Senates and synods : their respective functions and uses, with reference to the "Public Worship Regualtion Bill" : with a "Plea for toleration by law, in certian ritual matters"

-'is-'

SENATES AND SYNODS

THEIR RESPECTIVE FUNCTIONS
AND USES;

WITH REFERENCE TO THE

^'PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION BILL."

WITH A

"^ea for toleration b^ Hato, m cmain
laitual 9?atter0^^

BY

CHR. WORDSWORTH, D.D.

BISHOP OF LINCOLN

RIVINGTONS
JLontion, 2Dxforii, ano CambriDge

WILLIAMSON

Htncoln

1874

{^ Price One Penny]

RIVINGTONS

Hontion Waterloo Place

©xforlr High Street

©amliritrge Trinity street

[A— iS9l

PREFATORY NOTE.

To the remarks here made on the relative functions
of Parliament and Convocation, in questions concerning
the Church, is added a PZea for Toleration hy Law in
certain Bitual Matters, already published in another
form.

JuTie 20, 1874, The Queen's Accession.

A 2

, UIUC

,/.

FUNCTIONS OF BISHOPS.

On Monday, April the 20tli, when the " Public Wor-
ship Eegulation Bill " was introduced into the House
of Lords by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbiiry,
the Bishop of Lincoln expressed an earnest hope that
it might not be supposed, especially by the clergy,
that the Bishops were more desirous of dealing with
matters affecting the Eitual of the Church, in their
capacity of Peers of Parliament, rather than in their
character of Spiritual Fathers and Eulers of the
Church. The Bill proposed to be introduced for the
Regulation of the Public Worship of the Church did,
as its title declared, profess to control and direct, by
means of Parliamentary action, the work of the Church
herself in her most sacred functions and solemn offices
of religion ; and it virtually concerned the Clergy (the
ministers of the Church — about 20,000 in number) in
their temporal and spiritual interests ; and he was of
opinion that ample opportunity ought to be given to
the clergy, who had no voices in Parliament, for ex-
pressing their sentiments upon it, both personally and
by means of their representatives in the Provincial
S J nods or Convocations of the Church.

He trusted, that by such means, the evil might be
averted, which would otherwise arise, of a misunder-
standing and estrangement between the Bishops and
the Clergy ; which had led to such disastrous conse-
quences in the eighteenth century. He was persuaded
that even those among the Clergy, who had been
charged with extravagances and excesses in Eitual,
which the present Bill was designed to restrain, and
which he greatly deplored, would be willing to recog-

6 Solutio7i of the Difficulty.

nize and submit to the Church herself — speaking
authoritatively — in her Convocations; and therefore
having hear^lSn credible authority that it was intended
to fix thfi second reading; of the Bill for to-morrow
week, the2^h instant, he ventured~to" express a hope
that it would not be'pressed unduly forward, especially
as the Convocation of this Province would meet on
that same day for the transaction of business; and
that the Church herself would be invited and enabled
to exercise that authority which belongs to all Na-
tional Churches, and to declare her judgment on those
rubrics concerning certain questions of ritual which
were now regarded by many as doubtful, and which
had been diversely interpreted in Ecclesiastical Courts ;
and also be empowered to revise such rubrics as seemed
to her to require revision, and that thus a peaceful and
happy solution would be obtained of our present diffi-
culties, which would be greatly increased by legisla-
tion in Parliament for the regulation of public worship,
without any previous or concurrent reference to the
opinions of the clergy, and to the authority of the
Church herself.

The Convocation of the Province of Canterbury met
on the 28th April, but measures were not then adopted
in the direction above mentioned.

The Bill having been read a second time without a
division, the Bishop of Lincoln endeavoured to plead
again the same cause, on the motion for going into
Committee, on Thursday, June 4, in the following
terms. He has added one or two statements, for the
sake of clearness : —

My lords, I ought to apologise for venturing to
trespass now on your indulgence, even for a few
minutes ; but having been nearly thirty years a member
of Convocation — a longer time, I believe, than any one
now on this Episcopal bench, perhaps, with a single
exception — I may be permitted to say something with
regard to that body which has been referred to in the
amendment now before your lordships, and also in

