Project Canterbury

















transcribed by David and Norma Sharp
AD 2002


"We preach Christ Crucified."--1. Cor. i. part of 23rd verse.

"As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come."--1 Cor. xi.26.

My brethren, the subject upon which I shall preach this evening is this--Bible-Ritualism indispensably necessary for purposes of Instruction and of Worship. I sincerely wish I could have preached to you this evening about your duties during the present Lent, without uttering one word of controversy; but it is not our Lord's blessed will that it should be so. Certain men, who ought to know better, have been telling you that, in endeavouring to stir up this Church of S. Luke into something like life, we are only actuated by a Jesuitical desire to bring you all over to what many persons, who do not understand what they are talking about, call "Popery." [1]

It is a hard thing, a very hard thing, for certain Clergy and Choirmen who know that their sole object is the glory of God in the salvation of their and your souls, to hear such things said about them; [2] but, if it were possible, they would prefer to remain silent under such charges, knowing well that they will live them down. We do not think it right, however, to remain silent, being fully aware that unless parishioners have confidence in their clergy, those clergymen can be of very little use to them. I shall, therefore, endeavour to explain to you tonight how the matter really stands. I do not intend to return slander for slander. God forgive all slanderers for his dear Son Jesus Christ's sake. May they not be "judged" themselves in the great Day as they have judged their brethren on earth, is my sincere prayer.

Now if any here tonight have come only to scoff, have come expecting to find fault and intending to find fault, have come with the deliberate determination to stop at no amount or enormity of slander, in order, as they think, to damage our holy cause; speaking to such will of course be of no use. We can only hope and pray that, ere they go hence, they will act out more the faith they talk so loudly about, and demean themselves as though they really believed in the existence of a ninth Commandment.

I desire tonight to address myself to inquirers after the full truth of God; persons who would be willing to "sell all that they have and buy" that truth, if they could get it at no less cost; aye, and who are ready to put their wretched prejudices aside, and admit, if it prove so, that they have found truth in places where they least expected it.

The first passage which I have read, in order to explain the Apostle's real meaning, may be thus turned. "Christ crucified Himself preaches Himself by and through our Ministry: feeble, utterly useless as that Ministry would be without His sovereign aid; but all-powerful to pull down the strongholds of Satan when sustained by the 'ever-lasting arms' of our risen and ascended and almighty Saviour."

It is the same teaching as where our Lord Himself says,--"He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you despiseth Me" [3]

St. Paul sets forth the same truth in other places when he declares that "Christ beseeches sinners by our Ministry;" that the Ministers of Christ act "in the Name of" and "in the Person of" and therefore "with the power of Christ." [4] S. Paul uses such expressions as--"I forgive &c,"--which would be utter blasphemy unless qualified by the other clauses which I have adduced. [5]

So qualified, they set forth a momentous truth which none will deny but those who are really making common cause with infidels in explaining away the plainest declarations of Holy Scripture by expounding them in non-natural senses.

Now, brethren, let me ask a question. Is it really a fact that there is but one way by which Christ preaches Himself, namely, by His Word orally read and expounded? Many persons seem to think so. But the second passage of my text, (I need not quote others,) proves that the Lord and "The Lord's Death" may be "shown forth," ("declared," "proclaimed,") in other ways besides the way of oral reading and expounding of Holy Writ.

The truth is that

1,--Bible Ritualism also is indispensably necessary for purposes of Instruction.

Whatever some persons may say, it is a plain fact that we are like little children even at the best, and the sooner people come to believe this, the better for their spiritual interests.

Some hold that Christ ought to be preached and "shewn forth" only by word of mouth, since that period when the Church of God was developed into its last stage--the Christian Dispensation. Why persons holding such a notion do not at once, like the Quakers, cease to administer the Lord's Supper, I am at a loss to conceive! Such persons tell us that Symbolical teaching--teaching by Rites and Ceremonies and Symbols--was all very well in the Jewish stage of the Church of God--in the childhood of God's Church--but that such a mode of instruction has been completely done away with in Christ.

Now, 1.--I ask such persons--how is it that our blessed Lord has solemnly commanded that He should be "shewn forth," "proclaimed," "declared," in the Most Holy Eucharist, [6] in a word, that He should show Himself forth therein, if it be really true that He intended to do away with teaching by Rite and ceremony, Sign and Symbol?

But 2.--I affirm that the opinion I have quoted is entirely destitute of Bible authority--that, in a word, it is in direct opposition to the plainest teaching of Holy Scripture.

We know that there was a Ritualistic or Symbolical mode of expressing truth in the Patriarchal Church. We find "Altars," "Pillars" and "Oil poured upon them," "Jacob's Ladder," "Putting the hand under the thigh," and so forth; all of which had deep meaning in them. Of such meaning I have not time on the present occasion to speak particularly. Suffice it now to notice the fact.

Again, we know that there was Ritualistic or Symbolical teaching--teaching by solemn Ceremonial--in the Jewish Church. No one who acknowledges the Pentateuch to be historical will deny this. The Jewish Church Worship was full of such teaching.

Again, we know that solemn truths are symbolized in the Heavenly Church. We read in the Book of the Prophet Isaiah and in the Revelation of--"Lamps," "Candlesticks," "Incense," "Vestments," "White Robes," "Prostrations," "Seven Seals," "Open Doors," "A live coal laid upon the mouth," and so forth; all of which have deep Symbolical meanings.

We should, therefore, be lost with surprise if it were really true that it is not the will of God that there should be symbolical teaching in the Christian Church. If the Patriarchal, the Jewish, the Heavenly, and the Christian Churches were four separate Churches, it would be indeed strange if it were true that the last was intended to be radically different from the other three in so important a particular. But these are not four distinct Churches. Instead of this, they are only four stages of the one Church of the one living God; and the Bible plainly reveals that, whereas on minor points differencies of dealing have existed, all four stages have been treated in one and the same way in all important particulars. Precisely the same mode of Worship is used by the Church in the immediate presence of God as existed in the Patriarchal and Jewish Churches and as is intended to exist in the Christian Church.

And no wonder, seeing that the Word of God declares that the mode of Worship set up on earth is "patterned" and modelled after the Worship of Heaven itself. St. Paul tells us that the Rites and Ceremonies which Almighty God set up in the Jewish Church were "patterns of things in the Heavens," and "figures of the true"--the anti-typal Ritual of Heaven itself--the Greek expression "figures of the true" meaning the impression of the Heavenly die stamped upon Earth. [7]

But, moreover, whereas the Jewish Ritual "had a shadow of good things to come," (i.e. "a shadow of" the Ritual of Heaven,) the Christian Church is said to possess "the very image" of these same "good things to come." [8] It is manifestly impossible, therefore, that it is the will of God that the worship of Saints in Heaven and Saints on Earth should be well-nigh totally different, and, indeed, antagonistic in kind!

If Symbolism may be dispensed with anywhere, surely that "anywhere" is Heaven! But if it cannot be dispensed with there, surely it can be dispensed with nowhere! To say that "it will lead to loss of spirituality and merely external religion" is to bring a fearful charge against the Almighty. For it is tantamount to saying that He deliberately--of set purpose--laid His plans to ensnare the whole Jewish Church into loss of spirituality and irreligion, by giving them the most magnificent and imposing Ritual which has ever been on Earth! But the charge goes further. For, inasmuch as such Ritual was "patterned" and "figured" after "the true" Heavenly Ritual; inasmuch as with the Anti-typal Ritual, of which the Jewish Church possessed but a type and "a shadow," "Angels and Arch-angels and all the company" of the redeemed in "Heaven" will have to "laud and magnify" their God for ever and ever--this charge asserts that Almighty God, by having set up such a Ritual in His Heavenly Courts, has obviously in view, as His ultimate aim, the finally leading the whole "company of Heaven" into loss of spirituality and superstition!

