release from these pains, the suffrages of the faithful who are alive are profitable to them, to wit, the sacrifices of masses, prayers and alms, and other works of piety, which, according to the ordinances of the Church, are wont to be made by the faithful for other believers."

ON THE CONVOCATION AND CANONS OF 1640.

For the Christian Observer.

E.

A CORRESPONDENCE was lately published in the newspapers respecting some " novel observances in Divine worship." The Rev. J. Garbett, the Rural Dean of Birmingham, addresses a circular to the clergy, in which he says:—

"Considerable excitement and controversy having been raised in this place, and offence taken, by the introduction of certain novel observances in Divine worship; and public attention having been directed to it, not only in our local but also in the metropolitan journals, I forward you a copy of a letter recently addressed by the Lord Bishop of the diocese to one of our brethren; it being his Lordship's wish that I would embrace the opportunity of thus informing the clergy of his opinions on the general subject,' in order that it may be known that our diocesan is decidedly opposed to the introduction of novelties-which create disunion without producing any counterbalancing good whatever.'"

The Bishop of Worcester's letter, referred to by Mr. Garbett, was addressed to the Rev. J. Oldknow of Trinity Chapel. The Bishop states as follows the charge, and his opinion upon it :·

:

"My attention has been called to certain letters in the Birmingham Advertiser, wherein it is alleged that in one of the churches in Birmingham a gilt cross has been introduced upon the communion table-cloth, and that the officiating clergyman is in the habit of kneeling down before this cross, on his way to the reading-desk, and of bowing to it, on returning to it, after the prayers and the sermon.

"Without entering into the question of how far the introduction of such novelties may be justified by the practice of antiquity, I would wish you seriously to consider whether they are of such importance as to justify the destruction of unity in the Church, which must be the necessary consequence. The mere display of the cross, as a symbol of our Christian profession, may indeed be a matter of indifference; and I lately declined ordering one to be removed, as I was requested to do, from one of the churches which I have recently consecrated at Rugby; but I then said, that I would certainly do so, if I afterwards found that it led to idolatrous or superstitious practices. Now I firmly believe that you do not worship the cross in the sense in which the Roman Catholics are said to do so; but if you do not, you cannot attach any religious importance to its display in your church, or to the genuflexions and obeisances which, without any direction from the rubric, you are in the habit of making before it; and if these be things indifferent, where is the prudence of troubling the consciences of those who are rightly religious,' by adopting practices in themselves indifferent, but which you know will give cause of offence to others?

"There is one other point which I wish to press upon your attention. Granting that various modes of Divine worship may, for various reasons, have become obsolete, which yet may have been the practice of the primitive Church, and even directed by some of our rubrics or canons, who is to decide upon the propriety of their being again revived? Is every individual minister to take this upon himself? Or does it not more properly belong to those who are placed in authority? And may it not be inferred, from their silence, that they consider such a revival inexpedient, or at least indifferent ?"

Mr. Oldknow, in his reply, writes:

"I am sorry to find from it that your Lordship is labouring under very serious misapprehension with regard to those particulars which have occasioned your communication. It is true that the communion-cloth of this chapel has been ornamented with the simple figure of a cross; but, let me add, in a much less

adorned style than in many churches both of this and other dioceses; and when I consider that crosses have appeared on the outside of the chapel ever since it was built-that the altar-cloth of another church in Birmingham is adorned with one, of which mine is a copy-that in another the cross forms a prominent object over the altar, whilst in that wherein the Rural Dean himself officiates, the sounding-board is ornamented with the same design, it does excite my surprise that the introduction of this plain and unostentatious representation in my chapel should subject me either to newspaper animadversion or Episcopal reproof. I am happy, however, to find that your Lordship considers the mere display of the cross as a symbol of our Christian profession' 'a matter of indifference,' as I can assure you, my Lord, in all truth, that it is only as such a symbol that it has appeared at Trinity. So far has it been from leading to any idolatrous or superstitious practices,' that my practice has been in no respect different since its introduction from what it was before; nor could I have imagined that the absurd and revolting idea of my attributing to it anything like worship- an imputation which I repudiate, with sorrowful indignation, as most sinful in the sight of God, justly offensive to all good Christians, and utterly unbecoming a minister of Christ's Gospel-would ever enter the mind of any person whatsoever, had I not seen it so stated in the newspaper to which your Lordship refers. From the first of my coming to this chapel, I have been in the habit of bowing towards the altar whenever I had occasion to pass it, and of performing my private devotions, before going into the reading desk, at the communion-rail. The former of these practices I have observed from the same feeling that leads me to take off my hat when I enter a church. The altar being confessedly the place where the faithful Christian is brought into closest communion with his Lord, it appears not unreasonable that it should be approached with some additional token of reverence; and in making an obeisance towards it, I am not following my own private judgment, but the recommendation of the Church, as expressed in the Seventh Canon of 1640. In that canon this practice is stated to have been the custom of the Church for many years after the Reformation."