Estrangeme?ii of Clergy, 7

tlie remarks which have just been made by the noble
and learned lord on the Woolsack. And in order that
I may not be charged with undue presumption, I beg
to add that I rise after previous communication with
the most rev. prelate who has laid this Bill on the
table of your lordships' House, and with his encoui-age-
ment ; and I feel bound to acknowledge the generous
toleration and courtesy invariably manifested by that
most rev. prelate to his Episcopal brethren, and par-
ticularly to those who have the misfortune sometimes
to differ from him. My lords, I do not rise for the
purpose of saying that legislation is not necessary ; on
the contrary, I believe it to be urgently and impera-
tively required, for two distinct purposes — first, for the
amendment of the constitution and procedure of our
ecclesiastical courts ; and, secondly, for the correction
of lawless excesses and extravagances on the one side,
and of the no less lawless negligence and slovenliness
on the other side prevailing in the ritual of some of
our churches. But in order that legislation in so sacred
a thing as public worship may be effective, and in
order that it may produce harmony and peace, and not
lead to discord, disunion, and disruption, it must carry
with it the hearts of the clergy. The clergy of the
Church of England are about 20,000 in number, planted
in every parish of the country, and they exercise a
powerful influence, not only spiritual and religious, but
also moral, political, and social. My lords, it would be
an evil day for the Legislature if it were to alienate
the affections of the clergy ; it would be disastrous for
any administration to forfeit their confidence; above
all, it would be calamitous for the Episcopate of Eng-
land to be estranged from the clergy. My lords,
England, in former days, had bitter experience of the
evil effects of such a separation, especially in the period
dating from the revolution of 1688 for about a century,
beginning with the secession of some of the most
learned and pious of the clergy, the nonjurors, and
continued through the dreary and dismal period of the

S Opmio7is of the Clergy.

Hoadleyan and other controversies, and terminating in
another secession — that of the Wesleyans — from which
we have not yet recovered : these were some of the un-
happy results produced by a want of confidence between
the Bishops and clergy of the Church. The twenty
thousand clergy of the Church of England are not
represented in this House, and none of them have seats
in the other. It is therefore more incumbent on the
Bishops to communicate their sentiments to your lord-
ships, on matters which vitally concern their temporal
and spiritual interests, such as the Bill now before
you. Let me, therefore, be permitted to report their
feelings upon it. They describe this measure as a Bill
for the coercion of the clergy under severe pains and
penalties in matters uncertain and ambiguous. Their
complaint is that Bishops are resorting to Parliament
to compel the clergy to obey rubrics which are doubt-
ful, while some of the Bishops themselves violate rubrics
which are clear ; as, for instance, by ministering Con-
firmation to whole railfuls of candidates at once. They
complain that Bishops desire by means of this Bill to en-
force upon the clergy what is called the Pur chas judgment,
which prohibits them to use an Eucharistic vestment,
while some Bishops disobey that judgment which com-
mands them to wear an Eucharistic vestment while
celebrating the Holy Communion on certain festivals
in their own cathedrals. Ritualistic excesses are great
evils, but Episcopal inconsistency and despotism are
not more venial. My lords, I report simply what I
hear, and hear with sorrow and alarm. We seem to
be on the eve of a great crisis; it may be an eccle-
siastical and civil disruption ; and who can foresee
the consequences, both to the Church and Realm?
Where, therefore, is the remedy ? It consists, I would
humbly submit, in treating the Church as a Church,
and not merely as a department of the State. You
desire, my lords, to check Romanism by this Bill ; but
you will give the greatest triumph to Romanism that
it can possibly wish for, if you treat the Church of

Use of Com'ocatio7h 9

England as an Act of Parliament Church. This is
what the Church of Rome desires her to he, and if you
treat her as such, perversions to Eomanism will become
more and more frequent among us. Let me entreat
you, my lords, not to despise the synods of the Church.
This is a policy which Eomanism would welcome at your
hands. Let me implore you to show some regard to the
Church of England in ritual matters, as represented by
her ancient Convocations. They have many claims on
your esteem. We owe the Book of Common Prayer to
the Convocations. The Convocations of the ( hurch of
England at the present time contain very many mem-
bers of great piety, wisdom, and learning, and exercising
great influence in all parts of the country. If in
spiritual matters you show no deference to Convoca-
tion, you will alienate the clergy of the Church. But
if, on the contrary, you treat Convocation with respect,
you will conciliate the affections of the clergy. And
then legislation on such matters, which, without Con-
vocation, will be abortive and obnoxious, and will lead
to dissension and disruption, will become comparatively
easy, and will allay strife and produce harmony and
peace. Convocation, I am aware, is not a popular
assembly, — you may disparage it if you will, but you
cannot afford to despise its influence : that influer.ce is
powerfully exercised over a large number, not only of
clergy, but laity. Convocation is an energetic instru-
ment for good ; because its authority is acknowledged
by many who will not readily submit in spiritual
things to secular power. It is, indeed, objecied to
Convocation that the laity are not represented in it,
but this is surely a mere verbal objection ; the action
of Convocation is fenced on all sides by the intervention
of the laity; Convocation cannot originate anything
with the view of framing a canon, without a licence
from the Crown ; and to give effect to synodical canons
the subsequent assent of the Crown is requisite ; and
they cannot acquire legal validity without the authority
of Parliament. It cannot, therefore, be said that the

lo Influejice of Cofivocatmi.