Verily those who boast that they reverence Holy Scripture more than other people, know now whither their fallacious arguments are leading them.

Persons may fairly say, "we have not been accustomed to much of this kind of teaching; and we are, therefore, startled by it at first sight." But they cannot say with truth that it has not the example of the Heavenly Church to boast. Nor can they say that it is not needed. Nine people out of ten cannot get on without it. Our loss of hold upon the great mass of the poorer and least educated classes may, to a very great extent, be put down to the loss of this mode of teaching. [9] How, upon any other supposition, can we account for the well attested fact that the poorer and uneducated classes throng the churches where there is what some people term "Extreme Ritual," which is, after all, only another term for "the Ritual of Heaven?"

No matter what subject you wish to teach you cannot get on without symbolical illustration. I believe firmly that the most highly educated and the most intelligent cannot get on without it. Is it not a fact that you can learn more in five minutes from a map or a diagram of the English railways than from an hour's perusal of the pages of "Bradshaw?" If people want to make it easy for us to find our way through a city or a country, they do not merely try orally to explain our way to us, but they shew us a map of the city or the country. We have every one of us been taught in this way. What would you or I have known about the Crucifixion, had we never seen a picture or a sculpture of it? How much, think you, will people learn of the necessity of reverence and the ever-remembering the Presence of God preached from the Pulpit, if there be, more or less, an apparent forgetfulness or disregard of His Presence during the ministration in Choir or at the Altar: if, in fact, there be not the felt necessity of reverence shewn in every, even the least, gesture, and in every detail of Divine Service! Alas that persons are so much wiser in matters of this world than in the all-important matters of the next. [10]

If this mode of teaching seems to many in the present day strange and startling, they are to blame who have run counter to the teaching of the Bible and the directions of the Church in discarding Symbolical teaching under the idea that they will thereby do service to the cause of spirituality. Surely it is hardly Christian humility to set up to be more spiritual than the Almighty Himself! If certain professedly Bible-loving persons are determined to strive to take this most powerful weapon out of the hands of the Church of God, let them at all events be reminded that it is a weapon which the Devil knows well how to wield with crushing force against the people of God. Again, people tell us that in reviving Symbolical teaching--"we are going back." In one sense we deny this charge. We deny that we are "Judaizing" in the true and proper sense of that much misunderstood term. We deny that we are going back to anything which was peculiar to Judaism and not common to all the four stages of the one Church of the living God. If the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of S. Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians and Colossians, be carefully studied, it will be found that three species of Ceremonial observances are spoken of. 1. Those which--not the Churches of Christ as Churches--but certain "private men," [11] "false apostles," individual members of those Churches said must be observed as necessary to salvation along with and in addition to the work of Christ; as though that work was not in itself sufficient for salvation, but needed to be supplemented by a number of secondary saviours, such as Circumcision. [12]

2. Such Jewish Ceremonial observances as the Jewish converts wished to keep up from a natural and proper feeling of veneration due to divinely appointed, albeit temporary observances; which observances however, in no wise tended to hide Christ from those who observed them, in that they were in no wise looked to as necessary for salvation in addition to Christ.

3. Ceremonies and "Days," &c., established by Christian Churches (and which were even then "customs" in "the Churches of God,") intended for the express purpose of witnessing to Christ and in every conceivable way "preaching Christ crucified," and "shewing forth" Him; either by contemplating Himself Personally, as on Good Friday and Easter Day; or His grace shewn in His saints, as a motive to adoring thankfulness and imitation, upon "Days" appointed for that, purpose. The first species of observances S. Paul denounces with the utmost emphasis of which he was capable. [13] The second species the first General Council at Jerusalem allowed. [14] The third the whole tenor of the Bible approves as for "decency and order" and "edifying" or the building up God's people in the Faith. [15] Against such "customs of the Churches of God," tending as they obviously did into "decency and order" and "edifying," S. Paul never uttered one single syllable. His denunciations are not directed against the "edifying customs" of those churches, but against the un-edifying and soul-destroying heresies of certain "private men" within those Churches; who, ridiculing the notion of "hearing the Church," whether Particular or Universal, were presumptuous enough to think that their peculiar "private" and destructive heresies were alone worthy of being "heard!"

I say we emphatically deny the charge that we are "Judaizing." But in another sense we admit, we joyfully and thankfully admit the charge that "we are going back" in matters of Ritual,(not to Judaism, but) to the "old paths" of the Heavenly Service-Book as trod by the Primitive Church; from which we have too long strayed, much to our beloved Church's grief and loss of vital power. If we are "Romanizing," then, (with reverence be it spoken,) the Almighty is a Romanizer. Truly none pay such compliments to Rome as did the Ana-baptists and Puritans, and as now do their ultra-Protestant followers in the present day! [16]

Some persons are ever trying to get us to believe by reiterated dogmatic assertion (utterly devoid of truth) that our Church is a "Protestant Church." If this were really so, it would no doubt be quite natural that its Consecrated Edifices and its Services should be as unlike the Sacred Edifices and Services of the various branches of the Universal Church as "Protestantism" is unlike a true Scriptural and Primitive Church Catholicity. But if the English Church be not a department of "Protestantism," but be, on the contrary, a part of the Holy Catholic Church, it stands to reason that in all things lawful--in all matters enjoined and allowed by the Bible and the Primitive Church--in the general arrangement and appearance of its Churches and Services, for instance--it should be similar to the other ancient branches of the One Holy Church of Jesus Christ. It is only unthinking and ignorant or irreligious and zeal-hating persons, then, who will ever be led astray by that fallacious mode of attack which is commonly made upon restorers of Universal Church practices,--"Oh! We are quite deceived; we really thought this was a Romish Church. It looks exactly like one!" If persons can point out in our Churches or in our Services Romish errors--side-altars before the images of Saints, mumbling the prayers, or the invocation of the Blessed Virgin, for instance, let them by all means cry out "Popery;" but they must not think they have any very wonderful handle against us, from finding that we are and have been for some time doing away with Ana-baptist and Puritan innovations, and making our Sacred Edifices and Services once more look as though they really did belong to an ancient branch of the Catholic Church, and not to a modern post-Reformation "Protestant" sect! In striving to restore our Church's "Houses of Prayer" [17] to their ancient beauty, we are not "imitating the Church of Rome" or "playing with Popery." We are following the example of the whole Catholic Church in the days of her ancient purity. In so doing, we shall assuredly be found to differ materially from the Roman part of the Church in many most important particulars; and if we are found to be like it in certain other also important points; (belief in the Most Holy Trinity, Choral Service, kneeling instead of sitting during Prayer, and, in a word, making the Worship of God the main object for which we "assemble ourselves together," for instance;) this is only a proof that the Church of Rome is not, (as some say it is,) utterly apostate and void of any of the notes of a true limb of "the Body of Christ." In thus endeavouring to make our "Tabernacles" once more "amiable," [18] we shall be found to resemble, in the general appearance of our Sanctuaries and Services, the Holy Eastern Church; parts of which do not know of the existence of the Church of Rome; or, at least, did not until some years back; if, indeed they do even now, which I very much doubt. [19]

The Catholic Church is gradually learning on Earth the Ritual of the Heavenly Service-Book, that she may be able to join in it forever. Really pious followers of the Puritans, [20] therefore, must remember that unless they learn "the Ritual of Heaven" here; they will be startled by it and think it wrong, (at first sight,) it may be, when they reach God's Courts hereafter! They will have to get some of the holy Angels or some of their brethren who had learnt clearer views of Truth on earth to teach them there that Divine Ritual which their God intended them to have learnt here!

