Itshould be observed, that as to the point of encouragement to “patient waiting,” I have in the text much understated the force of the argument to be drawn from the ecclesiastical history of the fourth century, inasmuch as even after the Council of Nicea, there were fresh troubles and disturbances upon the same doctrine, which were not settled for more than fifty years. To use Mr. Keble’s words (on July 23rd), “The Church waited till the Council of Constantinople,A.D.381, under all sorts of interruptions and anomalies, charges of heresy, and breaking of communion.” My purpose, however, in referring to that period of history being chiefly to point to the Nicene Creed as an instance of a declaratory act, explanatory of the Apostles’, I did not think it necessary to pursue the matter further thanA.D.325.
“Itis plain that the meaning of a mute document, if it be tied to follow the utterance of alivingvoice, which shall claim the supreme right of interpretation, must vary with its living expositor.”—Manning’sRule of Faith, (1838). App. p. 85.“But neither can it be admitted that if the justification of the reformers is to rest on such grounds as the foregoing, their reputation can owe thanks to those who would now persuade the Church to acquiesce in a disgraceful servitude, and to surrender to the organs of the secular power the solemn charge which she has received from Christ, to feed his sheep and his lambs: for the real feeder of those sheep, and those lambs, isthe power that determines the doctrine with which they shall be fed. Whetherthat determination shall profess to be drawn straight from the depths of the mine of revealed truth, or whether it shall assumethe more dangerous and seductive title of construction only;of a license of construction which disclaims the creation,the declaration,or the decision of doctrine,but which simultaneously with that disclaimer has marked out for itself a range of discretion which has already enabled it to cancel all binding power in one of the articles of the faith, and will hereafter as certainly enable it to cancel the binding power of all those which the first fell swoop has failed to touch.”—Letter to the Lord Bishop of London,by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone,M.P.p. 60.
“Itis plain that the meaning of a mute document, if it be tied to follow the utterance of alivingvoice, which shall claim the supreme right of interpretation, must vary with its living expositor.”—Manning’sRule of Faith, (1838). App. p. 85.
“But neither can it be admitted that if the justification of the reformers is to rest on such grounds as the foregoing, their reputation can owe thanks to those who would now persuade the Church to acquiesce in a disgraceful servitude, and to surrender to the organs of the secular power the solemn charge which she has received from Christ, to feed his sheep and his lambs: for the real feeder of those sheep, and those lambs, isthe power that determines the doctrine with which they shall be fed. Whetherthat determination shall profess to be drawn straight from the depths of the mine of revealed truth, or whether it shall assumethe more dangerous and seductive title of construction only;of a license of construction which disclaims the creation,the declaration,or the decision of doctrine,but which simultaneously with that disclaimer has marked out for itself a range of discretion which has already enabled it to cancel all binding power in one of the articles of the faith, and will hereafter as certainly enable it to cancel the binding power of all those which the first fell swoop has failed to touch.”—Letter to the Lord Bishop of London,by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone,M.P.p. 60.
See also Archdeacon Manning’s recent letter to the Bishop of Chichester, where the same subject is again treated in the most convincing manner, pp. 35, 37.
Itwill immediately occur to the reader that this particular point as to the burial service, as well as many others here touched upon, have been already handled in the most masterly way by the Bishop of Exeter, in his letter to the Primate. I suppose I hardly need say I have entertained no so absurd notion as that I could surreptitiously plagiarize from such a source; but I may perhaps be allowed to explain, that I should not have ventured upon the same ground at all, had it not been for a further object in my remarks than that which appears to have been most prominently before his Lordship’s mind in writing. I have been concerned in my particular argument, not so much to clear our services from being supposed to require the “charitable construction” asserted by the Privy Council, as to draw out in somewhat greater detail the points which show the marvellous inapprehensiveness (as it appears to me) displayed by the Court on the whole subject-matter with which they had to deal.
“Thequestion must be decided,” says the Court, (Judgment, p. 9,) “by the articles and liturgy, and we must apply to the construction of those books the same rules which have long been established, and are by law applicable to the construction of all written instruments. We must by no means intentionally swerve from the old established rules of construction, or depart from the principles which have received the sanction and approbation of the most learned persons in time past, as being on the whole, the best calculated to determine the true meaning of the documents to be examined.” It may be worth while, in reference to their treatment, especially of the office for private baptism, to append here a few words of the rule of construction as laid down by Blackstone. “The construction shall be upon theentire deed, and not merely upon disjointed parts of it, so thatevery part, if possible, shalltake effect, andno word but what may operate in one shape or another.” (Comm. ii. 379.) It is manifest there wasno impossibility, nay,no difficulty, in such a construction of the office for private baptism as should allow “every part” to “take effect;” such also that there might be “no word but what should operate,” so far as merely making that service agree with the other; the only difficulty was to give every word its effect,if both were to lead to a particular conclusion.
Ona matter of so grave a character as that referred to in this place it seems necessary to give at rather more length that part of Lord Denman’s judgment (in the case of Dr. Hampden in the Queen’s Bench) delivered on the 1st of February, 1848, which states his reasons for refusing to let the writ issue, when two of the judges of his court were in favour of doing so.
“Now comes the question which presses most on my mind. Having stated my reasons for the opinion whichI deliberately form, and conscientiously entertain that this has never been at any time the law in the Church of England, I must be of opinion that the court ought to refuse the writ of mandamus; but upon that opinion I have had the greatest difficulty, and have felt the greatest possible hesitation in acting, because I feel the authority of my two learned brothers, and the ungracious appearance of refusing the opportunity of inquiry. In any ordinary set of circumstances, in the case of an inclosure, of a railway, or matter of property, we should have no question what ever that the doubt of any one on the bench would have made further inquiry desirable. I should have instantly agreed. A writ of error would lie in that case to correct any opinion that might be shown on more discussion to be erroneous. But every judge must act on his own conviction. I own that my opinion is so entirely settled, and, I must say, so entirely unchanged by what I have heard of the argument to-day, that feeling the utmost disposition to do all that can be done to show my respect for my learned brothers, I do not think that I can consent to say for my part that this writ ought to go. I think it ought not. * * * * * I am satisfied that the only effect would be to keep alive the dreadful agitation and frightful state of religious, or rather, let me say, theological animosity, which it is impossible not to observe in this country. There would be a delay of at least two years; probably four more days would be consumed in argument, and we cannot tell how much more when it would come into the court of error. The bishopric all that time would be vacant, perhaps other vacancies might occur, and no doubt the example here set would be followed; and in every case I should expect, in the excited state of men’s minds, that the archbishop would be called upon to summon all mankind, to hear whether they had anything to say against the bishop elect, and to open a court, that would probably never be closed.”
