6

policy of certain of their random and over-confident opponents; and with some persons has proved positively bewildering. With the seven sacraments of the Church Universal as their spiritual aids; with the Catholic Faith of the three creeds-embodying, of course, but three different expressions of One Faith-as their true pole-star and guide; with a sure foundation built upon the Rock, and with orders that cannot be questioned, the rulers of the O.C.R. have indeed secured the keys of the citadel of truth. And this fact is being slowly but surely discovered-not, it may be, by the noisy and notorious, not by those who seek to walk only on the sunshiny side of the street; but by many of the more thoughtful and meditative amongst English Churchmen, who see in the successful institution of the Order a direct answer to prayer, and in its actual machinery an efficient means to hand by which Corporate Reunion may eventually be secured.

The Bishop of London-who thought it his official duty (as possibly it was) to make a long but temperately-worded attack on the O.C.R. in his 'Charge delivered at St. Paul's Cathedral in 1879'—has in his diocese, as every one is perfectly aware, certain beneficed clergymen of the Establishment who are either Calvinists, Lutherans, Arians, followers of the late Mr. Irving, Swedenborgians, Ritualists or Freemasons. These divergent officials all meet together from time to time on the pleasant and politic understanding that in so broad and comprehensive a body there is abundant room for different schools of thought; and though of course they are often found in controversy with each other, as the 'religious newspapers' (so termed) testify, yet these different clergymen all wisely agree to differ, and to make as little show of their rampant discord as may be possible.

His lordship, therefore, who can scarcely be unacquainted with the principle of toleration, might not unreasonably permit those who believe in the Catholic Church'-as they are expressly enjoined to do by the Establishment-to act on that belief without being charged with extravagance.' If an avowed Swedenborgian or a 'sealed' Irvingite may remain beneficed under his lordship, and at peace, on what principle of liberty can a Catholic (with no prefix) be reasonably disturbed or righteously excluded?

Furthermore, if Dr. Pusey, or Mr. Benson of Cowley, or Mr. Simeon of Kilburn, or Mr. Mackonochie of St. Alban's, may, on their own authority, lawfully and properly set up religious houses, in which are maintained rites and practices, most excellent and Catholic in themselves and of worth and antiquity, yet wholly unsanctioned by the actual formularies of the Establishment-surely within our broad and comprehensive pale' the members of the O.C.R. will not be denied a similar liberty. Thornton's Family Prayers, Lord Beauchamp's DayHours of the Church, the Sarum Mass in English, Hymns Ancient and Modern, Hawker's Daily Portion, and Shipley's Unction for the VOL. X.-No. 57.

3 E

Sick, occupy exactly similar positions as far as the Establishment is concerned, being neither allowed nor disallowed, neither forbidden nor approved. While, as to private organisations, so long as Anglican parsons are not hindered in becoming Grand Chaplains of the Freemasons, or figuring in church as Chaplains of the new Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the rulers of the O.C.R. need not look for any curtailment of their reasonable liberty. Bishop Jackson, no doubt, would frankly admit as much for his lordship is evidently imbued with the true spirit of the Establishment.

But the Order has been bombarded from another side. It was a case, however, in which the smoke and the noise were considerably greater than the damage done.

Father Hutton, a clever controversialist of the Birmingham Oratory, appears angry with the founders of the O.C.R., and terms them the little knot of misguided men.' One of their official documents is an extravagance.' The Order itself he calls somewhat strongly and strangely 'this latest forgery,' and writes of the vanity and folly of the new movement;' though at the same time he holds its promoters to be evidently shrewd men.' He further maintains that for any Catholic bishop to have joined in bestowing consecration would have been a crime corresponding in guilt to that of some gross violation of the marriage-tie in the social order.' Any person so consecrated is, he declares, a thief and a robber.' Such a very sweeping statement is of course quite as much against conditional baptism as against conditional confirmation or orders. If the second be wrong and sinful, the first is wrong and sinful likewise. The further charge that the O.C.R. Rulers have endeavoured to make a new Church' is simply inexact and obviously ridiculous-mere random rhetoric. It is exactly and precisely what they have not done. There is only One Church-into which both Father Hutton and those Rulers whom he condemns were alike admitted by the one doorbaptism. If, in either case, there had been any reasonable doubt of the validity of the supposed baptism of either, conditional baptism, for greater caution, would have followed as an obvious duty and as a matter of course.