The purpose for which we have extracted these passages is for the sake of remarking upon Mr. Oldknow's appeal to the Canons of 1640. With these canons we have no concern; they are no part of the law of our church; and the Bishop of Worcester must have felt some surprise at a clergyman's gravely quoting them to his diocesan in defence of his proceedings; but a few observations respecting them may not be superfluous, as they have of late been much talked of, and by some who do not appear to have read them, and therefore only repeated something about them at second or third hand. Whether Mr. Oldknow has read them we cannot tell; but he has not accurately described the one to which he refers. He says that this canon recommends "making an obeisance towards the altar." Now the canon does not use this language; for, bold as Laud was, he 'did not venture to propose to Convocation to speak after this naked fashion. The reader may find a copy of these obsolete canons in Bishop Sparrow's "Collection of Articles, Injunctions, &c.;" or among the documents of that period, p. 538, in Dr. Wilkins's Concilia. We will copy the chief part of canon vii., including all, and more than all, that relates to the present question:·

"The Synod declareth as followeth :-That the standing of the communiontable sideway under the east window of every chancel or chapel, is in its own nature indifferent, neither commanded nor condemned by the word of God, either expressly or by immediate deduction, and therefore that no religion is to be placed therein, or scruple to be made thereon We judge it fit and convenient that all churches and chapels do conform themselves in this particular to the example of the cathedrals or mother-churches, saving always the general liberty left to the bishop by law, during the time of the administration of the Holy Commu nion. And we declare that this situation of the holy table, doth not imply that it is or ought 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.

"And because experience hath shewed us how irreverent the behaviour of many

people is in many places, some leaning, other casting their hats, and some sitting upon, some standing, and others sitting under the communion table, in time of Divine service; for the avoiding of these and the like abuses, it is thought meet and convenient, by this present synod, that the said communion tables in all chancels or chapels be decently severed with rails, to preserve them from such or worse profanations. . . . And lastly, whereas the church is the house of God, dedicated to his holy worship, and therefore ought to mind us both of the greatness and goodness of his Divine Majesty; certain it is that the acknowledgment thereof, not only inwardly in our hearts, but also outwardly with our bodies, must needs be pious in itself, profitable unto us, and edifying unto others; we therefore think it very meet and behoveful, and heartily commend it to all good and well-affected people, members of this church, that they be ready to tender unto the Lord the said acknowledgment, by doing reverence and obeisance, both at their coming in and going out of the said churches, chancels, or chapels, according to the most ancient custom of the primitive church in the purest times, and of this church also for many years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The reviving therefore of this ancient and laudable custom we heartily commend to the serious consideration of all good people, not with any intention to exhibit any religious worship to the communion-table, the east, or church, or anything therein contained, in so doing, or to perform the same gesture in the celebration of the holy eucharist, upon any opinion of a corporal presence of the body of Jesus Christ on the holy table, or in mystical elements, but only for the advancement of God's majesty, and to give him alone that honour and glory that is due unto him, and no otherwise."

It will be seen that even in this canon, Laudean as it was, and offensive as it has always been considered by many Churchmen, and injudicious by most, there is nothing said of clergymen bowing towards the altar whenever they have occasion to pass it; of their going up to it to prostrate themselves to perform their private devotions before proceeding to the reading-desk; or of its being entitled to special obeisance; or of bowing to it being the custom of the Church for many years after the Reformation. An apology is made for so much as calling it "an altar" at all; the placing "the communion-table sideway under the east widow" is declared to be a thing "indifferent ;" and the bishop is at liberty, if he see fit, in order to avoid offence or superstition, to have it removed from that place during the administration of the holy communion. Christ is declared not to be sacrificed upon it, so that (unless the reference to the sense of the primitive church be intended jesuitically to cover what the compilers were afraid to say in words) there is no commemorative sacrifice, but only a commemoration of the sacrifice offered once-for-all. The inclosing of the communion-table is declared to be merely to prevent indecent behaviour; and as to the bowing, care is taken not to mention the altar" or the East; or the corporal presence of Christ in the mystical elements: the reverence being only general, in acknowledgment of the Divine Majesty. But even with all such modifications and explanations, the wise compilers of the Canons of 1603, which are still the law of our Church, considered that the customs referred to are liable to evil or evil misinterpretation; and therefore they significantly proscribed them by not recommending them; for they mentioned only "bowing at the name of Jesus." The omission, we repeat, was intentional and significant; for it was not a question which had not been raised; and there were some, who, as in 1640, were great sticklers for turning to the East, and bowing towards the altar; or, as Dr. Pusey does not scruple to say of his own practice, "bowing to the altar." Even to this hour there are those who are so ignorant and so venturesome as to assert that our Canons direct turning to the east when we bow at the name

of Jesus; but there is nothing to that effect in them; and even the bowing at the name of Jesus-a custom so simple, expressive, and unexceptionable-is explained and justified so as to guard it from misconception.