“Now comes the question which presses most on my mind. Having stated my reasons for the opinion whichI deliberately form, and conscientiously entertain that this has never been at any time the law in the Church of England, I must be of opinion that the court ought to refuse the writ of mandamus; but upon that opinion I have had the greatest difficulty, and have felt the greatest possible hesitation in acting, because I feel the authority of my two learned brothers, and the ungracious appearance of refusing the opportunity of inquiry. In any ordinary set of circumstances, in the case of an inclosure, of a railway, or matter of property, we should have no question what ever that the doubt of any one on the bench would have made further inquiry desirable. I should have instantly agreed. A writ of error would lie in that case to correct any opinion that might be shown on more discussion to be erroneous. But every judge must act on his own conviction. I own that my opinion is so entirely settled, and, I must say, so entirely unchanged by what I have heard of the argument to-day, that feeling the utmost disposition to do all that can be done to show my respect for my learned brothers, I do not think that I can consent to say for my part that this writ ought to go. I think it ought not. * * * * * I am satisfied that the only effect would be to keep alive the dreadful agitation and frightful state of religious, or rather, let me say, theological animosity, which it is impossible not to observe in this country. There would be a delay of at least two years; probably four more days would be consumed in argument, and we cannot tell how much more when it would come into the court of error. The bishopric all that time would be vacant, perhaps other vacancies might occur, and no doubt the example here set would be followed; and in every case I should expect, in the excited state of men’s minds, that the archbishop would be called upon to summon all mankind, to hear whether they had anything to say against the bishop elect, and to open a court, that would probably never be closed.”
* * * * *
“Now, under all these considerations, feeling the utmost respect for my learned brethren, and the greatest regretthat we do not take the same view, I must own that I feel some deference is due also to the high person who is named as the defendant in this rule. Some deference is due to those who certify the fitness of Bishop Hampden for the office to which he is elected. Still more deference is dueto the peace of the Church, andto the tranquillity of the State. It seems to me that we should beputting every thing to hazardandleading to consequences which it is impossible to foresee, if we, who are firmly convinced that there is no such law as that upon which these parties seek to act, encouraged the smallest doubt as to its existence. Reserving my opinion on that point till I had heard all the observations of my learned brothers, and keeping my mind open to the last, and free to say that this is a question which ought to be discussed, I must fairly say, with all respect for my brother Coleridge’s admirable argument, that it has confirmed me in the opinion of the danger of exposing the Act of Parliament, and the most simple construction of the plainest language, and the most inveterate and universal opinion on its effect, to the speculations of those who will bring their forgotten books down, and wipe off the cobwebs from decretals and canons, before they can find one argument for disturbing the settled practice of three hundred years.“In my opinion this rule ought to be discharged.”—Rule discharged.Lord Denman’s Judgment in the Hampden case.Report,by R. Jebb,Esq.pp. 495, 496.
“Now, under all these considerations, feeling the utmost respect for my learned brethren, and the greatest regretthat we do not take the same view, I must own that I feel some deference is due also to the high person who is named as the defendant in this rule. Some deference is due to those who certify the fitness of Bishop Hampden for the office to which he is elected. Still more deference is dueto the peace of the Church, andto the tranquillity of the State. It seems to me that we should beputting every thing to hazardandleading to consequences which it is impossible to foresee, if we, who are firmly convinced that there is no such law as that upon which these parties seek to act, encouraged the smallest doubt as to its existence. Reserving my opinion on that point till I had heard all the observations of my learned brothers, and keeping my mind open to the last, and free to say that this is a question which ought to be discussed, I must fairly say, with all respect for my brother Coleridge’s admirable argument, that it has confirmed me in the opinion of the danger of exposing the Act of Parliament, and the most simple construction of the plainest language, and the most inveterate and universal opinion on its effect, to the speculations of those who will bring their forgotten books down, and wipe off the cobwebs from decretals and canons, before they can find one argument for disturbing the settled practice of three hundred years.
“In my opinion this rule ought to be discharged.”—Rule discharged.Lord Denman’s Judgment in the Hampden case.Report,by R. Jebb,Esq.pp. 495, 496.
I have no doubt at all, that the honest conviction of the Lord Chief Justice was, that his view of the law was the sound one; nor any, that he thought he was doing rightly in using his power to refuse the writ; but there can be no doubt on the other hand (for he explicitly avows it) that the reasons upon which he arrived at such conclusion, and reversed the universal practice not only of his own court but of every court in Westminster Hall, were acalculation of consequences, and a regard tofuture contingencies,as they seemed dangerous or advantageousto his eye: and this is precisely the point of view in which I have desired to lay the matter before my readers in the body of myletter. It will be observed that in nothing which I have here said am I impugning Lord Denman’s Law, or giving any opinion as to the soundness of his view of the matter then in question before the Court of Queen’s Bench. I appeal not to any matter of opinion, but to matter of fact; to the incontestible fact, that all the precedents of that and every other court of law in this country for a very long period, were set aside by his Lordship on that occasion. I give no opinion at all, save that to do such a thing upon a ground of expediency, applying, as it appeared to him, to the individual case, was a course calculated to shake persons’ confidence in the administration of the law in cases where the Church is affected. Let no man therefore say, “What are you, to set up your opinion against the Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench?” I say, again, I set up no opinion, I appeal to no matter of opinion at all, but to the undisputed matter of fact, that the usage of the courtwasat any rate so set aside and set at naught.
