Chapter III. The "Catholic" Party— the Ritualists

IT was from the " historic High Church " party that the Ritualists l took their rise. It was on that foundation that their stones were raised, and from their principles that Ritualist views were ultimately de duced. Yet as we examine the latter party to-day we see what astonishing developments have taken place. I. The weakness of the appeal to the "Primitive Church" was comparatively soon perceived. There are traces of that discovery even among the first Ox ford divines. It was seen that an authority which existed only in records, and those records of doubtful interpretation, could not bear the weight of modern activity of thought. Should new questions occur, for example — new heresies of which the " Primitive Church" had never dreamed — new interpretations of Scripture, which never came under the attention of the early Fathers at all — by what authority could such questions be answered? An attempt was made to turn

1 The word " Ritualist " is not used in any invidious sense; merely because it is a convenient label. As a school, the Ritualists have considerably more than their proportionate share of Anglican zeal and spirituality.

to the bishops as representatives of the urgently needed Living Voice; but the trumpet gave an uncertain sound. The bishops could not always be relied upon either to agree among themselves or to give any answer at all; and when a united answer was given — as from time to time it was given — its contents were so alarmingly in opposition to the Primitive Church as interpreted by the appellants, as to cause widespread dismay. The customary fast before Communion was indignantly repudiated in one such answer; and a decided refusal to authorize selected clergy to receive confessions (obviously for fear of recognizing the practice at all) was no less strongly marked.

A certain portion then of the Oxford School turned to the Book of Common Prayer as affording a sufficiently Living Voice for all practical purposes; and that party forms one of the wings of the Ritualist School of to-day. The Scriptures, it is said, form the basis of Revelation; Catholic tradition generally speaking — that is the Fathers and at least the first seven General Councils— is the " remote " interpreter of the sense of the Scriptures; and for a practical guide, ready to hand, the Prayer Book is immediately sufficient. Even the bishops then, it is said by this party, must be judged by the Prayer Book. Clergy are bound to obey their bishops' " godly admonitions "—are bound to render " canonical obedience ": but the bishops themselves are no less bound by the Prayer Book than are the rest of the clergy: therefore no command of a bishop should be obeyed, even if backed by the legal weight of Parliament or the Privy Council, if that command transgresses the directions of the Prayer Book.

It may be seen what a fruitful source of controversy and division is thus generated; and it was chiefly upon these principles, indeed, that the unhappy prosecutions and imprisonments of devoted clergy a few years ago took place. Once more it is plain that the difficulty arises from seeking a Living Voice in a printed book. Certainly the dilemmas, arising from an appeal to the Primitive Church only, are avoided; a more immediate guide is provided by the Prayer Book; yet, in reality the problem is no nearer solution; since, just as the " Primitive Church " is capable of more than one interpretation, so too is the Prayer Book. A deadlock is the only possible result so soon as a bishop and a clergyman are equally persuaded, each that his own reading of the Prayer Book directions is the correct one. To take a single example — that has recurred again and again in recent years — while certain phrases in the Prayer Book turning round Sacramental confession are certainly at least patient of a Catholic interpretation, they are also patient, in the opinion of many devout scholars, of an entirely Protestant meaning. Which then is to decide? The parish-clergyman is persuaded that the Prayer Book urges him to teach the doctrine, and to receive the confessions of those that come to him: his bishop is equally confident that such a claim was repudiated by the Reformed Church of England. And, as the question of jurisdiction and the giving of faculties is practically unknown in the Anglican Communion, the bishop has no easy remedy; and the effect is that the clergyman is conscientiously bound to teach and administer what he believes to be the Sacrament of Penance, and the bishop, conscientiously also, to denounce it. It is not then merely in theory that the situation becomes in tolerable, but in matters of the most practical and vital consequence.

