APPENDIX.

WHAT THE RITUALISTS TEACH.

I HAVE been requested to give, as an appendix, a series of classified quotations showing "What the Ritualists Teach" in their published writings. For this purpose I have taken nothing at second hand. I have examined the original of every authority cited, and have carefully examined the context of each quotation. Unlike the quotations in the body of this book, those given in this appendix are free from any italics inserted by myself. Where italics occur they are those of the author cited. It is hoped that this collection of quotations may be useful for reference, and for this purpose it has been made intentionally lengthy.

THE BIBLE.

"The recollection of these events should suffice to prove the mistake of supposing that the Sacred Scriptures, without note or comment, in the hands of all, are a sufficient guide to truth; the Bible thus used is not useless only, but dangerous to morality and truth."-Golden Gate, by the Rev. S. Baring-Gould, Rector of Lew Trenchard, Part I., p. 177. Edition, 1875.

"Whether a dogmatic creed or belief in the infallibility of a book [the Bible], furnish the best grounds of religion may be doubted, but what is certain is, that the former is the toughest, if only because least easily proved false. A man may believe in God, because he feels that the world is an enigma without that key, and it is impossible to demonstrate the non-existence of a God. But if a man's faith is pinned to a document, and that document be proved to have flaws in it, away goes his faith."-Germany Past and Present, by Rev. S. Baring-Gould, Vol. I., p. 193. Edition 1879.

"The Crucifix should be the first lesson book for their [English Home Missionaries] disciples, and the Holy Scriptures must never be put into the hands of unbelievers."—Union Review for 1867, p. 13.

'Gradually it had come to be taken for granted that the Holy Scriptures were sufficient for our guidance without the Church's teach

ing, and that Christian men were justified in drawing their religious faith directly if not exclusively from that source. Hence an endless variety of sects."-Union Review for 1865, p. 148.

"The Church is not the ambassador only, but the plenipotentiary of God in the world: the credentials of a plenipotentiary may serve to identify him, and even to map out for him his policy, but his name implies an authority unlimited by any instructions or credentials; and it must be borne in mind that the credentials of an ambassador serve for his introduction only, not for future use; and his instructions, if he has any, are for his own private and secret perusal, not for the inspection of those with whom he treats. Whether the advocates of Biblical supremacy as against Church authority are willing to accept a metaphor which so inadequately suits their purpose is a matter about which there cannot be much doubt."-Union Review for 1870, p. 298.

"To hear the Church was to hear the Bible in its truest and only true sense. Was it not an abuse of the Bible to send shiploads of copies across the seas to convert the nations?"-Speech of the Rev. R. Rhodes Bristow, Vicar of St. Stephen's, Lewisham, at a meeting of the English Church Union, January 22nd, 1890. Reported in the Church Union Gazette, March, 1890, p. 99.

"The Bible is not the sole and only Rule of Faith."-Paper read by Mr. H. W. Hill, at a meeting of the Chiswick branch of the English Church Union, February 3rd, 1890. Reported in Church Union Gazette, May, 1890, p. 153.

"Nor is it any infringement of the reverence due to the Bible, as God's Word, to declare openly and distinctly that 'Bible Christianity' is an invention of the Devil, having for its object to obstruct and defeat God's Word under the hypocritical pretence of love and zeal for His Word."-Church Review, July 12th, 1862, p. 427.

"The Catholic Church is always in time (as well as in degree) before the Bible."-Church Review, October 8th, 1864, p. 989.

"A faith appealing to the Bible only can find no firm resting place." -On the Use and Abuse of the Bible, by the Rev. Thomas Robinson, M.A., p. 27. London: Church Printing Co.

"The Church did not give us the Bible that we might each take his own religion from it. We take our religion from the Church, which is living; then we prove it, if we will, from the Holy Bible."-St. Andrew, Worthing, Parish Magazine, December, 1893, p. 3.

"Our Blessed Lord did not intend any written document to be the basis of the Faith He founded."-Christ Church, Doncaster, Parish Magazine, March, 1895.

WHAT THE RITUALISTS TEACH.

263

THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

"I would only urge that we should not on this account ignore the serious character of the actual changes made [in the Liturgy by the Reformers in the sixteenth century], or decline to do our very best to get them remedied. The more really secure we feel as to the position of the English Church, the more willing we should be to acknowledge its shortcomings."-Lord Halifax, in the Lord's Day and the Holy Eucharist, p. 27. London, 1892.

"How has it been possible that Catholics-not ultra-Catholics, but Catholics teaching the doctrines and observing the ritual of the Universal Church-have been, and to some extent still are, subject to suspicion and ill-treatment in a National Church professing to be Catholic, and acknowledging the authority of the Church,' and referring, as to a standard, to the usages of the Primitive Church? The answer, it is feared, to these questions must be, that these troubles have their origin in the defects of the English Service Book; in the fact that our Reformers, with a clear duty marked out, went beyond the line which the finger of duty marked out, and thus entailed upon the Reformed Church a heritage of weakness and indecision."-The Rev. E. W. Sergeant, in the Lord's Day and the Holy Eucharist, p. 120.

'Why bring into such marked prominence [in the Communion Service] the title 'The Lord's Supper,' a name for the Eucharist of comparatively infrequent use and of doubtful applicability to the actual rite? . . . Laudable as the motive may have been, the effect has been disastrous, more disastrous perhaps than any of the other Liturgical changes, since it has given occasion to ignorant and heretical writers to represent our 'Communion Service' as something generically different from the 'Mass,' whereas it is nothing less than the same thing in another form."-Ibid., pp. 121, 122.