Some of the more fanatical and shallow of the Ritualists, members of the Society of the Holy Cross, appear to have actually lost their heads in what they have thought it their duty to write concerning the Order. Apparently they cannot have taken the trouble to learn anything whatsoever about it: for they write at random and condemn it in the profoundest ignorance of its true principles. The following are their summarised reasons for its condemnation : 12

1. Because it denies the lawful jurisdiction of the successors of St. Augustine and St. Paulinus in the Provinces of Canterbury and York, thereby sinning against Catholic obedience.

12 A Statement of the Society of the Holy Cross concerning the Order of Corporate Reunion. Revised edition. London, 1879.

2. Because it proposes to set up a new Episcopate destitute of all spiritual jurisdiction, and consequently schismatical.

In answer to the first reason, it is quite inaccurate and untrue to maintain that the lawful jurisdiction of Drs. Tait and Thomson has ever or anywhere been denied by the O.C.R. The only lawful jurisdiction' those dignitaries either claim or possess is the jurisdiction which is bestowed upon them by the law-that is, the law of the land. This jurisdiction they have each publicly declared comes in England from the Queen, the source of all jurisdiction. In taking the oath of homage, each of those prelates deliberately said: 'I do declare that your Majesty is the only supreme governor of this your realm in spiritual and ecclesiastical things, . . . and I acknowledge that I hold the said bishopric, as well the spiritualties as the temporalties thereof, only of your Majesty.' It has been ignorantly but daringly asserted that the word 'spiritualties' here means 'temporalties.' To which it has been cleverly retorted that if so, then 'temporalties' means 'spiritualties;' and thus the original position remains unchanged: viz. that the jurisdiction of all the bishops, as they themselves freely admit, comes solely and altogether from the sovereign. No reasonable being can deny this, and no member of the O.C.R. desires to do so.

In answer to the second reason, it may be truly asserted that the prelates of the O.C.R. have claimed no spiritual jurisdiction whatsoever, save such as is granted by the society which they have been appointed to rule. Moreover, it by no means follows, because a bishop be destitute of spiritual jurisdiction,' that he is 'consequently schismatical.' These are hasty 'views' without either sound foundation or theological accuracy.

But what can be expected from writers who appear to have convinced themselves that the true spiritual jurisdiction of the see of Canterbury, which notoriously lapsed at the death of Cardinal Pole, remained vested somehow or other in certain suffragan bishops, named respectively John Hodgkyn, John Salisbury, Thomas Sparke, Robert Pursglove, William More, and others? Yet this is exactly what is deliberately asserted in the Appendix of their 'Statement.' What jurisdiction any such suffragan had or exercised was given by the diocesan; and, of course, at once lapsed at his death or deprivation. Such 'childish fooling,' to quote Sydney Smith, would be unworthy of notice, were it not that those who are supremely ignorant of anything relating either to orders or jurisdiction-a considerable multitude -are often willingly duped by the anonymous authors of such bold and baseless assertions.

But enough of this detail at once temporary and trumpery. And now-regarding facts which sadden many minds, smiting down the zealous, the unselfish, and the self-sacrificing-to draw to a close.

Already some men are openly declaring that if, as Lord Selborne

so frankly maintained, 'gifts given to the Church of England are bestowed upon the Nation,' they would never have entered upon the work of restoration and rebuilding of churches which, from Berwick to Land's End, has been so magnificently and generally accomplished. While, in the view of approaching disestablishment-no improbable contingency-others are reasonably standing aloof, and some churches now in course of erection will evidently be retained in private hands, as their founders and benefactors have deliberately and publicly maintained.

In the future, when the temporary necessities of needy politicians are experienced, the cry both for perfect equality in religion and for the fabrics of the churches themselves and their tithes, will not be for long left disregarded. Of course, without a single distinct protest from any prelate recorded on the rolls of the House of Lords, it may be readily and fairly argued in the future, that Lord Selborne's exactlydefined principle, which triumphed so signally in the case of the Burials Bill of 1880, was eventually and frankly accepted by the whole bench of bishops on behalf of their flocks-an omen of further concession and final dismay: a warning that without co-operation and reunion greater evils may be in store.