This then, roughly speaking, is the position of the more moderate school of Ritualists to-day. The Prayer Book is the interpreter of the Scriptures, and the individual is the interpreter of the Prayer Book. The Ritualist of this party supports his position by admirable arguments: he points out, and quite rightly, that the Prayer Book obviously was not intended to be a complete and final guide in every detail of doctrine and discipline: it was a book issued originally to men already trained in Catholic faith and worship; since then, according to his theory, the Church of England after the Reformation is continuous with the Church before the Reformation, a " Catholic " interpretation must be put upon all doubtful points and omissions. He must behave and teach as a Marian priest, con forming under Elizabeth, would behave and teach when the Prayer Book was first put into his hands: he must supply the lacutuz and carry out the imperfect directions in as "Catholic" a manner as possible. This is indeed a perfectly logical argument — granted the premises. (But it is met with some success by the answer of the extreme Low Churchman, who, assuming that the Church of England after the Re formation is essentially Protestant and Reformed, turns rather to Geneva for his atmosphere and for the supplying of lacuna and the solution of doubtful problems.)

2. With these premises, however, the "Prayer Book Ritualist " succeeds in establishing an extremely strong position (within the limits already stated) as regards both doctrine and worship. Regarding the printed words of the Prayer Book as his final guide, he clings to the "Ornaments Rubric" in its letter,1 and claims to use all those accessories of worship that were in use in the second year of the reign of Edward VI. These include vestments, altar-ornaments, crucifixes and the like; they include even censers; but there is a controversy still undecided as to whether the entire omission of all directions to use incense does or does not invalidate this claim. It is argued ingeniously on one side that it does so invalidate the claim; but it is urged with equal force on the other that the direction that all these things shall be " in use," obviously im plied that they shall be used. Therefore, any argument from the omission to direct their use is itself invalidated. (The point is only worth mentioning as an instance of one of the hundred minute difficulties that arise from the entire theory.)

In doctrine, too, the same argument is pursued with great success. Since the Church of England is

1 « And here is to be noted that such Ornaments of the Church, and of the Ministers thereof, at all Times of their Ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the Authority of Parliament, in the Second Year of the Reign of King Edward the Sixth."

according to the assumption, a living branch of the Church Catholic, a " Catholic " and not a Protestant interpretation must be put upon her doctrinal, as upon her ceremonial, formularies. It is impossible for a living and orthodox branch of the Catholic Church to be heretical, or even to permit heresy in her formu laries. Therefore, the formularies of the Church of England, however obscurely or unhappily expressed, must be in their substance "Catholic". A distinction thence arises between what is truly "Catholic" and what is merely Romish: and those articles or state ments of belief which appear to condemn Catholic doctrine cannot in reality do so: they only condemn either distinctively Romish tenets or merely unsound popular opinions. (Bishop Forbes' work on the Thirty-nine Articles is an admirable example of this method of reasoning, which indeed was also employed by an eminent Franciscan of the seventeenth century who desired, if possible, to bring about a reconciliation between England and the Holy See.)

An example or two of this mode of argument and its application will suffice to illustrate it.

The Thirty-first Article states that " the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, [are] blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits ". Now it would appear to the simple Catholic as if it were hardly possible to frame a form of words that could repudiate more explicitly the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Altar and its fruits. Yet the Ritualist finds no such meaning in the words. He holds, at least confusedly, that the sacrifice of the altar is indeed the offering of Christ by the priest on behalf of the living and the dead for the purpose of winning remission of sins and satisfaction for them; and he has also been compelled to assent to this Article of Religion as a condition of his holding office in the Church of England. He dis tinguishes therefore between the " sacrifice of the Mass " and the " sacrifices of Masses," and declares that the Article is directed not against the Catholic doc trine of the sacrifice of the Mass, but against popular Romish errors to the effect that the multiplication of Masses is of more effect than the offering of one Mass. Since each Mass is in itself of infinite effect, ten Masses he argues cannot be of more effect than one! It is unnecessary, of course, to discuss the question further, in view of the history of the times when this Article was drawn up. Those who were responsible for it showed well enough by their actions — the destruction of altars, the cutting up of vestments into bed-quilts and stomachers, and their loathing of " massing priests " — that subtleties of this kind never even entered their minds. They hated the whole thing, root and branch, and said so. The Ritualist argument, however, shows plainly the bitter straits to which honest and sincere men are brought in their at tempt to be loyal simultaneously to the formularies of the Church of England and to the Catholic faith.