laity have not great influence over Convocation ; and
no one need fear any ecclesiastical domination from it.
But it is also objected that the parochial clergy are not
adequately represented by it. Be it so. Convocation is
very desirous to remove this objection. Let it be
enabled to do so. But even now the parochial clergy —
yes, even some among them who are charged with
ritualistic excesses, have publicly declared in the
petition of the 800 clergymen presented by the noble
duke, their willingness to submit to the judgment of
Convocation in doubtful rubrics, and therefore the
authority and influence of Convocation are great for
putting an end to religious controversies, and for pro-
ducing and maintaining peace. Will not, therefore,
your lordships permit a reference to Convocation for
such purposes as those ? Let me entreat you to hold
out an olive branch of peace to the Clergy by such an
. overture as that. But it is also said that Convocation
made a surrender of its synodical powers at the Eesto-
ration. This I beg to deny: it merely gave up its
powers of taxing itself; but its synodical and even
judicial powers in certain respects were recognized, as
your lordships may remember, by a large majority of
the Judges of England in the reign of Queen Anne ;
and though in the stagnant times of religious lethargy
which succeeded the exercise of those powers may have
lain dormant, yet its functions have never been abdi-
cated, and if in the present crisis a resort is made to
Convocation for the clearing up of those rubrics, such
as the rubric concerning the position of the celebrant
at consecration, and the rubric concerning ornaments
and vestments, and for the revision of such rubrics as
may seem to need to be revised, and if the most
reverend presidents of the Southern and Northern
Convocations would give specific directions accord-
ingly to their respective Provincial Synods, having
first received licence from the Crown to treat thereon,
there is no reason to doubt that in the course of a
week a peaceful solution might be arrived at with

The Churches of England and Scotland. 1 1

regard to such matters as require amicable adjustment
previously to legislation upon them. I am confirmed
in this opinion by the amendment of the right reverend
prelate, distinguished by his eloquence and ability, to
which the noble and learned lord on the Woolsack
referred. I confess, with all submission, that I should
prefer that such matters as those were first committed
to the consideration of the synods of the Church, and
not first proposed in a section or schedule of an Act of
Parliament. This coui'se seems to savour too much of
constituting Parliament into a synod on doctrine and
ritual. Indeed, the very matter to which the noble
and learned lord referred, the Athanasian Creed, which
is one that touches the essence of all religious doctrine,
would itself involve a reference to Convocation for the
alteration of a rubric, because that Creed is to be
recited by the people, not alternately with the minister,
as is too often the case, but in its totality ; and what-
ever the minister may do or not do, the people have a
right to the Creed, the faithful laity of every parish
have a claim to it, and they cannot be deprived of that
right by any exemption of the minister. My lords, on
Tuesday last, the noble duke who moved the second
reading of the Bill for the abolition of patronage in
the Church of Scotland referred with just pride and
honourable satisfaction to the assistance he had re-
ceived from the deliberations and decisions of the
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Chm'ch, as
exercising great influence, and tending much to pro-
mote the success of that ministerial measure. May
I not venture to appeal very respectfully to the noble
duke, and inquire whether the Bill now before Parlia-
ment for regulating the worship of the Church of
England would not have a far better chance of be-
coming law, and of affording general satisfaction to
the clergy and laity of the Church, if similar regard
were paid to the deliberations of the Convocations of
England as are now being manifested by her Majesty's
Government to those of the General Assembly of the

1 2 Appeal to the Government.

Kirk of Scotland ? Let me remind your lordships of
the words of one of the most distinguished laymen of
England, Dr. Samuel Johnson, who, when in a time
of religious lukewarmness, was rallied by his Scotch
biographer, Boswell, on having said that he would
stand before a battery of cannon to restore the Convo-
cation of England to its full powers, replied with a
determined look and earnest voice, and said, " And
would I not, sir ! Shall the Presbyterian Kirk have
its General Assembly, and shall the Church of England
be denied its Convocation?" I know not, my lords,
whether the noble earl who has proposed the present
amendment means to press it to a division ; for my
own part, I would rather be content to leave the matter
to the wisdom of Her Majesty's Government, and to
the most reverend prelates who preside over the Con-
vocations of the two provinces, in full confidence that
the licence to treat concerning ritual matters which
was freely and graciously conceded by the Crown to
Convocation, under the recent administration of Mr.
Gladstone, may not be denied to Convocation by his
successors in office, and that, under the paternal au-
thority of the Archbishops of the two provinces, and
under the Divine blessing, the deliberations of Convo-
cation may be so guided as to avert the dangers, both
civil and religious, which now threaten us, and to
conduce in the most effectual manner to the prevention
of strife, and to the preservation of peace.

The Archbishop of Canterbury exjDressed his willing-
ness to promote and regulate the action of Convocation.

On Tuesday, June 9th, and on Monday, the 15th of
June, the consideration of the Bill in Committee was
proceeded with. The most memorable incident in the
debate on the latter occasion was the withdrawal — or
rather the non-proposal — of certain amendments (of
which notice had been previously given), for the non-
imposition of any penalties or disabilities, under this
Bill, on any clergyman with regard to the side of the
Table at which the Minister ought to stand when
Saying the prayer of Consecration ; or the use of the

Neutral Matters — how to be settled. 1 3

words of administration otherwise than separately ;
or the celebration of the Holy Communion during
the time of Evening Service, or the daily use of Morn-
ing and Evening Service ; or the use of the Commina-
tion Service, and one or two other matters ; to which
was added, by two temporal Peers, the use of the
Athanasian Creed ; and the use of certain words in the
form of Ordination of Priests.