ICANNOTrefrain from quoting here a few lines from the very able speech of the Chairman of the Meeting of July 23, so singularly apposite and illustrative do they seem to me of this passage in my letter written some time previously.
“An instinctive reverence for the law, and a well-founded confidence in the judges of our land exclude from the minds of some men even the thought of questioning the propriety of this judgment”—(i.e. of the Committee of Privy Council). “It is painful to shock this natural sentiment—but when such grave interests are at stake, we must not allow them to escape the responsibility to which they are summoned.”—Speech of J. G. Hubbard,Esq. at St. Martin’s Hall,July23, 1850.
“An instinctive reverence for the law, and a well-founded confidence in the judges of our land exclude from the minds of some men even the thought of questioning the propriety of this judgment”—(i.e. of the Committee of Privy Council). “It is painful to shock this natural sentiment—but when such grave interests are at stake, we must not allow them to escape the responsibility to which they are summoned.”—Speech of J. G. Hubbard,Esq. at St. Martin’s Hall,July23, 1850.
IAMaware it may be said this act (1 Elizabeth, c. 1) was repealed when the High Commission Court was abolished; but it has been held, I believe by Lord Coke (I know I have lately seen it referred to, though I have not marked the reference,) that though no longer binding as law, it would be accounted probably of some authority to show the mind in which law would deal with heresy, and as a guide to a judge in any such matter. Add to which, this law indicating what was,at any rate, andat the least, to be adjudged heresy was restrictive, not augmentative of the offence. Even so, as we see, it allowed the authority of those first four general councils, and therefore by its enactment is a special witness for their reception by the English law. And its repeal by no means destroys the force of this argument in their favour, because the law itself having been, as I have said, restrictive, and no other act being passed upon its repeal to limit again the judgment of the courts, they would revert at once to the former rule, and the Church gain instead of losing by the proceeding. In other words, the statute (1 Eliz. c. 1) shows what at all events the law, when most bent upon restriction, acknowledged as to those general councils, whilst its repeal only removes a limitation, and restores things again to their ancient footing. This is well stated in the following extract:—
“Our church law acknowledges many other heresies besides those which were condemned by the four first œcumenical councils. The clause in 1 Eliz. c. 1, which I quoted as the least stringent measure of heresy ever allowed among us, was repealed when the court which was restrained by it (the High Commission Court) was abolished; and now, whatever was heresy before the reformation is still heresy, (by 25 Hen. 8, c. 19, s. 7,) unless there have been special enactment to the contrary. Now there can be no question that the African canons were in force here before the reformation; for, whether received at Chalcedon or no, they had been severally received bythe whole Church, both east and west. Therefore it still remains to be proved, ‘that a bishop or archbishop, acting on the late decision, will not involve in direct heresy both himself and eventually all in communion with him,’ by the very law of the Church as at present existing.”—Letter,J. K. Guardian,May1st.1850.
“Our church law acknowledges many other heresies besides those which were condemned by the four first œcumenical councils. The clause in 1 Eliz. c. 1, which I quoted as the least stringent measure of heresy ever allowed among us, was repealed when the court which was restrained by it (the High Commission Court) was abolished; and now, whatever was heresy before the reformation is still heresy, (by 25 Hen. 8, c. 19, s. 7,) unless there have been special enactment to the contrary. Now there can be no question that the African canons were in force here before the reformation; for, whether received at Chalcedon or no, they had been severally received bythe whole Church, both east and west. Therefore it still remains to be proved, ‘that a bishop or archbishop, acting on the late decision, will not involve in direct heresy both himself and eventually all in communion with him,’ by the very law of the Church as at present existing.”—Letter,J. K. Guardian,May1st.1850.
IWILLventure to print in this place, as illustrative of several points touched upon in the preceding letter, and as showing that many of the views there set forth have not been of recent growth, or merely taken up as the readiest expedients to suit an emergency, part of a sermon preached (in my turn, as Master of Arts) before the University of Oxford. The sermon was preached upon St. Barnabas’ day, 1845. The early part, of which I do not here print more than a few sentences, was occupied with some considerations relating more immediately to the particular festival, and to the thoughts suggested as to conduct under ministerial discouragements by the “sharp contention” between Barnabas and Paul. The latter part is taken up more directly with general topics, as to our own difficulties and trials, and with some mention of the hope of a remedy by means of a general council. These few remarks will sufficiently introduce the extract which follows.
