book was prepared before the idea of printing it was suggested, and the materials were gathered and digested for actual use in giving courses of instruction, retreats, etc., to Religious. In the second place, and what is more to the point, there is not a statement or opinion in the book that is original. Everything is drawn from writers of whose standing there can be no question. The work of the author has been that of gathering, sifting, digesting, and arranging. Free use has been made of footnotes, and the absence of the mention of authorities for any statement or conclusion indicates a consensus of the best theologians on the point involved. The pages may seem at times to be overburdened with quotations, but, in a text-book, it is better to err on the side of giving the ipsissima verba of the masters than to risk presenting general statements that may fail to give accurately the consensus of opinion. The question may be asked why so many references have been made to Roman Catholic authorities. In reply I would say that with Roman legislation or official opinion, as such, we have nothing to do. They are not of authority for Anglicans. But when Roman legislation, however modern it may be, is the expression of the experience of many centuries of the uninterrupted practical working-out of problems and principles, it would be yielding to the narrowest prejudice to reject it. In the present work I have not hesitated, at any point, to make use of the experience of the Religious Life in the Roman Church, or to recommend it heartily as the best model for us to follow. Because we do not agree with Rome in certain theological and devotional matters is no reason why we should reject the results of the experience she has had in the identical work we are seeking to do. The fact that the Church of England repudiated the Roman authority, or that Pius V undertook to declare excommunicate those who adhered to her principles, does not make the practical experience of teachers and pastors of the Latin obedience less valuable to us than it would have been had these events never occurred. It would be a confession of weakness that I am not prepared to make for us to be afraid to acknowledge our debt to devout Roman authors of late centuries. Nor are we in this matter better than our fathers. "The restorers of the Religious Life amongst us,' says a recent writer, "avowedly turned to Roman models for examples as to rule, habit, and devotions. These borrowings were not made crudely or unintelligently there was a great deal of adaptation, modification and omission, but, still, the source of the borrowings was consciously Roman." What was good enough for Dr. Pusey, for John Mason Neale, for Father Benson, Upton Richards, Butler of Wantage, for Carter of Clewer, and other great founders in the Anglican Church, the present writer has not the rashness to reject. It must not, however, be thought that we must look to continental sources alone for instruction in the principles and practices of Religion. The English Church, before the upheaval of the sixteenth 1 The Very Rev. Provost Ball in The English Church Review, August, 1913, p. 346. century, had worked out for herself the best methods of monastic living, and set her approval upon them by formal legislation. The impression is common, and is to be found even amongst Religious, that the customs and discipline of monastic Communities grew up within the Communities themselves, spreading from house to house, being enforced prescriptively as they were found fitting and conducive to good Religious discipline. This is partly true, but it is also a fact, generally lost sight of, that many of the principles and customs of Religion are formal laws of the Church, enacted by English synods and councils, and stand to-day unrepealed. In England previous to the Reformation, Religious Orders were the constant subject of definite legislation. One has only to refer to any work on English canon or civil law to see how much of such legislation there was, and how definitely the monastic houses were under formal law. For example, canons of provincial or national councils, or legal episcopal decrees, settled from time to time such varied questions as the appointment of confessors for Religious houses;1 the reading and study of monks; the qualifications and duties of priors and minor officials; the term of their office and causes for removal; the age for entering 2 3 4 1 Council Westmin., A.D. 1102, Can. 18. The references to the early English Councils, unless otherwise stated, are taken from Johnson's English Canons, in "The Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology." 2 Council Cloveshoo, A.D. 747, Can. 7. 8 4 Religion; the length of the novitiate;" age of profession; questions involving dowry; form and ritual of profession; the monk's obligation to the particular house that professes him; regulation of the business duties a monk may perform;' privileges for sick monks; diet and dress of religious;' hours of meals; 10 the scope and extent of obedience;11 the silence to be observed; 12 the question of acting as godparents; 13 length of stay allowable at houses of parents and friends; 14 frequency and conditions of Communion;15 etc. All these and numberless other principles and details were subjects of formal legislation in the English Church, and by such legislation the general principles of the life were slowly wrought out under the sanction of ecclesiastical authority. It would be impossible to make acknowledgment 1 Theodori Poenit., in Haddon and Stubbs, III, 201. 2 Council Cloveshoo, A.D. 747, Can. 24. Const. 41 Langton, A.D. 1222. 4 Council Westmin., A.D. 1127, Can. 3; Council London, A.D. 1175, Can. 8; Council Westmin., A.D. 1200, Can. 15; Const. 39 Langton, A.D. 1222. 5 Theodori Poenitentiale, in Haddon and Stubbs, III, 192. Council Cloveshoo, A.D. 747, Can. 24. 6 Council Hertford, A.D. 673, Can. 4. 7 Const. 15 Boniface, A.D. 1261; 20 Peckham, A.D. 1281; 7 Stratford, A.D. 1343. Const. 44 Langton, A.D. 1222. Council Cealchythe, A.D. 785, Can. 4. 10 Council Cloveshoo, A.D. 747, Can. 21. here to the many friends who have helped the author in this work. To the Rev. F. W. Puller, S.S.J.E., I am indebted for permission to reprint in the appendix his paper on the relation of Religious to their Bishops, and also for leave to use a valuable privately printed letter on the subject of vows. To the Rev. Erskine Wright, B.D., I owe much for the able and patient criticism by which I have profited at every step. The Rev. T. Bingham, M.A., has kindly given valuable help in revising the proofs; and I am indebted to several members of the Community of St. Mary for much labour expended on the important task of verifying references, making translations, and transcribing the manuscript for the printer. ST. MICHAEL'S MONASTERY, Sewanee, S. C. H. |