"What a contrast between the careful instructions and the beautiful preparatory office for the priest provided in all the old English Service Books, in the Roman and most of the Greek, and the utter absence of any such provision in the Book of Common Prayer! Not a word about vesting, or about the reverent and careful preparation of the elements: not a syllable to correspond to the minute and exhaustive Cautela Missæ of the old books."-Ibid., p. 122.

"Besides these numerous admissions, our [Communion] Office has, it must be said, other faults. The chief and most obvious is, that it sadly obscures the oblation.”—Ibid., p. 127.

"Is it possible, with every allowance for their difficult position, to acquit our Reformers of causing needless offence (to say the very least) when, not contenting themselves with a liberty which they exercised to the very verge of licence in the way of expurgation and modification,

they cut up and reset with not too skilful hands the splendid mosaic of the ancient service, so that the very outlines of the old pattern are barely recognisable ?"-Ibid., p. 131.

"Good men cannot understand that we should not be perfectly satisfied with things as they are, apostolic order and evangelic truth,' according to the favourite formulary, and be willing to fight a tremendous fight for the retention of all the Rubrics, totidem verbis. We are not to be scandalized, it seems, by such extraordinary directions as we are almost ashamed to quote, but where is the use of closing our eyes wilfully to facts? 'And there shall be no celebration of the Lord's Supper, except there be a sufficient number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion. And if there be not above twenty persons in the parish of discretion to receive the Communion, there shall be no Communion, except four, or three at the least, communicate with the Priest.' There can be no mistaking the meaning of that-the intention. It was to take away, to extirpate as far as might be, the notion of the Sacrifice! And this setting at nought by authority of the primary act of Catholic worship from the days of the Apostles downwards, is to be mildly acquiesced in, or even bravely battled for. No, that is asking rather too much. How can Catholics be supposed to support this? How can they hide their light under a bushel, for the sake of conciliating sound Anglicans who do not believe in the Presence and the Sacrifice? Are they not obliged to protest against a rule which is not a dead letter, but still takes away the Daily Sacrifice from almost all our altars, which renders the offering at least uncertain in most of our churches, which strips the country priest of his right to communicate in his village church, with the whole Church throughout the world, unless three Protestant clodhoppers happen to be of his way of thinking! ... Yet the rule in question is simply odious in itself, and we cannot fight for its retention in order to gratify moderates. We believe the Blessed Sacrament to be the daily Food of the priest of God, and by this obnoxious Rubric he is stripped of his heritage."—Union Review for 1865, pp. 619, 620.

"We venture to say, heresy has been practically triumphant for three hundred years together, through the Prayer Book. It was designed to be so, and it has been so."-Ibid., p. 621.

"We cannot allow it to be thought that we are satisfied with the Prayer Book as it is. It would not be honest not to say that we aim at nothing short of Catholic Restoration, and as one step to this, at the excision of these grievous Rubrics, and, a little later, at the modification of these ambiguous Articles, if they are to be retained at all.”Ibid., p. 622.

“We cannot and we will not tamely accept the illogical and incomplete system which the Reformers have left us in the Prayer Book as it is. It has been tried for three hundred years and found wanting." -Ibid., p. 626.

WHAT THE RITUALISTS TEACH.

265

"And when we remember that this essential service [Sacrifice of Mass] was taken away by the unhappy, the presumptuous Rubrics we have cited, we lack words to express our sense of moral indignation at the daring of the men who framed them. But peace be with them! They knew no better. May God be merciful to their souls !”—Ibid., p. 630.

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.

"The half-abrogated Articles 'cracked and strained by three centuries of evasive ingenuity,' are rather a trashy foundation for anything."Rev. H. H. Henson, Vicar of Barking, in Guardian, August 24th, 1892, p. 1251.

"Of course, there has been a large party who swear by them [the Thirty-nine Articles], and the existence of whose forms of belief in the Church of England is guaranteed by their being retained; but it is impossible to deny that they contain statements, or implications that are verbally false, and others that are very difficult to reconcile with truth. In the times that are coming over the Church of England, the question will arise, What service have the articles of the Church of England ever done? . . . Before union with Rome can be effected, the Thirty-nine Articles must be wholly withdrawn."-Christian Remembrancer, No. 131, p. 188.

"By way of suggesting something practical ourselves, we will in this paper recommend, as a first and essential preliminary towards the Reunion of Christendom, the total abolition of the Thirty-nine Articles."- Union Review for 1870, p. 289.

"Some [of the Thirty-nine Articles] contain statements which are unintelligible; in the case of others, one is tempted to wish that the statements were unintelligible or nonsensical in order to escape the disagreeable impression of their being-well, truly Protestant; others contain contradictions, or qualifications which eviscerate or destroy what has gone before there are statements of facts which are not wholly indisputable; there are trivial points of Christian discipline or of every-day life, which derogate from the importance and value of a confession of faith. Meanwhile, with all these defects and blemishes the Thirty-nine Articles continue to be paraded as the authoritative standard of Anglican doctrine, and they are imposed as a heavy yoke upon the consciences of all who would serve in the ministry of the Church. And we venture to assert that one of the most imperative reforms in the Church of England is the total abolition of these Thirty-nine Articles."-Ibid., p. 294.

"We maintain that so long as this Article [Article VI.] remains among the formularies of the Church of England, so long will there be an insuperable bar to any union or fusion of the Church of England with the rest of the Catholic family. The Article distinctly ignores Tradition, and it positively affirms private judgment."-Ibid., p. 295.