“Ye have need of patience.”Hebrewsx. 36, former part.Patiencewould be unnecessary if there were no trial: consolation would be out of place if there were no affliction. Without these, “the son of consolation” would not have found his office, nor received his distinctive name, in being added to the number of the apostles. But He who knew that he came, “not to send peace, but a sword;” whose advent was marked with blood, and his very birth, though it were “glad tidings of great joy which should be to all people,”yet gave occasion for the voice of “lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning;” whose own end was even of a piece with this beginning, when He had “blood sprinkled upon his garments,” and all his “raiment stained” therewith; the intermediate time, too, of whose mortal life was one of such hardship and privation that He had “not where to lay his head;” He who foretold that if men called “the Master of the house Beelzebub, much more would they so call them of the household;” whowarnedhis disciples that they should be “astheir Master,” andpromisedthem that they should indeed “drink of his cup, and be baptized with his baptism;”Hedid not fail to supply grace and consolation; a fitting and sufficient Paraclete for the nature which was thus to be tried, and the circumstances which should try it. And though, in the only full and perfect sense, theHoly GhostistheComforter, and that divineParaclete; yet also in a true, though inferior sense, as an instrument to the same end, such as the ever-blessed Son of God saw to be needed, it was appointed there should be one, even called by the same name, “a son of consolation,” in that Joses, surnamed by the Apostles, Barnabas. * * * * *But here I would extend our subject, and come more particularly to consider some of the trials and discouragements which we (weak and unworthy followers of the holy apostles) meet with in our ministry. “Ye have need of patience,” says the apostle. Let me then speak to-day, brethren, upon some of those trials and discouragements which beset the Church “in these last days when perilous times have come.” It is far too wide and large a subject to be fully treated of. I shall but touch on one or two points as I have found their pressure, and in so doing shall speak familiarly of the parochial charge.Now we know well that a distinctive character of the Church’s teaching is this, that she instructs her members that God’s grace, and therefore salvation, is not given (as we may say) at random, and by a mere inner motion of each man’s heart or mind; that our grafting into Christ, and our growth in Christian stature and grace (I mean, ofcourse, according to God’s ordinary mode of dealing with us, which is what only we have practically to consider;) that these blessings are not given according to a mere inner motion of each man’s heart or mind, but that (of God’s will and commandment, and for our good) they are, I say, in ordinary rule, linked and tied to ordinances: to a certain method of bestowal, and a certain method of reception; to his Church, and to the ministry of his word and sacraments. In other words, he saves us, not after a manner of each man’s own heart’s devising,but by covenant. If we would have his promises and his grace, we must seek them in the way of, and according to the terms of that covenant. So it is, we must teach; “Except any one be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” By the terms of the covenant: no promise of salvation to the unbaptized! Again: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” No promise of salvation to the non-communicant! Again: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained;” and, “He that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” No warrant, then, to any one to think he has a share in the gospel covenant, if he despise God’s ministry, and forsake his Church. Without these,whereare the valid sacraments? Without these,whereare the channels of saving grace? Without these,whereare the sure promises of the covenant? Alas! for the hardness of heart and unbelief of this our day, and this our country! Are such indeed God’s ways? are such his words? are such his works? (Yea, “He worketh, and no man regardeth.”) But is it not written (let us fear, lest it be forus), “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you?” If God indeed be strict with the despisers,—with those who deride the power of his sacraments, and their necessity,—how shall we abide it? If he come, and make inquisition with us of our faith, and question with us of our unbelief, shall not some one takeup his parable against us as a nation, and say, “Alas! who shall live when God doeth this?”For indeed and in truth, if thisbetruth touching the nature of God’s covenant,whoare there among us that believe it? “Whohath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” To a scanty few, I fear! Surely, comparatively to no more; even among those who have been baptized into the Church, and received the Church’s teaching. Let any man try seriously any approach, (which is all I profess to have tried,) any approach to the dealing with a parish upon the belief and system, that of those who are not partakers of the sacraments of the Church—of those who, though baptized, are not communicants, we have no right to hope, according to the terms of the Gospel covenant; and not only how arduous and discouraging a work will he find before him, from the practical neglect of these things, but how direct and open-mouthed will be the opposition of many, and how utter the disbelief of how many more, ay, even among such as call themselves members of the Church. Alas! the truth is, (let me say it, however sad, however startling! it may be useful,) the real truth is, that the belief of there being aone Holy,Catholic,and Apostolic Church, is almost gone from among us! The belief inONE BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, is almost gone from among us! The belief in theREAL POWER OF THE SACRAMENTSis almost gone from among us! The belief of there beingany Christian priesthood, and anyvaluein it, as such, is almost, (nay, among the mass,) quite gone from among us! Alas! how many of our people do not believe these things; will not endure them to be said; will risk their souls upon the chance of their being false; will sooner condemn the “quod semper, quod ubique, quod ob omnibus” of the Church for 1500 years, as an idle fable, than give the least reception into their hearts of such doctrines. And alas! even amongusourselves, the Christian ministry, there is, as men phrase it, difference of opinion. Instead of unity of sentiment, (rather, we should say, the one faith, once delivered,) there is “contention so sharp” that we all but depart, or do “depart one from theother:” and this gives the most frequent occasion both for enemies to blaspheme, and for the ignorant to be bewildered. Instead of our Church (i.e. by her ministers, and in her practical teaching: I speak not of her formularies,) with one mind and one mouth glorifying God,thesebring railing accusation the one against the other; andthatspeaks well-nigh the language of Babel: and the consequence is, as might be expected, the lay people, if pressed with the Church’s doctrines, and the neglect of the Church’s commands, (which are Christ’s) find, of course, an easy solution of their difficulty by observing that many clergymen think otherwise, and attach no importance to theseviews, (as they call them) either wholly neglecting them, or even speaking against them. And if a man thus pressed with the objection of diversity of opinion now-a-days, and at home, appeal to the concordant sense of the early Church, and to the even now united and distinct voice of separate branches of the Church, on such points as the nature and power of the Christian priesthood, and Christian sacraments: the distinct voice, I say, of all the Church, except ourselves, (for our’s, surely, practically in expression as heard among us, is uncertain and confused, though in itself it really have and bear the Catholic meaning,) if any one thus appeal to the voice of the Church at large on such points; a