It was proposed in these amendments that the above-
mentioned matters should, as far as legal proceedings
under this Bill were concerned, be neutralized and
rendered indifferent, by the action of Parliament. A
great relief and genaral thankfulness vras felt, I
believe, that a parliamentary discussion on such
matters as these, affecting the faith of the Church, and
the most solemn ministrations of her worship,, was
avoided. But the pro2)osal of such questions as these
for consideration and determination by the Legisla-
ture (constituted as that Legislature now is, by the
changes that have taken place in the House of Com-
mons in the last fifty years) without the spiritual
authority of the Church in her synods suggests matter
for grave and serious reflection.

It seems to indicate that there is urgent need for
careful examination into the true character of the
relations of the Church (which is an integral part of
the English Constitution) to the Legislature, in dealing
with such questions as these.

The principle which is involved in all such amend-
ments is clearly this ; that matters affecting the doctrine
and worship of the Church of England may be settled
in Parliament, without any previous reference to the
Church in her synods.

This principle seems to be unconstitutional.

In proof of this assertion, let me refer to the history
of our Book of Common Prayer, which is our standard
of Doctrine and Eitual, at three different epochs, first
soon after the Restoration, in 1662, next after the
Kevolution, in 1689, and lastly two years ago.

Early in the year 1662 the Book of Common Prayer

A 4

14 Fj^ecedents at the Restoratio7i and Revolution^

was revised by the Convocations of both Provinces,
being authorized by the Crown, as is stated in the
Preface to that Book, and in the Act of Uniformity.
It was then transmitted to the King in Council for ap-
proval ; and by him it was sent to the House of Lords,
where, after a debate upon it, the Lord Chancellor, the
celebrated Earl of Clarendon, was authorized to acknow-
ledge, in the name of the House, the work of Convoca-
tion, and to express its approval of it. It was then
sent to the other House of Parliament, where it met
with a similar reception.

This was the constitutional method, sanctioned by
the Legislature, of dealing with questions affecting the
doctrine and worship of the Church.

Let us now proceed to another era in our history.

In the year 1689 a Bill, called " The Comprehension
Bill," was brought into the House of Lords by the Earl
of Nottingham. That Bill bore a remarkable resem-
blance to the amendments which were to have been
moved in Committee on " The Public Worship Eegula-
tion Bill " a few days ago.

Its design was to conciliate different persons and
parties, by declaring certain things in the ritual of
the Church to be indifferent ; so that no one should be
punished for omitting them ; such as the cross in Bap-
tism and sponsors ; kneeling at the Holy Communion ;
the use of the Surplice.

At first that Bill found favour with the Lords, espe-
cially under the influence of Bishop Burnet. The
Archbishop of Canterbury, Sancroft, being a non-
juror, took no part; and Bishop Ken and six other
Bishops were non-jurors. The Bill passed the House
of Lords mainly by the help of proxies; and it was
sent to the Commons. But the Commons were of
opinion that the questions dealt with in the Bill were
matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance; and that the
advice of the Church herself ought first to be had
upon them; and therefore the Commons rejected the
Bill, and agreed, without a division, to an Address to
the Crown, praying it to summon Convocation to deli-

and under the late Administration. 1 5

berate on these matters, and they asked the concurrence
of the House of Lords in that Address. That concur-
rence was voted by the Lords : and thus the judgment
of Parliament was, almost unanimously, declared on
the constitutional method of dealing with such matters
as these. It is remarkable that Bishop Burnet himself
afterwards expressed his thankfulness for the failure
of his own measure ; for if it had been successful, he
said, it would have caused a schism.

Let us now come to our own times.

Two years ago the " Act of Uniformity Amendment
Act" was passed. In the preamble to that Act are
the following words, " Whereas Her Majesty was
pleased to authorize the Convocations of Canterbury and
TorJc to consider the Eeport of the Commissioners on
Eitual, and to report to Her Majesty thereon ; and the
said Convocations have accordingly made their first
Reports to Her Majesty, Be it therefore enacted,'' &c.

We may observe that the Act speaks of the first
Eeports of Convocation on Eitual, implying that Con-
vocation would be enabled and expected to make other
Reports in succession ; and Convocation would already
have done so, if Parliament had not been dissolved,
and if Convocation had not been dissolved with it. It
appears, therefore, that the constitutional mode of pro-
ceeding is, that Convocation should now be authorized
to continue and complete the work of revising the
rubrics; a course commenced during Mr. Gladstone's
Administration, when Lord Hatherley was on the
Woolsack ; a course which would afford a peaceful and
speedy solution of the difficulties of the present crisis,
which is now causing a wide-spread and growing dis-
quietude, anxiety, and alarm.