We come, then, to this conclusion, that: 1. Earnest, prayerful, pains-taking, frequent oral preaching--preaching too, not upon one doctrine merely, however important, but "according to the proportion of the Faith,"--preaching which "rightly divides the Word of Truth," assisted by instruction given through Sign, Symbol, and Ceremony--in a word, instruction by Ritual--is indispensably necessary (if the Bible is our Guide) to bring us back to the ancient state of things when the rich and the great and the honourable were not the most religious of the population; but, on the contrary, the "common people"--"the poor of this world:" who, according to Holy Scripture, having less worldly ties and distractions, are more than others (if each have equal opportunities) "rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom which the Lord hath promised to them that love Him." Whether rich or poor.

But this is only half the use of Ritual, or Symbolism and Ceremonial; the teaching, namely, by Lights, and Odours, and beautiful Raiment, and "Lifting up of hands," and Bowing, and Prostrations, and "Blessings," and "Breaking," and "Giving" Bread and Wine, and so-forth; teaching men not only through their ears, but also through their eyes and noses and hands. The other half of the meaning of Bible-Ritual--the second use which it has is the highest and most important. This latter half of its meaning and use is also contained in the second passage which I have taken for my text.

II. Bible-Ritual is indispensably necessary for purposes of Worship:--that is, unless Infidels be right, and it be allowable to take Jehoiakim's "pen-knife" and cut out whatever parts of the Bible we do not choose to follow. Indeed, (so much does Symbolism and Ceremonial pervade the whole Bible,) we might almost say--unless It be as a whole committed to the flames, even as Jehoiakim treated a part of It. It is easy to see how this matter is at present so very much misunderstood. For a long time Ana-baptism or Puritanism or Ultra-Protestantism, (for all three are alike in most particulars,) has had the upper hand, and well nigh practically un-Catholicized the English Church, doing serious damage thereby to her fair fame for implicit reverence for--not an open Bible only, but--a reverent and practical belief in, (not a part merely, but) the whole Revelation of God. Now the idea which ultra-Protestantism has of "going to church" is almost wholly selfish. I use this term in its old and primary sense, to signify, namely, that which relates solely to "self." Ultra-Protestantism goes to Church for not much else than "to hear Mr. So-and-so," its favourite preacher. Is not this something very like "priestcraft"? It goes for not much else than what it calls "to get good." Whereas the Bible's and the Church's idea of what we go to church for--is, indeed, to hear preaching, (preaching, moreover, to the eye, nose, touch, as well as to the ear;) but this reason for going holds a secondary place, however in-calculably important it may be. [21] The un-selfish part of the reason for our "assembling" is placed by both the Bible and the Church far into the foreground. It is the giving God something, which, in great mercy, He deigns to receive. The Bible's and the Church's primary idea of going to church is to Confess--Pray--Intercede--all as preliminary and preparatory to the highest part of Divine Service--the Eucharistic part--the rendering "most humble and hearty Thanks to God,--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"--the "blessing God" for "His inestimable love" and utterly undeserved mercies and blessings--with heart and voice; and not only with these, but also, (as all holy men in the Bible ever did; and as all holy men in the best days of the Church ever did; as our own branch of the Church directs us to do; "as is done in Heaven")--also, I say, render Thanks and Adoration by bright Lights, by sweet Odours, by beautiful Robes, and by reverent Bending and Prostrations of the body. [22]

These are all accessories of Praise and Adoration: that Praise and Adoration which is the highest part of Worship. That it is the highest part, will be evident from the fact that there will be neither Preaching nor even Prayer in Heaven; nothing but Praise and Adoration of God--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, forever and ever.

Now once get the other notion out of your heads; namely--that you go to Church for little else than preaching--that little else is of much use; and get a true view of the primary and principal object for which we "assemble ourselves together" into your head; and, depend upon it, you will never object to any Signs and Symbols and Ceremonial taken from the Heavenly Service-Book being used in Christian Worship here in preparation for the everlasting Worship in Glory hereafter. [23]

Get this true idea into your heads and we shall not find you objecting to Choral Service, for instance; or to the Cross over the Altar, (especially if you remember that it is no mere Ornament, but "the sign of the Son of Man," [24] the Symbol of His self-denial,) or to Bowing, (not to the Altar or to the Cross, [25] although it is "the Sign of the Son of Man,") but to the Divine Majesty dwelling in His "Houses of Prayer" with an extra-ordinary and especial Presence, [26] on entering and going out of Church and during Divine Service. You will not object to an Eastward position of both Priests and People, during Confessions, Prayers, Intercessions, and Thanksgivings, when you remember (what the English Bishops told the Puritan party at the Savoy Conference in 1661, namely) that the clergy and people face each other when the clergy are speaking to the people, but all turn one way, (namely towards the East,) when the clergy are speaking to God in behalf of themselves and their people. The Eastern part of the Heavens has been chosen, forasmuch as we have derived our Religion from the East, and because the Bible says so very much about the East;--Our Lord being called "the Sun of righteousness," (the Sun rising in the East,) and the Church, as it were, "looking for" her "Saviour's" return from the same quarter of the Heavens. It is a most beautiful and touching idea. The Priest cannot, of course, obey the Rubrics and "turn to the people" at certain parts of Divine Service, if he is already turned towards them--if he habitually "Prays to them," (as the popular phrase is, no doubt derived from this corrupt Puritan practice,) and Sings to them, as well as Preaches to them. Again, if you remember that the Lord's Supper is the one Service which Christ appointed in His own Person and with His own Mouth, you will not object to His Altar being the prominent object in a church, the Pulpit being at the side as a means of leading us to love Confession and Prayer and Praise and Eucharistic Thanksgiving, and our other duties. You will not object to the Litany Stool, if you remember that it is a Scriptural practice for the "Priest" to "weep between the Porch and the Altar." [27] In a word, you will be heartily thankful to see the greatest possible care taken of even the minutest detail that has in anywise to do with that Divine Service, of which I cannot now speak more particularly. [28] May you, dear Brethren, get hold of this blessed truth--a truth which will give you such an insight into "the breath and length and depth and height" of Man's highest Act, the Worship of Almighty God: and, as a consequence, such joy in Divine Service as a more bald and naked or less reverent and solemn Worship never affords. God grant that you may use this Heavenly Ritual aright, that so your use of its eternal Anti-type may be eternal in the Anti-typical Church of the living God. [29]

