealing with very high authorities: he tells how he consulted about the Council of Trent for two whole hours: he is in raptures over his discovery that this and that are not de fide; that the Supremacy is actually undefined; that even Romish kings have too much sense to permit appeals to the Pope, and that, all else being smoothed down by his exposition of the Articles, the Queen of England will actually be permitted to nominate English Bishops, by a concordat, "though she is a Protestant.' Is it really necessary to shew that all this is the talk of a "prophet that hath a dream?" Why, the Latin divines themselves fought for seventeen years in the Council of Trent against the innovations which he accepted in "two hours." As for the "Supremacy," was he really ignorant of what he parades as a discovery; or does he need to be informed that although the Gallicans have nominally abjured it for two centuries, it is nevertheless practically forced upon them every time a bull comes from Rome, and every day when they recite the Roman breviary? Is it any honour to the Court of Rome that even Popish princes cannot trust it with appeals? And as to the proposed concordat, by which Queen Victoria is to retain her rights "though she is a Protestant," let him expound its value by the vacant Sees of Italy, and illustrate its advantages by the Pope's dealings with Victor Emanuel-though he is a Papist. Does the author of the Eirenicon really imagine that Pius the Ninth would confirm the Queen's nominees if, instead of appointing such men as Dr. Manning, she should name a worthy successor of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley? Alas! If the unity of the Eirenicon be a good thing, these holy martyrs went to the stake for a bad cause, and we have lived for three hundred years in unjustifiable schism. It is not I who have rebuked Dr. Pusey, albeit as a Christian Bishop I have a right and a duty to censure any doctor as soon as his teachings endanger my own Diocese, or the Church which has set me in authority. I have only compared his doctrine with that of the great divines with whom he challenges a contest. He is rebuked by the holy testimony of those who suffered at Oxford and at Smithfield; he is condemned by Laud, by Andrewes, and by Hooker. Does any one imagine that the judicious Hooker would have agreed with those Romish theologians after two hours' talk about the Council of Trent? Dr. Pusey tells us they "saluted him as a brother," and " were satisfied," I have no doubt of it: and that is the reason why I forewarned my candidates for Holy Orders that nothing of the same kind will satisfy me. I do not intend to appoint such "theologians" as Canonical examiners in this Diocese. But, in conclusion, let us look at the scheme of the Eirenicon, supposing it practically adopted, as Dr. Pusey proposes. The Church of England accepts the "Supremacy," which it never did before the Reformation, and agrees to the Trent Creed, which was not in existence in those days. Look at the result. It becomes, thereby, a part of the Roman Obedience; it is estranged from Antiquity; it is involved in the schism with the Greeks. It loses, for ever, its grand Nicene position, its oneness with the Catholic Church, "before the division between East and West:" and the restoration of Catholic unity will be further off than ever before. Now, we are in a grand position to act as Mediators: now, we have a glorious part to perform, if we are true to ourselves, on Nicene principles. Let us once adopt the Trentine Scheme of Unity, and we cease to be Catholics; we become a mere appendage of the Popish Usurpation. I feel, indeed, the gross misrepresentation to which I have been subjected, but I pray God to give its authors a clearer perception of truth. It has pleased God to place me, though all unworthy, in the seat of an Apostle; and I know well that it is alike my duty to "rebuke with all authority," and, if need be, to "suffer reproach" in defending the Catholic Faith, and in protecting that portion of the flock of Christ which He has committed to my trust. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH. "The Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth." Oh, not like kingdoms of the world- Unmoveable it stands, A mountain that shall fill the earth, Though years fling ivy over it, Its Cross peers high in air, Oh mark her holy battlements, And her foundations strong; Oh, ye that in these latter days The Citadel defend, Perchance for you, the Saviour said, The gates of hell shall ne'er prevail But oh be wakeful, Sentinel, Until the Master come! The night is spent-but listen ye ; For on its deepest calm What marvel if the cry be heard,— "The Marriage of the LAMB!" From "Christian Ballads" by the same Author. All profits arising from the re-issue of this Series will be given to the Natal New Bishopric and Churches Fund. Anglo-Catholic Principles Vindicated. PART II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. Ye holy Fanes of England, Beware again the Spoiler, And the days of your unrest. Are the foes that trouble now! SEC. 1.