Any course for "the regulation of the Public
Worship of the Church" merely by Act of Parlia-
ment, without any reference to the Church herself,
seems also to be dangerous in other respects. Let
me illustrate this assertion. I do not for a moment
doubt that the present Bill is intended by its promoters
to check the growth of Eomanism, and to strengthen

1 6 W/ia^ Romanists wish for.

the cause of tlie English Reformation and of the
English Church. And I heartily wish it success in
doing so. But I should very much fear that if it is
carried through Parliament without any such reference
to the Church, it will do much to aggrandize Eomanism,
and to paralyze the cause of the English Reformation
and of the English Church. Let me explain my mean-
ing. A long and careful study of the controversy with
the Church of Rome convinces me that the strongest
argument which the advocates of the Church of Rome
bring against us, and by which they beguile most
perverts from us, and gain most proselytes to them-
selves, is this : that the Church of England is not of
divine institution; that it has no spiritual character,
and no fixed principles ; that it is a mere creature of
the State ; a mere Act of Parliament Church ; that it
depends for its doctrine and worship on the veering
winds and fluctuating tides of Parliamentary majo-
rities : and has therefore no claim on the spiritual
allegiance of any who regard Christianity as a Divine
revelation, and who revere the Church of Christ as
its divinely-appointed depositary and guardian. If,
therefore, Parliament legislates for the worship of the
Church, without any regard to the authority of the
Church herself, the persons who will most exult and
triumph in such legislation will be the emissaries and
controversialists of the Church of Rome. They will
say that their bitterest taunts against us have been
justified by ourselves.

I will not dwell on the consequent perils of discord,
distrust, and disruption which threaten the Church ;
and will extend themselves to our civil institutions. It
is therefore earnestly to be hoped, that Her Majesty's
advisers and the Legislature may be induced to act on
those constitutional precedents which have hitherto
secured the faith and unity of the Church of England,
in peaceful harmony with the State.

June 16, 1874.

I

I

A PLEA FOR TOLERATION, &-c.

A coNVEESATioN arose on Wednesday, April 29tb, in
the Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury,
on the presentation of a Petition from some distin-
guished Laymen, praying that sufficient time might be
given to the Clergy for the consideration of the " Public
Worship Regulation Bill," now before Parliament ; and
I wish to state somewhat more fully what was briefly
expressed by me on that occasion.

It is agreed on all sides that the constitution and
modes of procedure of our Ecclesiastical Courts require
amendment. It is also a general opinion, that a remedy
is needed for abuses prevailing in some of oui' Churches,
in the ritual of Divine service, whether by excess or
defect.

The " Public Worship Eegulation Bill " is based on
these two acknowledged facts.

We need not now inquire, whether measures are not
equally required for the correction of Ecclesiastics,
whether Bishops or Clergy, who may offend by un-
soundness of doctrine or viciousness of life ; and
whether such offences might not be dealt with in the
same legislative enactment as that which concerns the
Public Worship of the Church.

The question now submitted for consideration is—

Whether the "Public Worship Eegulation BiU"
does not require the complement of certain co-ordinate
provisions, in order to render it a safe and salutary
enactment at the present time.

^ The Bill is of a stringent, coercive, and penal cha-
racter. Under its operation a Bishop might find him-
self to be divested of his character and influence as a

1 8 Liberty and Laiv.

spiritual Father, and be constrained to enforce on the
Clergy of his Diocese a rigid uniformity under severe
penalties, in certain ritual matters which have hitherto
been regarded as doubtful by many very eminent men,
both in Church and State, and have been diversely
interpreted by Ecclesiastical Judges, but which may
hereafter be decided in one exclusive sense by Eccle-
siastical Courts.

There seem to be two important principles to be
kept steadily in view at the present juncture.

On the one side it is the duty of a Church not to sur-
render its power of Toleration, in things of question-
able obligation, especially in a free age and country
like ours. Eemedies good in themselves may become
relatively bad, by reason of the state of the patient
to whom they are applied.

We need the higher and nobler functions of Charity
and Equity to temper the rigour of Law, and to prevent
Law from degenerating into injustice.

On the other hand, while a large measure of Liberty
is conceded, care is to be taken that it may not be
abused by individuals into an occasion of Licentious-
ness.

The result of these two propositions is, that the
measure of Liberty ought to be determined by Law.

In other words, it ought not to be left to individual
Clergymen to choose by an eclectic process what rites
and ceremonies they please, from ancient, mediaeval, or
modern Churches, and to import them into their own
Churches, and to impose them on their own congrega-
tions ; which would lead to endless confusion ; but the
Church of England, exercising that authority which
belongs to all national churches, ought to define and
declare publicly by her synodical judgments what
things in her services are to be regarded as obliga-
tory, and what may be considered as indifferent. And
she ought, as an Established Church, to seek for leg^l
sanction from the Crown (if she proceeds by the en-
actment of Canons) and from Parliament also (if she

Position of the Table^ atid Celebrant. 19

frames new rubrics) for these her authoritative defini-
tions and declarations.

These were the principles on which our Book of
Common Prayer was framed and revised.

To illustrate by examples what seems now expedient
to be done.

1. The Eastward position of the Celebrant at the
prayer of Consecration in the Holy Communion has
been condemned and prohibited by the Com*t of Final
Appeal And the position at the north end has been
declared to be the legal one.