[1] "Popery" or modern Romanism really consists in certain modern departures from ancient Catholic practice: and those additions to the ancient Faith, by synodically adopting which at the Council of Trent, the Church of Rome has virtually separated itself from the rest of the Catholic Church, (which requires as necessary to be believed for Salvation only the three ancient Creeds of the Universal Church,) and has thereby involved itself in the sin of schism. These "additions" to the Faith and other errors are such as--The invocation of the blessed Virgin and Saints: veneration of the Cross, Images, and Relics: forbidding its Clergy to marry: belief in Purgatory: that the Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all Churches: obedience due from all Churches to the Patriarch of Rome, who of late centuries has styled himself "the Pope" or "Papa," as though there were no other in Christendom; the fact being that in early Christian days all Bishops were called, by a term of endearment, "Papas"; denial of the Cup to the Laity, and a too natural doctrine of the Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist: the doctrine of supererogatory merits: the doctrines of Papal pardons, indulgences and dispensations: affirming the Apocrypha to be miraculously inspired Scripture: the interdiction of the reading of the Bible, except by special permission: (See Appendix 1.) &c., &c. In such "particular points" as these, the Church of Rome "is fallen from itself in its ancient purity," as declares the 30th English Canon of 1603. Such errors as these we "forsook and rejected," at the Reformation, but not the Church of Rome itself, or any other branch of the Catholic Church, as the same Canon emphatically declares. The present separation of the Roman from the English Church was the act of the then Roman Patriarch himself in the 11th year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. I have thus explained what the English Church declares to be "Popery,"--not from any unchristian feelings towards Roman Catholics, but in self-defence against misrepresentation. When the English people of this and other large towns have got the great mass of their own people out of a state of practical heathenism, it will be sufficient time to begin to throw stones at Rome. (See Appendix II.)

[2] In meeting with slander, when doing God's work, we are in high and honourable company.

(Matt. x 25; Mark iii. 22; Acts xvii. 18; 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13; 2 Cor. vi. 8; &c., &c.) [See Appendix V.]

[3] Luke x. 16.

[4] 1 Cor. v. 3, 4. 2Cor. ii. 9, 10; v. 19, 20.

[5] Compare the form of Absolution in "The Order for the Visitation of the Sick."

[6] "Give thanks" is a translation of the Greek Eucharistesas. (Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24.)--The Holy Communion is pre-eminently the Christian Eucharist or Service of Praise and Thanksgiving for Redemption.

[7] Heb. viii. 2, 5; ix. 23, 24.

[8] Heb. viii. 5; x. 1.

[9] Having had to travel about a good deal lately, I have been pained beyond measure to find what a fearfully dead condition the English Church is still in, notwithstanding the revivals of John Wesley, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Simeon, Mr. Cecil, and others, (God bless them;) and, though last by no means least, the revival begun at Oxford in 1832. On all sides my inquiries were met with such rejoiners as--"Church asleep," "Little done," "Church nearly empty," "Dissent and Romanism abounding;" and so forth. I fear that we need not go beyond the limits of our own town to find a painful illustration of this condition of things. There is, depend upon it, "a screw" or rather many screws "loose somewhere." The merely intellectual religion what has been so much in vogue for a long time is not understood and therefore not appreciated by the uneducated classes; and, consequently, unless they betake themselves to "Ranters" and others, (who at least have an energetic and lively religion.) or to "Hallelujah Bands," (with their manifold ritualistic evolutions,) they "go nowhere" save to Hell through the anti-apostolic ministry of low dancing rooms and public houses!

[10] A striking instance of the truth of this occurred to myself only a short time ago. I was called to visit a dying girl, and in a very short time found that, as I thought, she knew nothing of the meaning of the term "the Crucifixion," although she was by no means deficient in acquaintance with several rudimentary truths of our religion. I asked her, "Do you know what I mean by Christ having been crucified ?" She replied that she did not. Whereupon I could only stand up, stretch out my arms, and tell her to picture to herself two cross beams of wood behind me, and my hands and feet nailed to them; and my being then raised into the air, and left hanging by the nails in torture for three long hours. She seemed to be horrified. That was teaching by symbolism! Will any one say that any amount of oral teaching without it would have met the case. I have little doubt that poor girl had often heard of "Christ's finished work!"

[11] See Article 34: and Preface "Of Ceremonies" in the Prayer Book.

[12] Let me not be misunderstood. Our Lord never took away anything without putting something else into its place. The Jewish ministry has made way for the Christian priesthood. Typical Sacrifices were done away with, but the Memorial Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist was put into their place. Circumcision was done away with, but Holy Baptism was put into its place. Whatever has not been so replaced by something else, remains still;--for instance, Kneeling and Prostration in Confession, Prayer, and Adoration, the Choral method of Worship which is to last forever, "Lifting up holy hands" (1 Tim. ii. 8) in Prayer, as the Sign of Prayer ascending to Heaven, "Laying on of hands" as the Sign of God's Blessing coming down from Heaven (Heb. vi. 1, 2), and so forth.

[13] Gal. iii. 1; v. 1, 2; Col. ii. 4--10; &c.

[14] Acts xv. 22--29.

[15] 1 Cor. xiv: whole chapter, and especially 26-40; Acts xviii: 21; 1 Cor. iv: 16; xi. 1-16; 1Thess. i. 6; Heb. vi. 12; xi. The whole chapter; xii. 1.

[16] Of the Ana-baptists the Prayer-book speaks as follows:- "Having thus endeavoured to discharge our duties in this weighty affair, as in the sight of God, and to prove our sincerity therein (so far as lay in us) to the consciences of all men; although we know it impossible (in such variety of apprehensions, humours, and interests, as are in the world) to please all; nor can expect that men of factious, peevish, and perverse spirits should be satisfied with anything that can be done in this kind, by any other than themselves; yet we have good hope, that what is here presented, and hath been by the Convocations of both Provinces with great diligence examined and approved, will be also well accepted and approved by all sober, peaceable, and truly conscientious sons of the Church of England." (The Preface.) Again:--"And although the keeping or omitting of a ceremony, in itself considered, is but a small thing; yet the wilful and contemptuous transgression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small offence before God. 'Let all things be done among you,' saith S. Paul, 'in a seemly and due order:' the appointment of the which order pertaineth not to private men; therefore no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter any public or common order in Christ's Church, except he be lawfully called and authorized thereunto. And whereas in this our time, the minds of men are so diverse, that some think it a great matter of conscience to depart from a piece of the least of their ceremonies, they be so addicted to their old customs; and again, on the other side, some be so new-fangled, that they would innovate all things, and so despise the old that nothing can like them, but that is new; it was thought expedient, not so much to have respect how to please and satisfy either of these parties, as how to please God and profit them both." (Preface--"Of Ceremonies.") Against these same Ana-baptist such Articles as the 2nd, 9th, 23rd, 26th, 27th, 28th, 34th, 37th, (which truly calls them "slanderous folks",) 38th, and 39th, are directed. The term "Ana-baptist" as also the term "Protestant," are of German origin. The English Church has several times since the Reformation suffered from heresy transplanted from Germany and Geneva. Two-thirds at least of those who seem ashamed of the good old positive term "Catholic," (no doubt from not believing "the Catholic faith,") and seem to be especially fond of the negative term "Protestant," hold most of the errors of the Ana-baptists. About a year ago I delivered a lecture in which I proved "Protestantism" and "Infidelity" to be one and the same. Most "Protestants" now protest against the necessity of an Apostolic ministry. Some of them protest against Infant Baptism. All of them protest against the true Catholic doctrine of the Sacraments. All of them protest against the true Catholic doctrine of Church Unity; a unity, namely, which "the world" can see. (John xvii. 21-23.) The Mormonites protest that the Bible is not the only Divine Revelation vouchsafed to the Church, and protest also against a man's being satisfied with having but one wife. The Quakers protest against any outward administration whatever of the Sacraments. Swedenborgians and Socinians protest against the Catholic doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity; and the latter protest also against our Blessed Lord being looked upon as anything more than "a mere man." They also protest against the doctrine of the natural depravity of human nature, and the consequent necessity of regeneration by the Holy Spirit. Now, all these sects boast of being "Protestants." But "Protestants" cannot be permitted to pick and choose what they will not call