voice in some respects a more sure witness, as coming from those who are not agreed among themselves in others, what happens but the immediate cry of how many? “The man is false, and falleth away to the Chaldæans.” Thus the truth is stifled and borne down by clamour, and the authority of the Church is yet more set at nought, neglected, and despised.Many of those too, it is to be feared, who really are sound and orthodox upon the doctrines themselves, have yet been too fearful of stating the truth plainly, dreading the gainsaying of the multitude, or else the imputation of magnifying themselves, if they should endeavour to “magnify their office.” Nor, I suppose, will any man maintain (not I myselfofmyself, God knoweth,) that he has kept clear of such offence, though he may have tried somewhat where his lot has been cast, to make these doctrines of the Church andsacraments, and salvation by the terms of a covenant, not according to each man’s private feeling, or each man’s private judgment, the basis on which to give the knowledge that might “make wise unto salvation.” Yetwhowill dare to say other than that he has failed grievously, and fallen short miserably, both in the due development of such views, and in the effects which they are intended to produce: partly, no doubt, from his own deficiencies, but partly it may be also from lack of those weapons to carry on the warfare with which the Church intended to supply her soldiers; but which, alas! we are hardly allowed to wield!For, let us notice next, the most serious loss the Church sustains in the almost total suspension of her discipline, of her power of inflicting censures. Surely it is not wholly our people’s fault that they do not know the sinfulness of sin; nor our ministers’ fault that they cannot make them believe it, when the weapon with which they should smite they are obliged to leave rusting in the scabbard, and the pen with which they should write on a man’s forehead the penalty of his sin, (that he is excluded from the house of God, and cut off from Christian brotherhood,) is cast aside, and never used. Our people sin, and no note is taken of it! Our people sin, and the Church does not bear her witness against them! first, of private rebuke, next of openly censuring, and lastly of exclusion from her worship and sacraments, including herein (what would be a plain mark also for the living to see,) the refusing burial to those who refuse to seek reconciliation with her. She almost abdicates, as it were, her office of binding and loosing, and shall we wonder that men know not or care not whether they are bond or free? or, that with all ease and security they consider they are all free, though committing sin, which, in any period of effective discipline, would have received the solemn warning and most sure witness to its sinfulness, of excommunication. And how again, I say, does this work upon our familiar intercourse and daily teaching, and attempts to make our people believe the Church’s doctrines? They regard not what we say, because we act as though we did not ourselves believe it. Those whowouldbe excommunicate, were the canons but in half theirmeasure carried out, who die perchance in open schism, or other notorious sin,haveyet claimed for them the offices of the Church in their burial, and so, receiving these, the great witness of the Church against such courses of living, is rendered nugatory, or even worse. She even seems to witnessforthem. How, then, shall the mass of the careless and self-willed, be persuaded the Church thinks ill of the state in which those have lived, who have received no public censure, who have made their claim, and had it, at least passively allowed, to be buried, as her faithful children? Further still, regard this lack of discipline, as it affects the obedience of the people to the Church’s voice, if she speak, or were to speak again, with her just authority.Whosupposes that any real heed would be given to a censure of the Church, declaring such or such a man to be “rightly cut off” from its fellowship, “and excommunicate,” so that he “ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an heathen man, and a publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance?”Who, I say, supposes that such a sentence would now be regarded?Aresuch indeed regarded when rarely theydooccur?Or, again, look at the state of things among us, as to the confession of sin; I speak not of regular systematic confession; nor of self-sought confessions on the part of a disturbed and awakened mind, with the view to the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice; but merely with regard to such points as the Christian priest feels it often necessary to enquire into, lest a manwholly forget his sins, and so,wholly forget to repent of them. What is the awful result at which we arrive here also. Why, so entirely are people unused to be charged with their sins; so entirely are they accustomed to be letrememberwhat they please, and letforgetwhat they please, that they are only too apt consider all such helps to self-examination (I mean when it comes to particulars) to be an unwarrantable intrusion: at least this would be so, were the thing much attempted: and at any rate, so wholly are they used to justify themselves, and bent upon doing it, and determined to do it, that it sometimes requires the greatest caution andcircumspection before we can believe even a dying man’s account of his previous life. Men will confess indeed what is notorious; what they know is known; but where they think a matter hidden, there they will deceive. Alas! I fear, people will speak untruly, even when spoken to most solemnly on such points. They will speak untruly to God’s minister. They will speak untruly to him on their sick bed. They will speak untruly even on their death-bed. They will speak untruly, I fear, even whenthey knowit is their death-bed. They will desire to receive the Holy Communion, without having spoken the truth, but whilst persisting in their lie. I do not say such extreme things are common, or wholly attributable to any condition of want of discipline, but I am certain they exist, and I do fear they are much owing to our having no system of discipline, by which in health, persons are made aware, that the priest of God is in any wise to be had recourse to, as an adviser, and ghostly counseller, or that he has any thing to do with their sins, or practically with the mode of remitting them in the name of God. So the fear and shame attendant on speaking to any one whom they have never considered in his true relation to their sin, and to their souls, and with whom, it may be, they have always had the natural desire to stand well, as with other respectable persons in their parish; these things overpower all other considerations, even in sickness and in death; and we not only very scantily attain to true accounts, but have hardly even the power to keep back from communion those who we may feel sure are thus attempting to deceive us.Now I think it is plain, these defects rest not entirely (surely we may say, not chiefly) on individuals. What is, as a nation, our great reproach, is, as individuals, our best excuse. The fault lies in our system: in that practically worked and working system which we have among us. We have well-nigh no weapons to fight with—and we wonder that we gain no victory. We have no means to make people believe the Church system, as it exists in theory, is true, or is important, and we wonder men neglect the sacraments. We cannot grapple with the wants of ourpeople;—hardly with the cravings of the earnest-minded on the one hand, and not at all adequately with the mass of irreligion, infidelity, and schismatical proceeding on the other.These are but a few thoughts, on a small part, of a most large and painful subject.But truly, “enough,” it may be said, “we have of [ministerial] trials and discouragements. Every one knows it. To what end then, merely to enumerate, and bewail them? Where, rather is the remedy; and what is the drift of these observations?”I will very briefly address myself to this point, before I conclude.First, then, surely, these