If this question were to be argued again, this judg-
ment might probably be re-affirmed.^

My reasons for this opinion are as follows : —

The Church of England in her rubric at the begin-
ning of her Office for the Holy Communion, recognizes
two positions of the Communion Table as equally
lawful. The Table may stand " in the body of the
Church." This is the first position which it specifies.
And in this case it would stand long-wise, i.e., parallel
to the north and south walls of the Church.

This was the position of the Table in most Parish
Churches during the seventeenth century, and at the
last review ; as appears from the Seventh Canon of the
Convocation of 1640, Archbishop Laud's Convocation.

In this case it is certain that the Celebrant did not
occupy an eastward position, but stood on the north
side of the Table with his face to the South.

The second lawful position of the Holy Table was
" in the Chancel," at the East End ; and there it stood
cross-wise, i.e., from north to south.

This was its position "in most Cathedral Churches,
and in some Parochial Churches," as the same Canon
declares ; and has now become general.

That in Cathedrals the Celebrant stood at the north
end (called the north side in the rubric, which is pur-

^ A different opinion was recently expressed by the Lord
Chancellor ; which shows that the rubric ought to be cleared
up.

20 Position of Celebrant.

posely framed so as to suit both positions of the Table)
is clear from the testimony of the continued and uni-
form usage of all Cathedral Churches to the present
times. In the case of a very few Cathedrals the East-
ward position has been introduced within the last ten
years. But I am speaking of the practice up to the
beginning of the present century.

The engraving which Laud's bitter enemy, William
Prynne (who would gladly have convicted him of any
practice regarded by Puritans as Papistical), published
of the arrangement of the Archbishop's Private Chapel
(London, 1644, p. 123), where the Cushion for the
Celebrant (for a cushion there was) is placed at the
nortli end oi the Table, leads to the same conclusion.

This is further demonstrated by the well-known
rubric of the Non-jurors (no favourers of Protes-
tantism) in their Prayer Book, where the words
" before the table," are explained to mean " the north
side thereof."

Being desirous of shewing dutiful obedience to the
Laws of the Church of England, I have earnestly
endeavoured to persuade the Clergy of the Diocese of
Lincoln to consecrate the Holy Communion at the
north side of the Table, so as to be able more readily,
in compliance with the rubric, " to break the bread
before the people."

But does it follow that a Bishop should desire to be
armed with powers (such as are given him by the
present Bill) to enforce this Law ? And does it also
follow, that he should wish to be morally compelled,
on the complaint of three Parishioners, to enforce it ?

By no means ; for by such a course he would pro-
bably drive from their cures some of the most zealous
clergymen in his Diocese, and produce a Schism in the
Church.

He would indeed be thankful for Uniformity, if he
could have it, as well as Unity ; but if he cannot have
both, he would not sacrifice Unity to Uniformity : this
would be to prefer the letter to the spirit.

Appeal to the CJmrch of A?nenca. 21

But would he wish to leave things as they are ?

No ; for at present (to specify the same example) a
clergyman who consecrates in the northern position is
prone to condemn a brother who holds to the eastern
position, as doing what is illegal ; and thus strifes are
engendered, destroying the peace and efficiency of the
Church.

Where, then, is the solution ?

Let either of these two positions of the Celebrant
he declared hy authority to he lawful ; in other words, let
the position be pronounced to he indifferent.

The position of the Holy Table itself is already
declared by Law to be indifferent. It may be in the
chancel, and it may^be in the body of the Church. Why
not also the position of the Celebrant at the Holy
Table in saying the prayer of Consecration ?

As a matter of fact, this solution has already been
applied in the sister Church of America. That Church
glories in the name of Frotestant. It styles itself " the
Protestant Episcopal Church." But it recognizes the
eastward and northern position as equally lawful;
indeed, in some dioceses, another position, — which is
commended by its high antiquity, namely on the east
side of the Holy Table, with the face of the Celebrant
looking westward, is also permitted.

Why should not we do the same in the Church of
England ?

Each of those two former positions of the Celebrant
has its own special significance. The one represents
the divine grace and gift to man. The other expresses
man's plea for mercy and acceptance with God. The
one looks manward from God ; the other looks God-
ward from man. The one position exhibits the benefits
of communion with Christ. The other commemorates
— and pleads the merits of — His one Sacrifice for Sin.
It might be well that the Church, by permitting and
authorizing both those positions, should set before her
people this double aspect and meaning of that blessed
Sacrament, and thus, even by relaxing the strictness

2 2 Eucharistic Vestment:

of ritual uniformity, preserve and represent unity and
completeness of doctrine concerning these Holy mys-
teries.

The third position of the Celebrant, which is perhaps
the most ancient- of all (that at the east side of the
Holy Table with his face looking westward to the
people), might also safely and rightly be permitted.

We should derive benefit from this variety. We
should have a fuller view of the manifold significance
of the Holy Eucharist, from these three positions, just
as we have a clearer view of the Gospel from having
four Gospels, than if we had only one Gospel.