"the Protestant Church." The only fair definition of the term "The Protestant Church" is--a conglomeration of all sects which boast of being "Protestants." Put together, then, these various items just enumerated; and if they do not amount to infidelity, what does? (John v: 23; Gal. i: 8, 9; Phil. ii: 5-11; John ii: 22, 23.) Unless, then, this line of argument can be refuted, the conclusion inevitably follows that "Protestantism" is only another name for infidelity! Verily I protest against any one affirming of the Church of England what she has nowhere affirmed of herself, namely, that she is a "Protestant Church." In the name of God and His blessed Catholic Faith, I most solemnly protest!

[17] Isaiah lvi.7.

[18] Psalm lxxxiv.

[19] The fact is that "High Churchmen" as a body are too sound Catholics imitate Rome! They scorn any such imputation! There maybe, of course, exceptions to this as there are to every rule. But the rule it is. The contrary of what is so commonly affirmed is the truth. The Romanists in this country are now and have been imitating us ever since the commencement of "the Catholic Revival!" This can easily be proved. Suffice it now for illustration to instance just two or three points. They began to restore their Conventicles: ("Conventicle" means a place in which persons are "convened" or assembled in separation from the Catholic Church of any country. The Roman Church is the Church of Italy; and therefore in Italy our English places of worship are "Conventicles:") after we had commenced the same good work. They have revived the Weekly Offertory since we began to do so. Previously they also had let it fall into abeyance. Again, why do they use the long English Surplice reaching to the knee instead of the much shorter one which is generally used in their communion; if their intention is not to try and be as similar as possible to "the use" of those English Churches where the lesser matters are cared for as well as "the weightier matters of the law"? Thirdly, why do not their clergy in this country wear their "cononical coats" or cassocks about the streets, as they do on the Continent, and as our own 74th Canon of 1603 orders us to do? Why do they imitate the slovenly practice, contrary to Church law, which is yet too common amongst us, in this particular? I will give the answer. It is because our "High Church" Clergy have not yet generally revived this excellent ancient Catholic practice amongst us; and the Romanists do not want to go beyond "the High Church party." When "High Churchmen" have revived this godly practice more generally; then, depend upon it, the Roman Clergy will follow in their wake. I say "godly practice." For nothing, as the Canon says, would more tend to make our Clergy respect their office for Christ's sake; and, as a consequence, make our people respect their Minister's office for their Master's sake. If all English Clergy wore their cassocks in going about the streets and roads, (as was the general custom amongst us in days later than the time of good George Herbert,) we should not hear, depend upon it, of any of our Clergy being seen at balls and theatres and race-courses, dressed (at the two latter) in short-tailed coats with coloured neck-cloths and gold pins and cigars in their mouths! Nothing would more effectually prevent worldly-minded men from entering the Ministry of the English Church: for, whereas nothing tends more to assist a Clergyman to forget his sacred office "in which" he ought at all times to "continue," (1 Tim. iv. 15, 16,) than wearing an unecclesiastical dress; nothing is found to help him to remember "Whose he is and whom he serves," whether in or out of Church, more effectually than wearing his "canonical coat."

[20] A name self-righteously assumed by the ultra-Protestants in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., who thought themselves purer than their brethren who were willing implicitly to conform to the English Church. They, however, in murdering Archbishop Laud and Charles I. proved their doctrines to be most impure.

[21] In reading the New Testament we must never forget that what is said about "preaching," very mainly refers to preaching the Gospel--"preaching Christ" to persons who had never heard of Him at all, or who were very imperfectly instructed in the Christian Religion. In Acts xx: 7, we find the place which "preaching" is intended to hold in an "assembly" (Heb. x: 25.) of instructed Christians:- "Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together (compare Heb. x: 25) to break bread, Paul preached unto them." This is precisely the place which "preaching" holds in our own Communion Office.

[22] We are to worship our "God," Who "is a Spirit," not only with our souls and spirits, but (as our Lord did) with our bodies also (Roms. xii: I; 1 Cor. iii: 16-17; vi; 13, 15-20.)

[23] Of course, our God "gives us good"--gives us His Blessing in and through such Divine Service."

[24] Matt. xxiv. 30.

[25] See the 7th English Canon of 1640.

[26] 1 Kings viii: 27-53, especially verse 29; Psalm 1xxxiv; cxxxv: 21; Matt. xviii: 20; Heb. x: 19-31.

[27] Joel ii: 17.

[28] See Appendix III. And V.

[29] The rest of the Sermon is left out. It was simply a practical application of the foregoing, suited to the Season of Lent.


In affirming that it is un-Scriptural and un-Catholic for the Roman Church to "interdict the reading of the Bible, except by special permission," let me say that a most important distinction must be drawn between an individual diligently reading Holy Scripture for "edification"--that it may be "a Lamp unto his feet and a Light unto his path"--that he may thereby "grow in Grace and in the knowledge of his Lord and Saviour;"--and his setting himself up as an Interpreter! To read the Bible diligently is the imperative duty of every Christian. But it is quite a different matter, and an error overflowing with peril to God's cause, to affirm--as does the too common popular doctrine--that such "private" individual, (perhaps a but three days ago converted drunkard, fornicator, and blasphemer,) will be enabled by the Holy Spirit to be as competent to determine deep points of Doctrine, Ceremonial, and Practice, as a Priest--nay a Bishop--nay all the Bishops and Priests of the English Communion--nay even a General Council of the whole Church of Christ. The latter supposition, which is the too common doctrine preached from thousands of pulpits in this land, is as ridiculously absurd as it is palpably un-Scriptural! As our 20th Article affirms as every single English Church Reformer, of whatever School of opinion, affirmed in the good old days of the Reformation,--The Church of Christ in its corporate capacity alone "hath authority in Controversies of Faith." Let it never be forgotten that even the miraculously inspired Apostle S. Paul would not venture to determine a much less important question than one of Faith, by his own single judgment, albeit that judgment was being guided by miraculous and extraordinary Inspiration! He and Barnabus "went up to Jerusalem" in order to bring about the assembling of a General Council of the whole Church to consider and determine the question. No wonder, then, that the General Council of Nice (held A. D. 325) was assembled to consider and determine the apparently hair-splitting and trivial question whether the small Greek letter "i" was to be inserted or not into a certain Greek word. Upon the conclusion, nevertheless, to which the Council might come, hung the tremendously momentous question,--whether our blessed Lord and Saviour was really One in Nature with His Father, or only Like in Nature to His Father! Let "private men," then, "search the Scriptures daily" with reference to what their Clergy teach them; and, depend upon it, they will soon find out that just so far as their teachers differ from the Catholic Doctrine of the English Church, they are differing from Holy Scripture, and thereby injuring their flocks, however much they may take credit to themselves for their peculiar enlightenment, and "despise others." (Matt. xviii: 15-18; John xx: 21; Acts xv: xvii: 11; Romans xvi: 17-20; 1 Cor. I: 10-13; iii: 1-7, 21-23; Eph. ii: 19-22; iv: 1-16; 2 Thess. iii: 5-7; 1 Tim. iii: 15; Heb. xiii: 7, 9, 17; 2 Pet. iii: 15-18. Note well this last passage.) Well would it be for the cause of God in this land if English Churchmen generally would follow such excellent advice in this matter as has been given in a Sermon lately printed in Sheffield;--"Be, under the Church's guidance, diligent in reading the Scriptures.Maintain the whole faith.