-THE CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES OF THE ENGLISH Ir would be a work of supererogation to insist on the important duty incumbent upon all who are commissioned to preach the Gospel, and to act as the governors of the Church of Christ, of maintaining the truth and the whole truth as it is in Jesus-of declaring all the counsel of God. By the injunction of this duty, the highest of our mental faculties and the most vigorous of our intellectual energies are all enlisted on the side of religion, and our lifetime is to be employed either in ascertaining the will of the Almighty or in vindicating his ways to man. But so long as differences shall exist in the capabilities and powers of different minds, it will be scarcely within the circle of possibility to avoid, in the discharge of this duty, some diversity of opinion, and, in consequence, occasional discussion and debate; nor has it ever been the wish of the Church to silence such discussion or to proscribe all difference of opinion. Coincidence of opinion, even in points which are not fundamental, is, of course, desirable, but it is not to be laid down as one of the necessary terms of communion. It is to a wish and endeavour to secure a perfect coincidence of opinion that we may trace the formation of many religious sects; and on this account it is that the persons composing each separate sect are comparatively few in number, while the sects themselves have, like meteors, glared for a time and then sunk into nothingness. The system of the Church has, on the contrary, always been to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, by insisting, not on an identity of subordinate opinion, but simply on an identity of principle. Within certain prescribed limits she has always permitted a considerable latitude of opinion. Beyond those limits are the regions of heresy; within them she permits her children piously to inquire and fearlessly to discuss. Unless this latitude were permitted, one of two things would inevitably follow; either all discussion would cease, and the result would be a spiritual stagnation and apathy, than which few things can be more injurious to the cause of truth, or discussion would always lead to a breach of communion and split us into factions and sects. By those who agree in principle, certain data are assumed as indisputable, and so long as those data are honestly acknowledged, much difference of opinion is allowable, but in either advocating or refuting an opinion under these circumstances, no one has a right to speak of his opponent as a heretic, since heresy means, in fact, the denial of the acknowledged data. Much confusion has been caused in the minds of men by their supposing that the religionists of England are to be divided, so far as principles are concerned, into two classes only, whereas, in point of fact, we are divided into three ;-the Churchman, who may, from his avoiding the errors of the two opposite extremes, be called both a Protestant and a Catholic; the Romish Dissenter or Papist; the Protestant Dissenter Adapted from Christian Ballads, by the Right Rev. A. C. Coxe, Bishop of Western New York, с or Ultra-Protestant. And union among these can never be expected, by wise and practical men, until, as distinct classes, two of them become extinct by merging into the third; that is, until their distinct and distinguishing principles cease to exist. The origin of this threefold division is to be traced to the Reformation, and to the manner in which that great movement was conducted in this country. No view can be more erroneous than that which would regard the English Reformers as men, who, having devised a peculiar system of theology, were determined to supplant the established system that they might put their own in its place. Their object was simple, intelligible, and practical; it was to correct abuses in the existing Catholic Church, which had come down to them from their ancestors, and of which they were themselves the bishops and spiritual pastors. Those abuses-deviations from the real principles of the Church,-were gradually discovered, and, as from time to time they were brought to light, it was the endeavour of our Reformers gradually and as opportunity occurred, to supply a remedy by regular and canonical means. From the commencement to the conclusion of their holy work, they indignantly repudiated the idea of their wish to overturn one Church and to establish another; a charge continually brought against them by the advocates of Popery. For example, in the reign of Henry VIII. it was enacted that neither the King, his successors, nor his subjects should apply to the Bishop of Rome for any dispensation, faculty, or delegacy. This was the first blow at the Papal usurpations in this country; but, anticipating the kind of attack which would be made by the partizans of Rome, and to prevent misconstruction and misrepresentation, it is expressly provided that "nothing in this act shall be interpreted as if the King and his subjects intended to decline or vary from the congregation of Christ's Church in any thing concerning the very articles of the Catholic faith in Christendom, or in any other things declared by Holy Scripture and the Word of God necessary for their salvation." 3 1 1 Our Prayer Book identifies the Church before the Reformation with the Church after the Reformation, in a singular manuer:- And, moreover, whereas St. Paul would have such language spoken in the Church as they might understand and have profit by hearing the same; the service in THIS Church of England, these many years, hath been read in Latin," &c-Pref. to Prayer Book. 2 See Note A. 3 Collier, Eccles. Hist. ii. 84, 85. The facts here stated are sufficient to shew that the holy work of Church Reformation, if gradual, had still been great and effectual even in Henry's reign;-in that of Edward, our Reformers proceeded more rapidly and did some things perhaps, inconsiderately, but still the same principle was professed. In his speech at the opening of Convocation, we find the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, exhorting the Clergy to advance further in the Reformation,— but how-by throwing off some unprimitive remains. And by the statute of 1547, which sanctioned the giving of the Eucharist in both kinds, a reference is made, in justification of the proceeding, to the common use and practice both of the Apostles and of the primitive Christians by the space of 500 years.3 In the King's injunction against