The Church of Rome authorizes two positions, the
one looking Eastward, the other Westward ; so that the
Eastward position ought not to be considered as dis-
tinctively Roman. It is also sanctioned by Lutheran
Churches as well as in the American Church.

I have said that, in my opinion, the Purchas Judg-
ment, condemning the Eastward position of the Cele-
brant in saying the prayer of Consecration, might
probably be re-affirmed.

2. I am not so sure that this would be the case
with that part of the Purchas Judgment which, while
it prescribes the use of the Cope by the Celebrant in
Cathedrals on great festivals, condemns the use of a
distinctive Eucharistic dress by the Celebrant in
Parish Churches. I am rather disposed to think that
the use of such a vestment might hereafter be pro-
nounced to be obligatory.^

If this should happen to be the case, — and to say the
least it is probable, — what would be the predicament
of a Bishop, if " the Public Worship Regulation Bill,"
now before Parliament, became law ?

He would be obliged to enforce the northern position

• Certainly now that the surplice has become the usual vest-
ment in preachinrj, and is commonly worn by laymen and boys in
choirs, some plain, simple, distinctive vestment for the clergy in
performing the most solemn function of their liturgical ministry
seems very desirable.

I

the Solution. 23

on the Celebrant, and also to require him to wear a
distinctive Eucharistic vestment.

Would this be acceptable to either of the two great
parties in the Church ?

Might it not produce a double rupture in his
Diocese ?

Where, therefore, again let us ask, is the solution ?

Let us no longer waste our energies on vexatious
and ruinous litigation (we have lately been told in
Parliament that two lawsuits cost as much as would
have built and endowed a Parish Church) ; but let the
national Church of England declare hy her Sy nodical
authority that a simple distinctive dress for the Cele-
brant at the Holy Eucharist is permissible, but not to
be enforced upon any.

This also has already been done in some dioceses of
America.

It has, indeed, been objected that the solution is
more easy in America than in England, because the
constitution of the American Church is congregational
rather than parochial, and that nothing can there be
introduced into the services of the Church on the mere
motion of an individual minister, against the wish of
the congregation.

But it may be replied, that in our great towns the
congregational system, as distinct from the parochial,
prevails as much as in America; and that in rural
districts in America the system is parochial.

In that country there is a double safeguard against
extravagances ; first the consent, duly ascertained and
expressed, of the communicants of the congregation or
parish ; and next, the sanction of the Ordinary. Both
these guarantees against innovations and excesses may
be obtained in the Church of England, as well as in
that of America.

A few years ago the adoption of the surplice in the
pulpit in some parish churches produced a commotion.
And why ? Because it was an innovation introduced

24 Discretionary Power.

by individual clergymen, and because the people were
naturally uneasy and suspicious from the apprehension
that other innovations might follow in rapid succession
without limitation. But now that the surplice has
been declared by authority to be a lawful vestment, the
objections have passed away.

Also, as soon as the Cope was pronounced by the
Final Court of Appeal (in the Purchas case) to be the
lawful vestment of the Celebrant at certain times and
places, no exception was taken to its use. But, I sup-
pose, we should not wish it to be enforced in all our
cathedrals under penalties by law ; as it may be, if the
present Bill should pass.

Again, at the present time, a Bishop may, at his dis-
cretion, require two full services on a Sunday in any
Church in his Diocese ; and he is generally presumed
to have a discretionary power of enforcing daily service,
and the observance of Saints' Days and Holy Days,
and the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism
after the Second Lesson, and public Catechising.

But if the present Bill were to become law, it would
seem that any incumbent " who failed to observe the
directions in the Book of Common Prayer relating " to
these and other things (I quote the words of the Bill),
might be subject to severe penalties, and even to
suspension.

I have no wish that such, things as these should be
declared indifferent; but I refer to them as showing
that there is, and must be, some discretionary power
lodged somewhere ; and it will be difficult to say where
it can be vested, if not in the Ordinary.

It is not hereby proposed that alterations should be
made in matters where the Law of the Church of
England is clear, or where there is a consensus of
primitive Antiquity. But there are one or two other
ritual matters (and I do not think that there need be
more) which might, I conceive, be declared by the
lawful authority of the Church and State to be indif-
ferent; and if this course were pursued, then the

Appeal to the Reformers^ and Revisers. 2 5

danger of a Schism, which* might be incurred, if the
present Bill passes without any moderating and qualify-
ing provisions, would be averted; and the Bill itself
might be made acceptable to the great body of the
faithful and loyal Clergy and Laity of the Church of
England.

In adopting such a course we should be treading in
the steps of our own Eeformers, and of those who
revised the Prayer Book at the Eestoration.

The doctrine contained in the Prayer Book is un-
alterable, because it is the Faith revealed in Holy
Scripture, and received by the Primitive Church.

But the English Eeformers altered the Eitual of the
Chui'ch of England no less than three times in the
course of twenty years ; and in the Preface which was
prefixed to that Book at the last review, about 200
years ago, and which is due to one of the most judicious
of English Prelates, Bishop Sanderson, it is affirmed
that " it hath been the wisdom of the Church of
England ever since the first compiling of her public
Liturgy, to keep the mean between the two extremes,
of too much stiffness in refusing, and of too much
laxness in admitting, any variation from it" — and it
" is but reasonable, that upon weighty and important
considerations, according to the various exigency of
times and occasions, such changes and alterations should
be made therein, as to those that are in place of
Authority should from time to time seem either neces-
sary or expedient."