Believe the whole truth. Govern your whole lives by the precepts of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the Church when it was One," and so entitled to look for the fulfilment of the Lord's promise to "guide His Church into all Truth," (John xvi: 13,)--before it was shivered--as at first--into two,--and, as now, into two hundred pieces by the awful Sin of Schism. (John xvii: 20-23; compare Acts i: 14; ii: 1, 41- 47; Phil. i: 27; ii: 2-4)


A letter sent some days ago to the "Sheffield Daily Telegraph," by the author of the present sermon.


SIR,--May I be permitted a word with reference to a popular fallacy which has been several times repeated in Sheffield within the last few days--namely, that "High Church" opinions, so called, lead people to Rome. The truth is that

1. Secessions to Rome have been going on, more or less ever since the Reformation to a less extent, however, the last thirty two years than during some former periods. Now there are some 20,000 clergy a year in England. During the last 34 years some 200 clergy have seceded to Rome. But what is 200 compared with the enormous body of clergy who have been serving the Church of England for the last 34 years! In order to a fair estimate of which, we must not only consider the clergy who were alive in 1832, but also the additions since made four times a year to the ranks of the Ministry. We also know, moreover, that we can have no revival for good, without some sacrifice. The Redemption of the world cost the death of the Son of God. The English Reformation we have not obtained without many sacrifices, which can be easily mentioned. Was it to be expected that the great reaction from apathy and deadness to life in the Church could have been brought about without overturning the balance of certain clerical minds. Many reasons can be given why these clergy seceded. The notorious reason for a large proportion of them doing so was, that they thought the Church Revival would be stopped by undue Government interference in spiritual matters, and so cause the English Church to lose several fundamental parts of the Catholic Faith. We believe this opinion was weak minded, short-sighted, mistaken, and indefensible. So it has proved. But these clergy then thought differently. It is well known, moreover, that very many of them, as for instance Dr. Newman and Dr. Manning, have run from one extreme to the other, from Puritanism to Popery.

2. Persons must not forget, moreover, to calculate the number of Romanists (whether clergy or laity) who have come over to the Church of England during that period. I myself know several laity in this town who have done so within the last two or three years. Persons must also take into their calculations the many clergy and laity who, having seceded for a time, have returned, and are still returning again, into the bosom of the English Church, through the influence of "the Catholic Revival."

3. Let persons, again, endeavour to find out how many Puritanism has led into Socinianism and Infidelity! It is notorious that the "Protestant" communities of Germany and Geneva (who have lost the Catholic Episcopal succession) are now full of Socinianism! But let us come nearer home. What says that good man, Canon Stowell, now in Paradise:- "Out of more than 400 chapels which belonged to the old Nonconformists--where Owen lectured, Henry expounded, Baxter preached, and Doddridge prayed--there are not now remaining more than some 20 in which the Catholic Faith is maintained; in all the rest, the Lord who bought us is denied; errors are taught, rather than have taught which the pious founders would have shed their blood! What an impressive warning!" Many more illustrations can be given. There is an old saying which advises us to "hear both sides" of a question. If it is to be granted that there is a pit-fall on one side, it must not be denied that there is also one on the other -; and, I need hardly ask--which is worse, Rome or Socinus! The Almighty system of moral government has willed that we should be in this life in a state of trial--trial whether we will keep, by Divine help, the narrow way of Divine Revelation, or fall into the pit-falls of error on one side or the other. The truth in this matter will, on careful investigation, be found to be, that just in proportion as good old English Scriptural and truly Catholic principles are carried out in a place, the leakage to Rome always ceases; whereas Rome most flourishes where Puritanism most prevails. Let it be remembered, moreover, that whereas there have been many and influential secessions of laity to Rome from "Evangelical" churches in this town: from amongst the "High Church" worshippers at the so-called "Tractarian" church, there has not been even one! "Comparisons are odious." I, however, did not throw the first stone in this matter. I write in self-defence.


BELOVED BRETHREN,--We wish to speak a few affectionate and most solemn words to you in the ever adorable Name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Brethren, we intend, God helping us, to carry on from Ash Wednesday next, February 14th, the Services, a List of which we send herewith, and we bid you, in God's Name, to make a good use of them for your Soul's health. These Services we shall celebrate Chorally as heretofore. This is the method in which Divine Service has been celebrated from the earliest days of Christianity, through the whole of Eastern as well as Western Christendom. It was the method ordained by God Almighty Himself for the Jewish Church, and for this very reason, that it is the natural method--the method which we find used by all nations in all ages of all religions. If we ask a number of children to repeat the Lord's Prayer for us, they will begin at once and say it upon one note, with a number of untaught inflections, or droppings of the voice. If it be not absolutely wrong and wicked for the priest or people to say a prayer or a psalm upon five or seven different and jarring notes, who will be so foolish as to say it is wrong for them to "agree together," that for "decency and order" (I Cor. xiv. 40.) and unanimity, they will say their Service to God, each of them using the same note or notes as the others, so as to avoid discord. In this latter way alone can they worship God "with one accord" and "with one voice" (2 Chron.v.: 13; Acts, I.: 14; iv.: 24; xix: 34.) Will any one say that it tends to "decency and order" or seems like worship offered "with one accord," to hear a number of persons saying the well-known Lord's Prayer in such a discordant, jarring fashion, that a listener cannot distinguish a word they are saying! By the Choral method of celebrating Service alone can this unreasonable result be avoided. If you would like to see what the Almighty thinks of Choral Service and a reverent and solemn Ritual, just read 2 Chron. v.: 11-14; Heb. viii.: 5; ix.: 23, 24; and Rev. v.: 6-14; vii: 9-17; 14: 2, 3. We will point out plenty of other passages to you, if you wish it.

You must not be disheartened if you find that not very many come to the week-day Services. You must remember that our dear Lord has promised to be "in the midst of" and bless even "two gathered together in His Name,"--(two being the smallest congregation that can assemble.) Let only each one of you try and "wait upon the Lord" in the various Services as often as you can, and, depend upon it, we shall have good congregations even upon the week days. At all events, if those who are absent remember that those who "assemble" for Divine Worship, pray for their absent brethren, as well as for themselves, they will be enabled to perceive the blessed value of Daily Prayer and Intercession and Thanksgiving; and, instead of thinking slightingly of a small congregation, they will feel constrained to bless God that their brethren are, in their absence, interceding for them at the Throne of Grace. Brethren, do not deceive yourselves by thinking that you can be true Christians if you do not go to "the House of Prayer" as often as you can. Remember, as we have said, that our Saviour Jesus Christ has promised an especial blessing to even "two or three gathered together in His Name," which especial blessing, therefore, cannot be obtained at home, if we are not prevented by ill-health or some really sufficient reason from going to Church. There are some blessings which must be obtained from private devotion at home; for instance, in private prayer we must seek preparation to join in Public Prayer. There are others which cannot be obtained apart from the Public Services of the Church, unless we are hindered from attending those Public Services, by a cause or causes which will satisfy the eye of God, "unto Whom all hearts be open, and from Whom no secrets are hid." The Apostle, S. Paul, accordingly, warns us "not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; for if we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgement and fiery indignation!" In these passages we have a blessed promise and a solemn warning. Let us strive, God helping us, to obtain the one and not incur the awful doom pronounced by the other. Never forget the duty of Worshipping and Praising God "for all his benefits." Worship comes before Preaching. Preaching is--to get us to Pray and Praise and do our other duties. There will be neither Preaching nor Prayer in Heaven, nothing but Praise and Adoration. This is the unselfish part of Religion.