Another instance may be given which has already been quoted in another connexion.

The twenty-second Article states that " the Romish 3*

doctrine concerning... Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God ".

Here again, considering the manner in which all in vocation of saints was cut out of the Reformed Service book, the destruction of practically all the shrines of the Saints, except of St. Edward who happened to be of royal blood, and similar actions on the part of the " Reformers," the simple Catholic would conclude that the invocation of Saints was simply and plainly re pudiated by the Church of England. He is confirmed in this view by the consideration that until the later phases of the Oxford Movement no Anglican dreamed of invoking the Saints,1 and that after seventy years of that movement not one in ten thousand Anglicans dreams of it even now.

But the Ritualist, who is aware that the invocation of Saints was practised in the Primitive Church, and is at least as much used in the separated Churches of the East as in Western Christendom, is forced by his acceptance of the " Catholic Faith " to believe in it him self. Since therefore, he argues, the Church of Eng land teaches and holds the " Catholic Faith," she must also teach and hold (or at least permit) the invocation of Saints herself. This Article therefore is directed not against the practice in itself, but against popular Romish errors concerning it, and he finds that error in the supposed custom on the part of ignorant Catholics

1 Bishop Andrewes, the great High Church Caroline leader, expressly repudiates it (" Respons. ad Bellarm.," cap. 10).

of praying to the Saints instead of to God, and of thinking that the Saints will grant prayers that God will not. " Doctrina Romanensium" he says: that is, the popular abuses of extreme " Romanisers "; not the authorized official doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Lastly one more instance of the Ritualist argument may be given with respect to the famous Article dealing with Transubstantiation.

The passage of the Article (no. xxviii.) runs as follows: " Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.... The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten... is Faith. "

Once more, nothing could seem more explicit than this repudiation of a defined Catholic doctrine; until the Ritualist points out two or three considerations which enable him to sign this Article, and yet to hold and to teach the Catholic definition of the Real Presence. First, Transubstantiation was not defined in its present terms by the Council of Trent until after the formulation of this Article; therefore it is not the Tridentine decree that is denied, but some earlier conception of Transubstantiation. Secondly, the words of the Article evidently are directed against some conception — say Transaccidentation — which " overthrow eth the nature of a Sacrament "; for Transubstantiation as described by the Council of Trent does not " over throw the nature of a Sacrament". It is possible therefore to hold Transubstantiation and to teach it l the thing and the word— in the Tri dentine sense: all that is repudiated is some false conception of the thing which, presumably, was in popular currency before the Council corrected it. (It is but fair to add that not all those who would be popularly described as Ritual ists accept the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation; in spite of the fact that the separated Eastern Churches also teach the doctrine and use equivalent Greek words.2 " Many repudiate as ardently as any of the " historic High Church " party that which they think to be an attempt to over-define a mystery on which Christ made no clear pronouncement. They accept the " Real Presence" in confuso; they dislike the definition of Its mode.)

3. Such, then, very briefly, is the doctrinal position of the more moderate school of Ritualists. While not all of them hold explicitly all the doctrines referred to above, it is yet possible by the methods of argument which have been considered, to include them all in their creed. It is possible, that is to say, so to treat the Formularies and Articles of the Church of England, as to render compatible with signing these the holding of nearly all Catholic doctrines. The Sacrifice of the Mass may thus be taught, with a doctrine of the Real Presence practically indistinguishable from the Catholic doctrine; Penance may be taught; the Invocation

1 Comparatively recently a London clergyman was inhibited in a western diocese for a sermon he preached therein in which he taught explicitly Transubstantiation — word and thing.

of Saints; as well as many other doctrines which, in popular opinion, it was intended definitely to renounce at the period of the Reformation. The outward presentment of Church services also may, by the treatment of the Ornaments Rubric and of historical facts that have been mentioned, be approximated very closely indeed to Catholic worship.

Before passing on to the more extreme party among the Ritualists, it may be as well to sum up shortly a few obvious objections to the position al ready described.