It may therefore be presumed, that our Eeformers
and our Eevisers of the Book of Coi^rmon Prayer
would, as wise, learned, pious, and charitable men,
contemplating the altered circumstances of the timesj
and the condition of the Church in these days, be the
first to relax some of the stringent laws of our Eitual,
and to impart to it more expansiveness and elasticity,
and to pronounce certain things to be indifferent by
lawful Authority, in order that they might promote

2 6 Proper Work of the Church.

those high and holy purposes of faith, worship, and
morals, for which the Prayer Book was framed, and
which are paramount to all rites and ceremonies of
human institution.

Let me here submit another suggestion. At former
epochs in our Church-history, when alterations in our
Liturgy were contemplated, leading persons on dif-
ferent sides were summoned to a friendly Conference.
Such was the Hampton Court Conference at the begin-
ning of the reign of James the First, and the Savoy
Conference at the Restoration. Much benefit was thus
derived from a free interchange of opinion. A Con-
ference at the present time, of those eminent men in
our Church, of opposite parties, both Clergy and
Laity, who have been too much estranged from one
another, would probably lead to mutual concessions;
and a result might be obtained, which, without enforc-
ing obnoxious practices on either, as things necessary
to be observed, might lead to a liberal Toleration,
limited by Law, of things permitted to be done under
certain conditions, and thus Liberty might be secured,
without degenerating into Licentiousness.

The Eeport of the Lower House of Convocation, of
June 5, 1866, and the Eeports of the Eoyal Com-
mission on Eitual, might supply means and materials
for this peaceful adjustment.

If such a course, as has now been traced out, were
followed, there is reason to believe that, under God's
good Providence, our strifes would be appeased, and
Law and Order be restored, and the Church would be
free to devote her energies to the performance of her
divinely appointed work, that of waging war against
ignorance and sin, and of diffusing the Gospel of
Christ at home and abroad, and of promoting God's
Glory, and the temporal and eternal welfare of
mankind.

C. LINCOLN.

End of Co7itroversy. 27

P.S. — An Article in the 'Times' for Tuesday,'
June 16tli, 1874 (on the amendments of the Bishop of
Peterborough and Earl Stanhope), ends with the fol-
lowing words, which I gladly transcribe: — "If, however,
the discretionary power of the Bishops should remain
in the Bill, and if the Bill should become a law, the
Bishops Tvill have an opportunity, by the exercise of
that discretion, of delaying any sharp collision, and
guiding the Church gradually to more formal measures
of adjustment. But to the latter, it would seem, we
must come at last ; and it may be doubted whether any
other authority than that of the Church herself, more
freely exercised than is possible at present, will ulti-
mately appease the controversies now raised."

Lately Published,
A NEW EDITION OF

THE HOLY BIBLE,

With Introduction and Notes by
CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D., Bishop of Lincoln.

THE OLD TESTAMENT,

In the Authorized Version, with Introductions, Notes, and Index.

In rarts.

In Volumes.

PART

£

s.

d.

VOL.

£

s.

d.

I. Genesis and Exodus . .

0

14

0

I.

The Pentateuch . . . .

1

5

0

11. Leviticus, Numbers,

Deuteronomy . . . .

0

12

0

11.

Joshua to Samuel

0

15

0

J II. Joshua, Judges, Ruth

0

9

0

IV. Books of Samuel

0

7

0

IIL

Kings to Esther . . . .

0

15

0

V. Kings,'Chronicles, Ezra,

Nehemiah, Esther . .

0

15

0

IV.

Job to Song of Solomon

1

5

0

VI. Book of Job

0

7

0

VII. Psalms

0

11

0

V.

Isaiah to Ezekiel . . . .

1

5

0

mi. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,

Song of Solomon . .

0

9

0

VI.

Daniel, Mmor Prophets,

IX. Isaiah

0

10

0

and Index

0

15

0

X. Jeremiah, Lamenta-

tions, Ezekiel . . . .

0

16

0

XL Daniel

0

5

0

XIL Minor Prophets . . . .

0

9

0

*

Index

0

2

0

1

£6

6

0

£6

0

0

THE GREEK TESTAMENT,

With Introductions, Notes, and Index.
In Parts.

PART

I. Gospels

XL Acts of the Apostles . .

III. St. Paul's Epistles.. ..

IV. General Epistles, Apoca-

lypse, Index . . . .

£ s. d.

0 16 0

0 8 0

13 0

0 16 0

£3 3 0

In Volumes.
VOL. £ s. d.

I. Gospels and Acts of the

Apostles 13 0

II. Epistles, Apocalypse, and

Index 1 17 0

Any Part, or any Volume, may be had separately.

EIVINGTONS,

/,'!

'M

::^

py,

i