Above all things, beloved brethren, do not neglect to go regularly to the Holy Communion, the highest Service of Christianity, in that it is the only one which Christ Himself instituted in His own Person and with His own Mouth. In this Ordinance, therefore, is afforded to you the chief way of shewing your faith in your Saviour. Those who have really believed in and loved their Saviour, have ever loved this Most Holy Ordinance. For what says their Saviour? He says. "Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, hath eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day. For my Flesh is Meat indeed, and my Blood is Drink indeed." "Wait upon the Lord" then, as often as you can in Holy Communion, and there plead before your Father in Heaven the Sacrifice of the death of his Son, as your only hope of pardon: there receive the Heavenly and Spiritual Food which will sustain the Life of your souls, and preserve your union with your Saviour and with your fellow Christians throughout the world: and there offer up your "Praises and Thanksgivings" to God-Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,- for the inestimable blessings of a freely given Salvation: and, time after time, renew your Baptismal dedication of yourselves to His Service, body, soul, and spirit. Remember that he who is fit to come is he who feels his unfitness, and yearns for Divine Grace to be given him, through this Divinely appointed Ordinance, to enable him to be better. Seeing then that this Holy Ordinance is of such a nature, it is no marvel that the Church of Christ has, from early times, ordained that the greatest honour should be paid to her Lord (most really, because spiritually,) present with her in This Service, by certain Ceremonies which she finds appointed by God Himself in Holy Scripture. The Church has ordered two Lights to be set upon the Altar at Communion, as Symbolical of and representing her Dear Lord in his Divine and Human Natures, as "the Light of the world." (Rev. i.: 12, 13; xi.: 3, 4, compare Zech. iv.: 12, 14; Ex. xxv: 31, 37; Zech. iv: 2; Rev. iv.:5.) If all think that it is right to light, on certain occasions, 2000 or 20,000 or 200,000 lights in honour of some earthly king or some one much lower in dignity than a king; will any be so unreasonable, (to say nothing of Holy Scripture teaching on this point,) as to affirm that it is wrong to light 2 candles in honour of our most blessed saviour! The Church has ordered Incense to be burnt as Symbolic and reminding us of the sweetness and acceptableness of our Prayers when presented to the Father by her Great High Priest, the Angel of the Covenant, sprinkled with and sanctified by His most precious and all-sufficient merits. (Mal. i: 11; Rev. viii: 3,4.) If any one says that Mal. i: 11, is not to be understood literally, but "spiritually." I make answer that is a well-known canon of Bible interpretation that a passage of Scripture must always be understood literally, unless by doing so we should make it contradict reason or other passage of Holy Scripture. Now there is no other passage of Scripture to qualify this, and the Christian Church has, therefore, from ancient days understood it literally. We must not try and make the Bible say what our peculiar "private" notions wish It to say. Such "spiritualizing" as this simply amounts to explaining away Holy Scripture, whatever persons who do so may say about their profound and implicit reverence for God's Word! Alas, that it should be a fact that, with too many of various schools of opinion, "the Bible" really means--"what I or my sect choose to make the Bible say, either by 'adding to or diminishing from' that which It really does say!" The present dis-use of Incense amongst us is in so far a plain breach of Communion with the Great High Priest. (Compare Rev. viii: 3, 4, with Heb. vii: 25.) The Church has ordered certain Vestments, other than the Surplice and Stole, to be worn for the purpose of teaching us, not only that the Clergy has passed from ordinary out-door work to the immediate Service of God, (for this the Surplice and Stole put over the ordinary out-door garments represent,) but also that they have passed on from celebrating Services, which have their authority from the Church, (which is only at best a secondary authority,) to celebrate that One Service which our Lord Himself, in His own Person, and by His own Mouth, ordained just before His Crucifixion, to be celebrated by His Church in all ages. In this Service, the Priest on earth ministers "in the Name of" and "in the Person of Christ," our Great High Priest, and as representing Him. Our Dear Lord presents and pleads his "finished" Sacrifice before His Father in His own Person in his Father's immediate Presence. He Himself pleads this very same Sacrifice on earth only through the instrumentality and ministry of His appointed Ministers, who are called "Priests," as thus ministering "in His Person," and "by His commission and authority." (Matt. xxviii.: 18-20; Mark xvi: 17; Luke x: 16; 1 Cor. v: 3-5; Cor. ii: 10.) The Jewish Ministers called "priests" typified Christ. The Christian Ministers who are so called represent and personally Christ and Himself; and therefore, though not priests in the same sense as their Lord, are priests in a much higher sense than the Jewish Ministers so called. We all know that in a certain sense all God's people are Priests. (Ex. xix: 6; 1 Pet. ii: 5, 9; Rev. i: 6; v: 10.) You can all, therefore, see the unreasonableness of affirming that in no sense whatever are the Christian Clergy (of the first and second orders) Priests. Indeed controversy about the three terms, Priest, Altar, and Sacrifice ought to be laid aside by all who reverence God's Word; seeing that all three have been prophesied to be in the Christian Church by the Almighty Himself in many passages. (Is. 1xvi: 18-23. Jer. xxxiii: 15-22; Is. 1vi: 6,7; xix: 19-21; Mal. i: throughout.) With these prophecies agree the plain declarations of our Lord and S. Paul. (Matt. v: 23, 24, Heb. xiii: 10-16.) No wonder that the pious Puritan, Richard Baxter, witnesses that--"the ancient Churches used all three names Sacrifice, Altar, and Priest, without exception from any Christian that ever I heard of. As the Bread is justly called Christ's Body as signifying it; so the Action described was of old called a Sacrifice, as representing and commemorating it. And it is no more improper than calling our bodies and our alms and our prayers sacrifices. And the naming of the Table an Altar, as related to this Representative Sacrifice, is no more improper than the other. [compare Mal. i: 7 with 1 Cor. x: 18, 21, and Heb. xiii: 10; &c.] 'We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat'--seems plainly to mean the Sacramental communion." The term Altar--which appears in the 1st Prayer Book of Edward 6th, (thus proving an Altar to be one of the legal "Ornaments of the Church,")--was unhappily left out of the 2nd Book, through the corrupt influence of certain foreign devines; but it has been restored by the 7th English canon of 1640, in the words--"the Holy Table is not and ought not to be esteemed a true and proper Altar, whereon Christ is again really sacrificed: but it is and may be called an Altar by us in that sense in which the primitive Church called it an Altar, and in no other." Now our Lord, as our Great High Priest, is clothed in beautiful (though no doubt ineffable) Vestments while pleading His Sacrifice for us in Heaven. (Rev. i: 13-15.) His Priest on earth, therefore, as personating Him, have from early Christian times worn beautiful Vestments whilst celebrating Holy Communion. Yes, these ceremonies have not been ordained by the Catholic or universal Church of Christ, to do honour to man, or to pander to man's pride or love of display, but for the sole purpose of striving to show her love to Her Saviour, and to honour her dear Lord "Who has done so great things for her." Put away from you then, as soon as you possibly can, the habit of looking at and thinking of the Minister during Confessions, Prayers, Intercessions, Churchings, Baptisms, Confirmations, Eucharists, Sermons, or anything else which goes on in Church. We are but Spokesmen and Instruments. Ever look through and beyond us to the great High Priest in the Heavens. This, which is the true view of Christian Worship, is suicidal to "priest-craft" either upon your part or ours. Whereas the "going to hear Mr. So-and-so,"--thinking "how beautifully Mr. So-and-so Prays,"--staying away from Communion unless Mr. So-and-so is there to Celebrate, is the very perfection of "priest-craft!" The true English Churchman cares not who Prays or who Consecrates so long as the Rubrics are observed! If they are not, he is, of course, just so far as they are broken, deprived of the Church's Prayers and the Church's Eucharist; though he may have (what perhaps he would gladly dispense with) "Mr. So-and-so's" idea of how both ought to be.