things being so: it is well to know them. If they are so, we have need ofpatience, but surely we have need also offear. In the days of Jehoiachim, King of Judah, when iniquity abounded, and wickedness came to that pass, that the Word of the Prophet’s Roll, was not honoured, but “cut with the penknife,” and “burned in the fire,” what was even the additional sign of the hardness of heart then prevailing? When this was done, “yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments: neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words.” The utmost that was done was only this:—that “Elnathan, and Delaiah, and Gemariah, made intercession to the king, that he would not burn the Roll, but he would not hear them.” And, if now in our day our evil state be such, that, as I have said, if we do not discard, yet we much disbelieve God’s teaching; following any teacher of heresy or schism, whom we please, or following just the rule of our own private spirits; if thus doing, we have lost practically from among us, that is, from among the great bulk of our people, the belief of there being any Christian priesthood: the true doctrine of the nature, power, and importance of the sacraments: (I speak not of places where, under peculiarly advantageous circumstances, Catholic truth has been more closely brought home, but of the general state, if you “numbered the people” throughout the land, in our dense city populationsand crowded manufacturing towns; nay, in our wild rural districts and sequestered villages also,) if throughout the country generally our evil state be such, that not one in a hundred of our population ever dreams of coming to communion; if, again, when we, as God’s ministers; press upon them their duties, and privileges in such matters, speaking plainly, boldly, and without circumlocution the Church’s language; if then “bye and bye they are offended;” if, being offended, they will, as it were, excommunicate themselves,and think nothing of it; if, indeed, we seem to be living especially in that time and place where men “will not endure sound doctrine,” surely there is needof fear! yet, for all this,whereare our fears?whereare our lamentations?whereare the signs of our repentings! Nay, on the contrary, we havenotfeared; we havenotmourned; we havenothumbled ourselves; rather we have boasted, and been puffed up, as if we were better than our neighbours! Oh! I ask again, where indeed are our prayers; where our sorrows; where our fastings, for the sin and misery of our state? Where are our “supplications offered up with strong cryings and tears unto him that is able to save us,” with the hope “that we may be heardin that we fear.” “Mine eye runneth down with rivers of water,” says the prophet, “for the destruction of the daughter of my people.” “Oh! that my head were waters,” he says again, “and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people.” But, alas! is itsowith us? Rather is it not—that we arenothumbled: we arenotashamed: we arenotalarmed. We are in evil case, but we see it not. We are in awful blindness; and yetsoblinded, we find not our want of eyes. We are dull and heavy with sleep, yetsoinapprehensive, that we think ourselves in light and vigour: we cannot see the signs of woe, nor hear the sounds of warning!And where are our means or hope of our remedy? The remedy for such a state of things?Surely,if any where,first,in being awakened,next in humiliation,and then in patience. We “have need of patience,” and all other thingswill fail without it. But with humility, and with patience there may be hope; “a hope that maketh not ashamed.” Oh! if we seek God rightly, “surely there must be hope in thine end, that thy children shall come again to their own border,” as saith the prophet.If I humbly may, without going through other hopes, or ways of remedy, however nearer, more immediate, and more depending upon ourselves, (such for instance as the remedies that might come from the godly gathering together again of the Church’s National Synod); without dwelling upon such topics, I will direct your thoughts to one source of consolation and hope of remedy yet wider, more general, and more complete; more powerful and direct (if ever it please God to grant it us) than any other means, to salve our wounds, and restore the efficiency of our Church’s working for the salvation of souls. Surely there may be hope to heal our distractions, and to restore true faith and doctrine among us, (nay, even to domorethan this,) by a general council of the Church, if it please God to allow such to be again assembled. I know not what should forbid the hope. A general council of Christendom, East and West together might do such things for us, that “then should our mouth be filled with laughter, and our tongue with joy;” till it should “be told out among the heathen, the Lord hath done great things for them whereof they may” well “rejoice.”Why should we not pray, and hope, that universal Christendom might meet again in council. I do not mean now, at once. I fear we are not fit for such a council, if it came. We should refuse to submit to it. We should despise its authority; and too probably, at once repudiate its decrees. If it were to come so, and wesoto receive it, we might only be filling up the measure of our iniquity. But,ifwe prepare for it, God may give it us, when we can receive it in a better temper. If we prepare for it, hoping for it, longing for it, and being ready to submit rightly, and give due weight to it, God may make it our remedy, and the healing of all our distractions, heart-burnings, and disorders. We may become again a united people among ourselves: oreven if all the nationwillnot be re-absorbed into the Church, yet we who are of the Church may be again of one mind, andre-union in Christendom might follow! Oh! if this were so indeed, “who should express the noble acts of the Lord, or shew forth all his praise?” “Then,” indeed, “should the earth bring forth her increase, and God, even our own God should give us his blessing. God should bless us, and all the ends of the world should fear him!” Oh! then, let him who would deserve well of the Church of England, pray yet for such a day; and set forward constantly and continually the mind and temper which shall first long for, and next be prepared for, such a council. The temper which would not presumptuously reject, but gladly accept such appeal to smooth our differences and sharp contentions, is perhaps our best defence against the danger, or the charge of schism; and when we are in such a mind, let us not fear, but rather let us humbly hope, that the general council will come. Nay, be not impatient: be content to wait for years upon years, seeking to grow towards it, in love, and preparation for it. Perchance it would be of the Lord, even were it now ordered by authority that one day weekly, besides the Church’s continued rule of a weekly fast, should be set apart; (and gladly by many would it be observed) as a day of humiliation, and of prayer: if it were appointed, for seven, for fourteen, nay, for forty years, (it may be needful a generation should pass away, as was the case in those that came up out of Egypt;) whilst we earnestly continued to supplicate and beseech our God that it might please him thus to grant us peace and consolation: that what we lack might be restored to us, even “the years which the locust, and the caterpillar, and the canker-worm have eaten;” a renewed strength, a good courage, a sound discipline, a believing heart; surely all things are possible with him, “He bloweth with his wind, and the waters flow.” ToHIMlet us pray, and inHIMlet us trust, who can “renew our strength as eagles:” who is “mighty to save:” “who only doeth wondrous things:” who can “make a way under us for to go,” even when there seemeth no path, and disentangle all theknots, even of men’s evil hearts, and evil passions. But “we have need of patience.” “Let us runwith patiencethe race that is set before us.” “In our patiencepossess we our souls.” In this spirit, therefore, let us then thank God, and hope in God, and proceed upon our way!
“Ye have need of patience.”
Hebrewsx. 36, former part.