But whence comes it to pass that the obsolete and superseded Canons of 1640 are to be revived and regarded with such peculiar favour; and by what authority do the Tractarians attempt to bind themselves or others by them? We are content to ask these questions either constitutionally or religiously; either as Englishmen or as members of the English church; though in point of fact there is no need of separating the two relations, for in neither have we any concern with the Canons of 1640.

A solemn compact was entered into in the reign of Henry VIII., and ratified on subsequent occasions when the Reformation was more advanced, between the Church and the State, by which the State afforded civil protection to the Church, and the Church consented not to hold its Convocations, or put forth Canons, except with the permission of the State. The question of the propriety of this arrangement is beside our present subject; but at least it obviated the dissenting objection that our Church was created by Act of Parment or by the fiat of the Crown. On the contrary, the Church existed, and the secular power, as such, had no voice in its assemblies; but with regard to a national church establishment, the State had good right to some guarantee, lest ecclesiastical power should be perverted to injustice, heterodoxy, or tyranny; and the Church might bind itself not to use its spiritual authority for improper purposes. The compact was for the benefit of all; the Church was enabled to extend its ministrations for the public welfare; but if the State became dissatisfied with the Church, whether rightly or not, it had it in its power to disestablish it as a national institution; and the Church, if the State wished to repress its spiritual energies, might, and must, cast off such usurpation. The casus fæderis happened again and again. The Protestant Anglican Church would not poperise itself in the days of Mary, it was therefore disestablished; and Popery was restored in its place. In the reigns of Elizabeth and James the First, the Church and the State adhered to the compact; the State had the benefit of the national worship of God, and the Church was not enslaved by any secular restrictions to which it could not conscientiously submit. In the troublous times of Charles the First the compact was again broken; for the Church could not accommodate itself to the popular taste of the day, and the State could not brook an ecclesiastical imperium in imperio. At the Restoration the Church was again established; the basis of the old compact was relaid; and though some considerable misunderstandings arose from time to time, and the state even went so far as to prevent the Convocations of the Church proceeding to business, whereby many anomalies were caused; yet the Church still enjoys so many privileges; and her translated Bible, her Prayer-book, her Articles, her Homilies, her Canons, and her various institutions, furnish her with so excellent an apparatus of spiritual instrumentality, that she rather bears with some evils, and puts up with the loss of some advantages, than severs her connexion with the State, which would be to consign the nation, so far as her instrumentality is concerned, ungodliness and infidelity. Still the compact is only voluntary on

either side; for if the Church should forsake its present standards of faith and practice, and determine to have a new body of Articles and Canons which the nation did not see fit to approve, the legislature could strip it of its power as an establishment, and it would then become merely a voluntary church, like the episcopal church in Scotland; and the same result would ensue, if the State were to interfere with spiritual things, in such a manner that the Church could not conscientiously conform to its proposals, and therefore must relinquish State patronage rather than abandon the Gospel of Christ. If we look back to the history of the Reformation, we find that it was the clergy who, in the Synod of 1552, drew up the 41 Articles; nor did the pious king Edward or the Parliament interfere with their peculiar office. Our present Articles also of 1562 were agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the clergy, in solemn convocation; and not one word is said in any record of any thing in this behalf being done by the legislature. Parliament did indeed approve of what was done, and the broad seal of England was affixed to the Church Articles; but this in no wise vitiated them. The Canons also and Constitutions of the Church were the work of Churchmen. The compact between Henry VIII. and the clergy, and which being judged advisable was afterwards adhered to, was to the effect that till a new code of church law could be drawn up, the old Canons and Constitutions should be in force, except where they were inconsistent with the Reformation, or with any laws or canons which might be afterwards enacted. It is to be lamented that a complete revision of Anglican Canon law, accommodated to the circumstances of the Protestant Reformation, has never been effected. It was much desired by Cranmer and his colleagues: but the troubles of the Church, from the days of the Reformation to the Revolution, prevented its accomplishment, and the project has never been resumed, nor could it be rightly carried out without the restored legislative power of Convocation.

Thus the Church of England is under a threefold code, in subordination to that supreme allegiance which it owes to Christ alone. First, it has its Common law; that is, custom, which has obtained the force of law, and which extends to innumerable particulars for which there is no written authority. Secondly, it has its Canon law, which comprises such ancient canons and constitutions as were not set aside at the Reformation or since, together with such post-reformation canons as have been made, and not rescinded or superseded. Thirdly, Statute law, which touches upon many things affecting the Church; but ought not to entrench upon spiritual matters; and if in any instances it should do so, it must be by mistake or usurpation; though the consent, tacit and constructive, if not enactive, of the Church makes such laws ecclesiastically valid; as they are in conscience, if not inconsistent with the law of Christ, upon the general principle of obedience to the powers that be, where they uphold, or do not contravene, Divine authority.

We have written as above, because, in refusing to acknowledge the validity of the Canons of 1640, we think it right to meet the allegation, that, though they are not acknowledged in our temporal or spiritual courts, as athoritative, they are still the law of the Church, and therefore binding upon the consciences of its members.