Of course the fabrics of the country churches cannot generally be turned into manufactories or barns-though of old Huguenots wrought silk in the nave of Glastonbury, and many of the Reformation-upstarts garnered their corn into chantries and chancels, which as personal possessions they had so astutely secured. Yet, as Experience has taught us, such sacred fanes may readily enough become ruinous once more, when Discord and Division shall have finally triumphed, and the Establishment, House of Lords and Monarchy have actually become things of the past. Ruin follows neglect, and Ruin works surely though slowly. Our old cathedrals, which are now so coldly beautiful in their restored state, swept and garnished,' clean and chilly, but still wanting the burning lamp and the Divine Presence, may of course remain as national monuments, like the crosses of Queen Eleanor or the Tower of London, but avowedly disconnected by a State without religion from all religion: or, it may be, given up, like the Pantheon of old, to the statues of dead men and the orgies of living sectarians; or to the vain and worthless babblings of Science without God.

The line of demarcation in the future, to look beyond the confines of any local religious body, will evidently be soon everywhere drawn between Catholicism pure and simple on the one hand, and blind and blank Infidelity on the other. Each person, therefore, may well ask himself at once, Which side shall I take?' Even as animals when attacked herd together, so will Christians when darker days and sorer trials arrive. Therefore Beati pacifici.

FREDERICK George Lee.

POSTSCRIPT.

The following Letter to the Author of this paper from one of the authorities of the O.C.R. puts the case very plainly and forcibly :

Dear Dr. Lee,-The existing state of division and isolation is to us a most pressing and urgent evil. It is vaguely perceived by all, it is painful to many-a scandal to many-absolutely intolerable to ourselves. We regard it as an imperative duty to do all that in us lies to escape from all share of blame in perpetuating such division. So long as we have no other ministry than one, the valid succession of which, as a spiritual fact, is not generally recognised by other Episcopal Churches, we are in a position in which our reunion with such Churches is simply impossible. By securing a succession which shall, on due inquiry, meet with the recognition of all, we shall have made one great step towards reunion.

It is unfortunately a fact that the validity of the ordinations of the English clergy is not admitted by the ancient Episcopal Churches. We do not found any argument upon this circumstance. We do not even admit the justice of the ground upon which the repudiation is founded. We deplore the fact; and meet it in the only way it can be met.

By strictly lawful and honest means, and without making any admissions prejudicial to the ministerial or sacerdotal status of the clergy of the Established Church, we have been enabled to obtain such a succession, which, discreetly and charitably used, may, in course of time, entirely obviate all doubt as to the validity of orders in the Church of England.

At the same time we have adopted a dogmatic and sacramental basis which in no wise exceeds the limits of comprehension laid down by the Church of England. In short, if the dogmatic statements accepted by us be beyond those limits, then it is certain that many of her bishops and clergy have already overstepped them.

We boldly affirm-we challenge contradiction here--that in all we have done we have not violated one single known law of the English Church. We have not transgressed the limits of her authoritative teaching-fairly interpreted (as by Tract XC.). And yet we have traced out the foundation of a system which, honestly and discreetly carried out, would unfailingly tend to heal the senseless divisions of a thousand years, and to reconcile our national Church with Christendom at large as well as with historical Christianity.

In vindicating the claims, such as they now are, of the State bishops, where is the good of blustering? Unfortunately at this very time, when, as we have good reason to know, this question seems to be tending to some degree of settlement, the bishops themselves have by their own act relinquished all claim to any real spiritual authority, at least in the external tribunal; and one of their number appeared in person before a secular court to vindicate-what? His own authority as a spiritual judge? No! but merely his claim to the exercise of his own discretion in the performance of the degrading office of apparitor or summoner to the lay judge who now reigns supreme over the clergy of the Established Church! Really, how English Churchmen can submit to such utter spiritual degradation-much more, regard it with complacency is to me a wonder of wonders. In these things how immeasurably are we inferior to the Presbyterians of Scotland!

The Public Worship Act is virtually a revolution, though it only brings into active operation certain principles and powers only tentatively or implicitly urged before. At the same time it brings into a strong light the glaring inconsistency of the present system with any clear or intelligible notion of the Divine origin and constitution of the Church. It compels our attention to abuses and defects which have long been lurking around.

The Order of Corporate Reunion has been devised to meet the case without fresh divisions or secession. A certain amount of reserve on some points is necessary: first, because enjoined by the consecrators; secondly, to adhere strictly to the scheme of supplying purely spiritual defects by purely spiritual means. In this