Patiencewould be unnecessary if there were no trial: consolation would be out of place if there were no affliction. Without these, “the son of consolation” would not have found his office, nor received his distinctive name, in being added to the number of the apostles. But He who knew that he came, “not to send peace, but a sword;” whose advent was marked with blood, and his very birth, though it were “glad tidings of great joy which should be to all people,”yet gave occasion for the voice of “lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning;” whose own end was even of a piece with this beginning, when He had “blood sprinkled upon his garments,” and all his “raiment stained” therewith; the intermediate time, too, of whose mortal life was one of such hardship and privation that He had “not where to lay his head;” He who foretold that if men called “the Master of the house Beelzebub, much more would they so call them of the household;” whowarnedhis disciples that they should be “astheir Master,” andpromisedthem that they should indeed “drink of his cup, and be baptized with his baptism;”Hedid not fail to supply grace and consolation; a fitting and sufficient Paraclete for the nature which was thus to be tried, and the circumstances which should try it. And though, in the only full and perfect sense, theHoly GhostistheComforter, and that divineParaclete; yet also in a true, though inferior sense, as an instrument to the same end, such as the ever-blessed Son of God saw to be needed, it was appointed there should be one, even called by the same name, “a son of consolation,” in that Joses, surnamed by the Apostles, Barnabas. * * * * *
But here I would extend our subject, and come more particularly to consider some of the trials and discouragements which we (weak and unworthy followers of the holy apostles) meet with in our ministry. “Ye have need of patience,” says the apostle. Let me then speak to-day, brethren, upon some of those trials and discouragements which beset the Church “in these last days when perilous times have come.” It is far too wide and large a subject to be fully treated of. I shall but touch on one or two points as I have found their pressure, and in so doing shall speak familiarly of the parochial charge.
Now we know well that a distinctive character of the Church’s teaching is this, that she instructs her members that God’s grace, and therefore salvation, is not given (as we may say) at random, and by a mere inner motion of each man’s heart or mind; that our grafting into Christ, and our growth in Christian stature and grace (I mean, ofcourse, according to God’s ordinary mode of dealing with us, which is what only we have practically to consider;) that these blessings are not given according to a mere inner motion of each man’s heart or mind, but that (of God’s will and commandment, and for our good) they are, I say, in ordinary rule, linked and tied to ordinances: to a certain method of bestowal, and a certain method of reception; to his Church, and to the ministry of his word and sacraments. In other words, he saves us, not after a manner of each man’s own heart’s devising,but by covenant. If we would have his promises and his grace, we must seek them in the way of, and according to the terms of that covenant. So it is, we must teach; “Except any one be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” By the terms of the covenant: no promise of salvation to the unbaptized! Again: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” No promise of salvation to the non-communicant! Again: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained;” and, “He that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” No warrant, then, to any one to think he has a share in the gospel covenant, if he despise God’s ministry, and forsake his Church. Without these,whereare the valid sacraments? Without these,whereare the channels of saving grace? Without these,whereare the sure promises of the covenant? Alas! for the hardness of heart and unbelief of this our day, and this our country! Are such indeed God’s ways? are such his words? are such his works? (Yea, “He worketh, and no man regardeth.”) But is it not written (let us fear, lest it be forus), “Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you?” If God indeed be strict with the despisers,—with those who deride the power of his sacraments, and their necessity,—how shall we abide it? If he come, and make inquisition with us of our faith, and question with us of our unbelief, shall not some one takeup his parable against us as a nation, and say, “Alas! who shall live when God doeth this?”
For indeed and in truth, if thisbetruth touching the nature of God’s covenant,whoare there among us that believe it? “Whohath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” To a scanty few, I fear! Surely, comparatively to no more; even among those who have been baptized into the Church, and received the Church’s teaching. Let any man try seriously any approach, (which is all I profess to have tried,) any approach to the dealing with a parish upon the belief and system, that of those who are not partakers of the sacraments of the Church—of those who, though baptized, are not communicants, we have no right to hope, according to the terms of the Gospel covenant; and not only how arduous and discouraging a work will he find before him, from the practical neglect of these things, but how direct and open-mouthed will be the opposition of many, and how utter the disbelief of how many more, ay, even among such as call themselves members of the Church. Alas! the truth is, (let me say it, however sad, however startling! it may be useful,) the real truth is, that the belief of there being aone Holy,Catholic,and Apostolic Church, is almost gone from among us! The belief inONE BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, is almost gone from among us! The belief in theREAL POWER OF THE SACRAMENTSis almost gone from among us! The belief of there beingany Christian priesthood, and anyvaluein it, as such, is almost, (nay, among the mass,) quite gone from among us! Alas! how many of our people do not believe these things; will not endure them to be said; will risk their souls upon the chance of their being false; will sooner condemn the “quod semper, quod ubique, quod ob omnibus” of the Church for 1500 years, as an idle fable, than give the least reception into their hearts of such doctrines. And alas! even amongusourselves, the Christian ministry, there is, as men phrase it, difference of opinion. Instead of unity of sentiment, (rather, we should say, the one faith, once delivered,) there is “contention so sharp” that we all but depart, or do “depart one from theother:” and this gives the most frequent occasion both for enemies to blaspheme, and for the ignorant to be bewildered. Instead of our Church (i.e. by her ministers, and in her practical teaching: I speak not of her formularies,) with one mind and one mouth glorifying God,thesebring railing accusation the one against the other; andthatspeaks well-nigh the language of Babel: and the consequence is, as might be expected, the lay people, if pressed with the Church’s doctrines, and the neglect of the Church’s commands, (which are Christ’s) find, of course, an easy solution of their difficulty by observing that many clergymen think otherwise, and attach no importance to theseviews, (as they call them) either wholly neglecting them, or even speaking against them. And if a man thus pressed with the objection of diversity of opinion now-a-days, and at home, appeal to the concordant sense of the early Church, and to the even now united and distinct voice of separate branches of the Church, on such points as the nature and power of the Christian priesthood, and Christian sacraments: the distinct voice, I say, of all the Church, except ourselves, (for our’s, surely, practically in expression as heard among us, is uncertain and confused, though in itself it really have and bear the Catholic meaning,) if any one thus appeal to the voice of the Church at large on such points; a voice in some respects a more sure witness, as coming from those who are not agreed among themselves in others, what happens but the immediate cry of how many? “The man is false, and falleth away to the Chaldæans.” Thus the truth is stifled and borne down by clamour, and the authority of the Church is yet more set at nought, neglected, and despised.
