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 countrymen. 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. Tract 34, p. 78. 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 p. 23. 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 antient 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. ‡ Tract, 74, p. 4. 168 BONNER AND THE TRACTARIANS We do not desire entirely to overthrow the second as he did. We will wish it to continue for some time longer till our principles make further progress. But we trust the day will come, when we, also, shall exult as he exulted, when he saw the old system restored, and the second temple overthrown. The only difference in the parallel between the first and second temples of the Jews, and the first and second temples of ourselves and Bonner, is this; that the Jews rejoiced when they saw the second temple completed, and they wept when they remembered the first, and in this they resembled the Ultra-Protestants in the reign of Mary. Bonner and ourselves, on the contrary, weep over the second temple, and rejoice to restore the first. I defend Bonner on this point, to this extent only, that he desired to build that antient Catholic system, which I have called by way of distinction from the present Church of England, "the First Temple." He desired to reform, that is, to re-establish in England the foundations of the first templeprayers for the dead-the Roman Breviary-the doctrine of an actual sacrifice in the Eucharist-and all the things which we desire also to restore. He differed with us in this respect only. That he would have rebuilt, and he did rebuild, many of the pinnacles and battlements which he deemed an essential part of the temple of God, but which we do not. The question between Bonner and ourselves, therefore, is not one of principle, but of degree. We would not build quite so much as he did, but we do DESIRE A BETTER CHURCH AND WORSHIP. 169 with him feel very anxious to make the second temple which our Reformers built, as much like the first temple as we can. The difficulty is to discover the precise model of the first temple. We cannot quite agree upon the exact plan. We are architects of the same school of design, but we are not fully agreed on the outline or the elevation, the interior or exterior, of the house we would build. This only we are agreed upon, that the second temple which our Reformers have created does not please us; and we are resolved, slowly, gradually, and patiently, with all submission to expostulation and reproof, with all contempt for ridicule, with silence when we cannot answer, with scorn for all who differ with us, and with canonizing praise of those who do agree with us; we are resolved to persevere till the second temple is more perfectly reformed after the model of the first; and the work of Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer, Peter Martyr, and the Ultra-Protestant Convocations of Edward the Sixth shall be changed till we are satisfied. If we do not thus restore the second temple to the model of the first, I would ask, why were our Tracts written at all? The second temple was built-it is built. The people, we must say, have long, too long indeed, been satisfied with its fair proportions. They go round about our Jerusalem, and tell the towers thereof. They mark well her bulwarks, that they may tell them that come after, and pray for the peace of their Jerusalem-but the city is still the second city-its walls are not its first |