(i) It may be pointed out, that the Prayer Book, as a written document, is in reality no nearer to satisfying the need for a Living Voice, than are appeals tc the Fathers, or the Holy Scriptures. A written commentary — (particularly when that commentary is in itself patient of more than one interpretation) — on, let us say, the Laws of England, cannot possibly be a substitute for the living voice of a judge upon the bench. There is no essential difference between an appeal to the Prayer Book as a summary of Christian doctrine contained in the Scriptures, and the appeal to the Scriptures only, such as is made on the part of extreme Protestants. If religion is to be definite and practical, it must have an authority always capable of applying its principles and answering new questions. Now the only authority that even pretends to such a position in the Church of England as at present con stituted — outside, that is to say, of the Privy Council which legally exactly fulfils this requirement — lies either among the bishops or in some kind of convocation or synod. Such a tribunal as this, while it does not claim to be infallible, at least may claim the right to give authoritative definitions as to what the Church of England does or does not teach-(just as in the Catholic Church a provincial Synod or the mere word )f a bishop can decide authoritatively matters that fall within their respective spheres). But this living authority, such as it is, is definitely, and frequently, reiiated by the Ritualist. He claims himself to judge his bishop by written formularies to which as he says, both he and his bishops owe obedience m points on which he and his bishop differ he prefers of the two his own judgment-at any rate in doctrinal matters, as well as often in ceremonial In a word, so far as there is a Living Voice at all in the Church of England, it lies, according to the Ritualist position, in himself. And this is nothing other than the extreme Protestant position of Private Judgment disguised under an appeal to the Prayer Book instead of to the Scriptures. (But the Ritualist is usually quite unaware of this.)

(2) In every kind and sort of Law, ecclesiastical as well as civil, the principle of desuetude is taken for granted. When a written rule is disregarded, practically from the time of its formulation, by the persons whom it is supposed to bind, with the tacit consent of the authorities whose business it should be to enforce it, and that for a considerable period, it is always assumed that the rule no longer binds, and cannot be suddenly revived by private or public personages Judged by this canon the Ritualist argument falls utterly to the ground. It is not disputed that these formularies and rubrics to which appeal is made by the Ritualists — e.g. the "Ornaments Rubric" — were entirely neglected, at least in the sense of the Ritualist interpretation, for about three hundred years. To appeal to them now as evidently binding is contrary to all ecclesiastical as well as civil precedent in the rest of Christendom. Of this character too is the appeal to the directions given to all clergy, in the Book of Common Prayer, to repeat daily the morning and evening services in public or private. It is a fact that the obligation to do so was never recognized by the clergy in general, until comparatively recently, nor ever, even now, enforced by the bishops; and, even at the present day, it is doubtful whether one in ten of the Anglican clergy recognizes it as binding in any way on conscience, or even as a counsel of perfection. (3) A third objection — though it is one most difficult to bring home to the convinced Ritualist — lies in the extraordinary unreality of his method in interpret ing the Articles and the Prayer Book to which he has given his assent. It is possible, as has been seen, so to treat these formularies as to force out of their actual words a signification which is not directly opposed to the Catholic faith; it is possible also to make out a case, in regard to one or two of them, to the effect that their authors and compilers intended the possibility of this interpretation — as has been seen previously with respect to the Catechism.1 Yet when the student stands back from the picture and regards it as

1 Vide pp. 5, 6.

a whole — when he looks, not merely at the written words in detail but at the opinions of those who drew them up, at the historical circumstances under which they were drawn up, and at the general consent as to their meaning put upon them ever since by all except those who have a case to defend — the unreality becomes apparent. The whole of Christendom in general, as well as the whole of the Anglican Communion with the exception of this recent school, has assumed that the Church of England, whatever she may have said in express words, was a Protestant and Reformed body, and has interpreted her formularies in that light. It gives a sense of startling unreality to find this one party assuming the precise opposite, and following therefore the precise opposite also in the method of interpretation. Nothing but the known sincerity and zeal of the persons who compose this party could save them from the charge of disingenuousness. It is a conceivable position that the Church of England largely permits them, as judged by her written formularies, to hold a considerable number of Catholic doctrines; but this is a very different thing from claim ing, as these men do, her actual authority for them.