that are God's." But the authority of Christian kings and governors in ecclesiastical affairs, when properly exerted, is certainly very great; and to deny its existence, and the validity of all its acts, is to oppose ourselves to the universal practice of the catholic church.

Secondly, if the authority of the state was exercised in the present instance in the abolition of one liturgy, and the substitution of another, the same had been done by Christian emperors and kings before, and it had been admitted as valid and lawful by the Catholic church. In France, the ancient Gallican liturgy was abolished and the Roman introduced, by the emperor Charlemagne. Cardinal Bona says, "that I may in the first place separate "the certain from the uncertain, I suppose this as "most clear, that the old rites were abrogated in the "churches of Gaul, and the Roman introduced by "command of the most pious kings Pepin and Charlemagne." In the kingdoms of Castille and Leon, the ancient Spanish liturgy was abolished, and the Roman introduced by king Alphonso, who threatened death and confiscation to all who opposed this change, and so prevailed; although "the clergy "and people of all Spain were disturbed at being 'compelled to receive the new office," and at last it became a proverb, that, "quo volunt reges vadunt leges." These kings have never been blamed by the Christian church for introducing a new liturgy

66

66

"Ut autem certa ab incertis ante omnia secernam, hoc tanquam exploratissimum suppono, veteres ritus in Gallicanis ecclesiis abrogatos, et Romanos intoductos fuisse

jussu piissimorum regum Pipini et Caroli Magni." Rer. Liturg. lib. i. c. xii. p. 78.

Rodericus Toletanus, de Rebus Hisp. lib. vi. c. 26, quoted above p. 167, vol. i.

into their dominions, neither was that liturgy itself deemed invalid or uncanonical; and therefore the acts of the civil authority in England, in the present case, cannot be considered to invalidate our ritual, by any who would defend the Christian church of former ages from a charge of culpable neglect, or unprincipled subserviency.

It may be replied, that the cases are different; for, in the first place, the patriarch of Rome approved of the changes in Gaul and Spain, and disapproved of those in Britain. I reply, that this patriarch had no right to interfere in the business, except in the way of friendly advice and counsel. For he never had, either by divine right, by the canons, or in fact, any universal jurisdiction over the catholic church; nor did he by the decree of any lawful general council, or by primitive custom, possess any patriarchal jurisdiction over Gaul, Spain, or Britain. Therefore his constitutions relative to these churches were indebted for their authority solely to the consent of the catholic bishops and Christian princes therein; and of course his approbation or disapprobation did not affect the lawfulness of changes that were made in the ecclesiastical affairs of those churches. Therefore, although he approved of the changes in Gaul and Spain, and disapproved of that in Britain, those changes were all equally valid.

It may be objected, in the second place, that the cases are different, because the liturgy to be introduced in Gaul and Spain was orthodox, while that to be introduced in Britain was heretical. I reply,

d See the chapter on the English ordinations. See also the Treatise on the Church, pt. ii. c. 2; pt. vii. c. 4. 7.

that there is no truth in the assertion. It is impossible to show one single spot of heresy in the English liturgy and ritual; it never has been done; and while the holy scriptures and the writings of the orthodox Fathers remain in the Christian church, it never will be done.

Thirdly, it may be said, that the Roman rites were efficacious for communicating the graces of the sacraments, while the English were not; and therefore the former might lawfully be introduced, while the latter might not. I reply, that the English ritual is effectual and valid for communicating the graces of the sacraments, as may be seen by the following replies to all the particular objections urged against its validity, and by the whole substance of this book.

Lastly, it may be objected, that the bishops and clergy of Gaul and Spain approved of the change, and their kings merely gave the temporal sanction to their resolutions; while the English bishops and clergy, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, opposed the change. In reply to the first part of this objection, I observe, that history informs us that the "clergy," as well as people of all Spain, were opposed to the reception of the Roman liturgy, and were only "compelled to submit by threats of death and confiscation." And with regard to Gaul, we are told that the alteration took place by "command" of Pepin and Charlemagne; we read nothing of its being caused by the Gallican bishops; and all we know as to their approbation of it is, that they submitted to the imperial decree, which is no proof that they desired or promoted the change. The Spanish clergy were therefore violently opposed

to the change of liturgy; the Gallican were at most only passive, and gave no signs of approbation; yet the change took place in both churches at the command of their kings, and the liturgies then introduced have been ever since acknowledged by the church to rest on sufficient sanctions, and to be invested with spiritual authority. If then the English bishops and clergy had opposed the change of liturgy, that change might nevertheless be valid; and it would have been made so by their subsequent assent to, and adoption of, the liturgy introduced. It was thus that the Roman liturgy became valid in Gaul and Spain, though at first it was opposed, or not introduced, by the bishops; and I maintain, that the English ritual was assented to and received by the English and Irish prelates; for,

Thirdly, it is an incontestible fact, that although the English ritual was objected to by certain prelates in the first parliament of queen Elizabeth, it was very shortly after admitted and approved of by all the bishops and clergy of England, and has been ever since used by their successors in the catholic church and as to Ireland, the ritual was immediately adopted there without any opposition, except from one or two bishops, and has ever since received the approbation of the Christian church in that part of the British empire.

But, Fourthly, it may be altogether denied, that the Catholic and legitimate bishops of the English Church, did, in fact, offer any opposition to the restoration of the English ritual at the commencement of Queen Elizabeth's reign; for those who occupied English sees were not legitimate and catholic bishops, but intruders; and the remnant of

the legitimate episcopate, with the infinite majority of the clergy and people, approved of the changes made at that time.

Since therefore Christian princes have authority in ecclesiastical affairs; since the British crown did not exercise an unlawful authority in promoting the change of the liturgy; and since the English ritual has received the approbation and assent of the church; it is not schismatical, uncanonical, or in any manner illegitimate; but, on the contrary, is invested with that sacred and spiritual authority, to which Christians are bound to yield their devoted and affectionate obedience.

SECONDLY. It has been calumniously asserted, that the English liturgy retains nothing of the primitive liturgies, except the preface and the words of our Redeemer'. For a refutation of this, I would refer the reader to the following chapter. In the same spirit of misrepresentation it has been said, that the object of the revisers of the English liturgy was, to remove from it all traces of antiquity. To this I make the same reply.

PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS.

FIRST. There is no consecration of the elements in the eucharist, because while we are commanded by the gospel to take the bread in our hands, to bless it, and break it, all this is omitted in the English liturgy".

e See chap. xii. sect. v.; Treatise on the Church, pt. ii. chap. v.

f Renaudot, Liturg. Oriental. tom. i. p. v.

g Bossuet, Histoire des Variations.

h

Scott, bishop of Chester, cited in Collier's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 428.