images, it is stated that as a reason that "the Catholic Church made use of no representations of this kind for many years." In the Acts of Uniformity, after alluding to the various Rituals and Liturgies at that time used in England, it is affirmed that his Majesty appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, with several others of the most learned Bishops and Divines, to draw up an office for all parts of divine service, and that in doing so they were to have regard to the directions of the Holy Scripture and the usages of the Primitive Church.5 In reply to the demands of the Devonshire rebels, Archbishop Cranmer, acting authoritatively, particularly insisted to them "that the practice and belief of the Church of England was agreeable to the decisions of the general councils, while the decrees they (the rebels) talked of were mere stretches of the Court of Rome to enslave the rest of Christendom." 6 Again, in the answer of the King's Council to the Princess, afterwards Queen Mary, in 1551, penned most probably by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by Ridley, Bishop of London, it is averred "that the English Reformation had recovered 1 Jenkyn's Cranmer, 1. 36. 2 Collier ii. 233. 3 Collier ii. 236. 4 Collier ii. 241. 5 See Note B. Collier, ii. 271. the worship to the directions of Scripture, and the usage of the primitive Church.”1 And when the Prayer Book was translated and corrected and brought to its present form, it was recommended by the clergy to the laity in these words: "Here you have an order of Prayer, and for the reading of Scripture, much agreeable to the mind and purposes of the old fathers;" 2 and as such it was received by the laity; it was received as "a very godly order agreeable to the word of God and the primitive Church." 3 In Queen Mary's reign Cranmer offered to justify the English Communion Service both from the authority of Scripture and the practice of the primitive Church.4 What, indeed, was his defence of our Communion Service? What his objection to the Mass of the first he asserted, "it is conformable to the order which our Savionr Christ did observe and command to be observed, and which his Apostles and the primitive Church used many years; whereas the Mass in many things hath not only no foundation of Christ's Apostles or the primitive Church, but is manifestly contrary to the same, and containeth many horrible abuses in it." "And when they, the Papists, boast of the faith which has been in the Church these thousand years, we will join them on this point; for that doctrine and usage is to be followed which was in the Church fifteen hundred years past. And so shall they never be able to prove theirs."5 In like manner the imprisoned clergy, in that reign of terror, made a similar but more extensive offer to justify the reformed doctrine and worship by Scripture and antiquity, and this under the highest penalties. Their expressions, indeed, are as striking as they are strong-"If they failed in maintaining the homilies and services set forth in the late reign, or in proving the unlawfulness of the Popish liturgic forms, and that, by Catholic principles and authority, they were willing to be burnt at the stake, or to submit to any other death of ignominy or torture." On the accession of Elizabeth in 1559, a public and authorised disputation was held between the abettors of Popery and the upholders of a Reformation. On the side of the Retormers the most prominent was Horn, Dean of Durham, and he commenced by professing at once the deference which his friends acknowledged to be due to the authority of the Catholic Church, declaring the willingness of the English Reformers to refer the whole controversy to the Holy Scriptures and the Catholic Church, but maintaining at the same time that by the Word of God they meant only the canonical Scriptures, and by the custom of the primitive Church, the general practice of Catholics for the first five centuries. In the same sentiment did the laity concur when, in a subsequent act of Parliament, the authority of the first four general Councils was recognized. We have heard already the declaration of one sovereign at the commencement of our Reformation, that it was not intended to set up a new religion, but merely to correct abuses in the Church, and precisely the same assertion was made, at its completion, by Queen Elizabeth. In her reply to the Roman Catholic Princes she proclaimed "that there was no new faith propagated in England; no religion set up but that which was commanded by our Saviour practised by the primitive Church, and approved by the Fathers of the best antiquity."1 Moreover, the very convocation of 1571, which originally enjoined subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles confirmed, at the same time, the principle of the English Reformation, by decreeing that nothing should be taught as an article of faith, except what is supported by the authority of Scripture and Catholic tradition," which principle is again authoritatively proclaimed in our 30th Canon, wherein it is affirmed that "it was not the purpose of the Church of England to forsake or reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches, in all things which they held and practised, and that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God or offend the minds of sober men ;-and only departed from them in those particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves in their ancient integrity and from the Apostolical Churches which were their first founders." 3 The foreign Reformers were not placed under the same advantageous circumstances as favoured the proceedings of those who conducted the reformation of the English 1 Coll. ii. 436. 2 Can. de Concionatoribus, Wilkins' Concilia, iv. 267. 3 See Note C. |