It is then, Beloved Brethren, simply from feeling most intensely that pardon preached through the Blood of Christ, and the reverent and solemn and impressive Ceremonial which the Bible and the Church have ordained will best tend to your daily conversion more and more to God and the "edifying" and "building you up" in your most holy "Faith," that we invite you in God's Name to partake of the blessings which Christ has provided for you in His Church. You have bodies as well as souls. Your Souls need help of every kind. Bless God then, for having provided something which your bodies can see and hear and feel and smell, in order that thus, through the aid of outward and visible Symbols, your souls may be enabled to realise the inward and spiritual and invisible realities which are signified and represented by those outward and visible Symbols. Brethren, we shall have to give account for the souls of everyone of you at "the judgement seat of Christ." You will believe us, then, when we most solemnly assure you that we have one and but one motive in every single thing we are about to do,--the eternal salvation of your immortal souls and the glory of God, the glory of God in the conversion and salvation of your souls. We dare not, even if we would, have any other motive for the adoption of any even the least improvement in the celebration of Divine Service. Certain men may scoff, (ignorantly, we trust,) at Doctrines which God Himself has revealed to be believed, at Rites which He Himself has appointed to be celebrated, and at Ceremonies which He Himself has directed to be practised: but the well instructed and spiritually minded and earnest and dutiful and really obedient Christian receives and uses, in meekness, what God has given, and blesses and adores Him for having, in great mercy, thus given it in compassion upon our infirmities.


As regards the cold water which is now being thrown by some of the English bishops upon the advocates of a return to the full Ritual of the English Church, let me say that, as a rule, priests have ever been the originators of Revivals from Catholic-law breaking and consequent apathy and irreligion to zeal and spiritual life; whereas, the bishops have generally at first held back, or even opposed. The bishops suspended John Wesley, and threw cold water upon the first beginnings of "the Catholic Revival" in 1832, which (whatever dross may have been mixed up with it) has proved a movement rich in blessings. The bishops at first opposed the revival of Sisterhoods in our Church. They now give them their hearty approval. Again, to mention but one more instance, the seeds of the English Reformation were sown in England by the priest John Wyclif, 100 years before Luther came upon the stage in Germany; whereas in the reign of Queen Elizabeth all the English bishops except four opposed the Reformation.

As the bishops are bound to treat all sections of opinion impartially, it is only natural that they should be suspicious of restorations advocated by an obnoxious minority. When, as will before many years be the case, we are in the ascendant, they will, no doubt, give us their vigorous support. Meanwhile, let it not be forgotten that such of our living prelates as the bishops of Salisbury, Oxford, and Gloucester and Bristol, have spoken in very kindly terms of "the Ritualists," although, at the same time, they may have observed Episcopal caution: that the present bishop of Exeter has contended that the legal Sacramental Vestments ought to be worn: and that the bishops of London and Ripon have in the most public manner affirmed that the "Tractarian" and "Ritualistic" clergy are (as a rule) the hardest workers in their respective dioceses. Until we have a larger number of the Bishops on our side, we shall remain content to know that such men as Dr. Pusey, Mr. Keble, Archdeacon Churton, the very learned Ritualists Archdeacon Freeman and Dr. Jebb, have already and are now occupied in defending us with their learning. Multitudes of others, moreover, are daily feeling their way towards us. The last stage of the Ritual revival is, of course in its infancy. Very many of our most learned men upon other subjects, have only very lately begun to turn their inquiries towards this one. Five years hence and the tables will be turned.


There are three Schools of opinion in the English Church. First, the so-called "Evangelicals" school, which is at present the largest, but will not long continue to be so. Secondly, the so-called "High-Church" school, which is weekly increasing in strength. Thirdly, the so-called "Broad" school, which is not numerous, but has made some noise. I use these wretched party names simply that I may be understood. Of these three schools there are several sub-divisions. Some of the "Evangelicals" are as good Churchmen, upon all vital points, as any in the Kingdom. Others are in nothing different from Non-conformists, save in the fact that they are inside, whereas Non-conformists are outside the Church. The other sub-divisions of this school I need not particularize. Again, in the "High Church" school there being several sub-divisions, there may be some members whose sympathies are more with the Roman than with the English Church. Many of the "Broad" school, again, are sound Churchmen upon most points, although upon certain points they hold very lax opinions. Others of this school are semi-infidels. There are several more sub-divisions of this school also. Now it would be manifestly unfair to argue that because some "Evangelicals" are nothing different from Non-conformists, therefore all "Evangelicals" are the same. Equally unfair would it be to argue that because certain "Broad Churchmen" are little better than infidels, therefore all "Broad Churchmen" are half-infidels. Cannot, then, all respectable people, (all people whose good opinion we care about,) see how equally unfair it is to argue, (as is so commonly done,) that because a very few "High Churchmen" (not deserving of the title) may really be "Romanizers," therefore all "High Churchmen" are the same. It is the old logical fallacy of arguing from the particular to the universal, and respectable people only need to have the fallacy pointed out to them in order to avoid it.


To those who have not opportunity or leisure to read longer treatises upon this question, let me recommend the following among many others:--

"Sacramental Worship:" and "The Mediation of the Church," Rev. E. Stuart M. A., Palmer, 6d. each.

"A Plea for the threatened Ritual," Rev. James Skinner, M. A., Masters, 2s.

"Scriptural Rationale of Eucharistic Vestments," Rev. and Hon. Robert Liddell, M.A. Hayes, 1s.

Two admirable pamphlets by "A Churchman," published by Peek and Son, Hull.

"Catholic Ritual, Scriptural, Reasonable, and Lawful," Rev. R. F. Littledale L.L.D., Palmer, 1d.

"Ritual:--What does the Bible and sound sense say about it ?" Church Press Company, 1d.

"What Ritual has God appointed," Rev. James Pollock, M.A., Masters, 1d.

"A Few Words on Altar Lights," (an excellent tract,) Palmer, 1d.

"The Beauty of Holiness," Rev. F. G. Lee, D.C.L., Palmer, 1s.

"The Bishop of Exeter, and other Bishops, on the Legal Obligation to use the Vestments," Masters, 1d.

"Ritual and Common Sense," Rev. James Davies, M.A., Longman, 1s.

Project Canterbury