REASONS FOR DEFENDING BONNER. 163 formation, so also, some, though more tolerable faults may be found in "those blessed Saints and Martyrs of the Most High, Hildebrand, Becket, and Innocent." Even these are not quite perfect. Yet I prefer them to the teachers of yesterday. Why, then, shall I not love and value Bonner, though his letter to Mr Lechmore is less grave and reverent, than becomes a restored Bishop, "our Saviour's representative.' I come then to the defence of the conduct of Bonner after his restoration to the see of London. My OBJECT, and that of my friends, is the same as that of Bonner. Our opinions are the same, and the beginning of our proceedings to restore the ascendancy of those opinions is the same. If we do not now go on to un-Protestantize, Romanize, and Bonnerize the community, it is because we are prevented by the State, which fetters the Church, from carrying out our principles to their full, fair, legitimate extent. "Give me," said the antient, "the resting place for my lever, and I will move the world." Give me irresponsible Church authority as the lever which shall rest upon the unseen world, and we will again move this at our * See the Letter in Burnet,-Records, part ii., b. 2., p. 248. This Mr Lechmore received from Bonner the lease of the Manor of Bushy. Bishop Ridley had granted the lease to Mr Carr. Bonner, on his restoration, refused to acknowledge the validity of the lease, on the plea that Ridley was an usurper. The account of the trial is in Bullstrode's Reports. The verdict was in favour of Lechmore and Bonner.-See Strype, Eccles. Mem., An. 1553. M 164 FROUDE defends BONNER. pleasure. But, alas! the reigns of the blessed Saints and Martyrs, for which I and my friends weep! the reigns of the Hildebrands, Beckets, and Innocents,* are no more, and even the episcopalians of the Church of England hesitate to restore them. Bonner, however, was one of their own school; and I only carry out my principles when I defend my favourite Bishop, in that period of his life which has been most subjected to unjust Ultra-Protestant attacks. I again say, that I know my boldness will excite surprise, for no other modern theologian has preceded me in this task but my venerable and dear friend Froude. He, in the letter to which I have before alluded, is the only modern theologian not professedly a member of the Church of Rome, who eulogizes Bonner. Yet even he has done so enigmatically. He only says, as far as I have gone (that is in his reading of Strype), I think better than I was prepared to do of Bonner. My friend does not tell us how far he had read, and I dare not compare the extent of my reading with his. Whether I have read more or less than my friend, I know not: but this I know, that so far as I have read, I am prepared on the “Tractarian British Critic" principles, to defend the conduct of Bonner, even in the days of Mary. I feel that I cannot defend him throughout. The time has not come. Perhaps it never will come. Still I defend him, and I first do so, because of the re * Vide Supra. + Remains of Froude, part i., p. 251. OUR OBJECTS THE SAME as those OF BONNER. 165 markable fact I have mentioned, that the objects of Bonner are the same, as those of our Tractarian British Critics. Our objects are indefinite-so were those of Bonner. They are indefinite to this extent-that we have not yet fixed upon our pattern age or pattern period to which we would endeavor to bring back our country Neither do we learn that Bonner had formed any scheme of this kind. Our object is best expressed by saying that we are dissatisfied with our present Prayer Book, because it both omits Prayers for the Dead, and making the Eucharist a sacrifice; and we long to have another Liturgy, "that precious possession the old Catholic ritual, the loss of which we deplore:* we have lost that possession, and if we have not only lost that possession, but a sense also of its value; it is a serious question with us, whether we are not like men who recover from some grievous illness, with the loss or injury of their sight or hearing; whether we are not like the Jews returned from captivity, who could never find the rod of Aaron, or the ark of the covenant, which had indeed been ever hid from the world, but was removed from the temple itself."+ Bonner would, I am sure, have agreed with us in thinking thus. He regarded the second Service Book of King Edward, and * See Tract 34, ad Scholas. I must remember, if I ever publish a new edition of this Tract, to page it. This Tract is not paged. 166 THE OLD CATHOLIC RITUAL the Church of England, as it was left by that King (and restored by Elizabeth), with more unpleasant feelings than we do. He would have restored more of the old Catholic ritual than we should do-but if we, who have been so long accustomed to the English Prayer Book (and because we have been accustomed to it, do not vehemently recommend any alterations, at least, not at present, in it,) regard it as a remodelling, and altering of the antient forms of worship, the antient Liturgies and usages, and naturally shrink from the idea,* how much more must Bonner have shuddered at the thought of the second Prayer Book of King Edward, and rejoiced at the prospect of its overthrow. If we exert ourselves to the utmost, as we have done, both in poetry and prose,† to make the people of England return to the use of the best part of the Roman Breviary, which Gregory VII., the calumniated Saint of the Most High, restored and harmonized; how must Bonner have been gratified with the prospect. We consider that the remodelling of the antient Liturgies in our Service Book, impairs the filial affection and respect, which is due to HER, that is, to Rome, from * Tract 86, p. 5. + See some part of the beautiful Christian Year, the Lyra Apostolica, and other verses in the Brit. Mag. See also our pleasing Tract, No. 76, on the Roman Breviary, as embodying the substance of the devotional services of the Church Catholic. Bonner would have defended all-we do not-at least at present. See 23. p. Tract 75, on the Breviary, p. 5. IS PREFERABLE TO THE PRAYER BOOK. 167 whence we have received our spiritual birth in one Sacrament, and our bread of life in another.* We acknowledge, indeed, that, "obedience to her as standing in the nearest of parental relations, is a part of that charity without which even the understanding of mysteries and knowledge avail not. When our thoughts refer to earlier and better times, we are, of course, filled with some sad reflections at the melancholy contrast, looking upon the later Church as "the second temple," and in the words of holy Herbert, “deserving tears;" or in the more sacred words in the Prophet Haggai, "Is it not in your eyes in comparison of it as nothing?"† We consider the antient service, the old Catholic ritual, as the first temple. We consider the present Prayer Book as the second temple. We have built it, and we rejoice-but we mourn for the first temple. We remember the intrinsic majesty and truth which remain in the Church of Rome, amidst its corruptions, and we weep, therefore, over the old Liturgies, which have been altered till we possess only our present Prayer Book. The Ultra-Protestant rejoices over that book, as if there had been no an~ tient Liturgies. We cannot so rejoice, and if we cannot do so, how much less could Bonner? How much rather did he not feel elated at the prospect of rebuilding the first temple, and overthrowing the second. * Tract 86, p. 5. Tracts, Vol. V., p. 5, No. 86. |