Many of those too, it is to be feared, who really are sound and orthodox upon the doctrines themselves, have yet been too fearful of stating the truth plainly, dreading the gainsaying of the multitude, or else the imputation of magnifying themselves, if they should endeavour to “magnify their office.” Nor, I suppose, will any man maintain (not I myselfofmyself, God knoweth,) that he has kept clear of such offence, though he may have tried somewhat where his lot has been cast, to make these doctrines of the Church andsacraments, and salvation by the terms of a covenant, not according to each man’s private feeling, or each man’s private judgment, the basis on which to give the knowledge that might “make wise unto salvation.” Yetwhowill dare to say other than that he has failed grievously, and fallen short miserably, both in the due development of such views, and in the effects which they are intended to produce: partly, no doubt, from his own deficiencies, but partly it may be also from lack of those weapons to carry on the warfare with which the Church intended to supply her soldiers; but which, alas! we are hardly allowed to wield!
For, let us notice next, the most serious loss the Church sustains in the almost total suspension of her discipline, of her power of inflicting censures. Surely it is not wholly our people’s fault that they do not know the sinfulness of sin; nor our ministers’ fault that they cannot make them believe it, when the weapon with which they should smite they are obliged to leave rusting in the scabbard, and the pen with which they should write on a man’s forehead the penalty of his sin, (that he is excluded from the house of God, and cut off from Christian brotherhood,) is cast aside, and never used. Our people sin, and no note is taken of it! Our people sin, and the Church does not bear her witness against them! first, of private rebuke, next of openly censuring, and lastly of exclusion from her worship and sacraments, including herein (what would be a plain mark also for the living to see,) the refusing burial to those who refuse to seek reconciliation with her. She almost abdicates, as it were, her office of binding and loosing, and shall we wonder that men know not or care not whether they are bond or free? or, that with all ease and security they consider they are all free, though committing sin, which, in any period of effective discipline, would have received the solemn warning and most sure witness to its sinfulness, of excommunication. And how again, I say, does this work upon our familiar intercourse and daily teaching, and attempts to make our people believe the Church’s doctrines? They regard not what we say, because we act as though we did not ourselves believe it. Those whowouldbe excommunicate, were the canons but in half theirmeasure carried out, who die perchance in open schism, or other notorious sin,haveyet claimed for them the offices of the Church in their burial, and so, receiving these, the great witness of the Church against such courses of living, is rendered nugatory, or even worse. She even seems to witnessforthem. How, then, shall the mass of the careless and self-willed, be persuaded the Church thinks ill of the state in which those have lived, who have received no public censure, who have made their claim, and had it, at least passively allowed, to be buried, as her faithful children? Further still, regard this lack of discipline, as it affects the obedience of the people to the Church’s voice, if she speak, or were to speak again, with her just authority.Whosupposes that any real heed would be given to a censure of the Church, declaring such or such a man to be “rightly cut off” from its fellowship, “and excommunicate,” so that he “ought to be taken of the whole multitude of the faithful as an heathen man, and a publican, until he be openly reconciled by penance?”Who, I say, supposes that such a sentence would now be regarded?Aresuch indeed regarded when rarely theydooccur?
Or, again, look at the state of things among us, as to the confession of sin; I speak not of regular systematic confession; nor of self-sought confessions on the part of a disturbed and awakened mind, with the view to the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice; but merely with regard to such points as the Christian priest feels it often necessary to enquire into, lest a manwholly forget his sins, and so,wholly forget to repent of them. What is the awful result at which we arrive here also. Why, so entirely are people unused to be charged with their sins; so entirely are they accustomed to be letrememberwhat they please, and letforgetwhat they please, that they are only too apt consider all such helps to self-examination (I mean when it comes to particulars) to be an unwarrantable intrusion: at least this would be so, were the thing much attempted: and at any rate, so wholly are they used to justify themselves, and bent upon doing it, and determined to do it, that it sometimes requires the greatest caution andcircumspection before we can believe even a dying man’s account of his previous life. Men will confess indeed what is notorious; what they know is known; but where they think a matter hidden, there they will deceive. Alas! I fear, people will speak untruly, even when spoken to most solemnly on such points. They will speak untruly to God’s minister. They will speak untruly to him on their sick bed. They will speak untruly even on their death-bed. They will speak untruly, I fear, even whenthey knowit is their death-bed. They will desire to receive the Holy Communion, without having spoken the truth, but whilst persisting in their lie. I do not say such extreme things are common, or wholly attributable to any condition of want of discipline, but I am certain they exist, and I do fear they are much owing to our having no system of discipline, by which in health, persons are made aware, that the priest of God is in any wise to be had recourse to, as an adviser, and ghostly counseller, or that he has any thing to do with their sins, or practically with the mode of remitting them in the name of God. So the fear and shame attendant on speaking to any one whom they have never considered in his true relation to their sin, and to their souls, and with whom, it may be, they have always had the natural desire to stand well, as with other respectable persons in their parish; these things overpower all other considerations, even in sickness and in death; and we not only very scantily attain to true accounts, but have hardly even the power to keep back from communion those who we may feel sure are thus attempting to deceive us.
Now I think it is plain, these defects rest not entirely (surely we may say, not chiefly) on individuals. What is, as a nation, our great reproach, is, as individuals, our best excuse. The fault lies in our system: in that practically worked and working system which we have among us. We have well-nigh no weapons to fight with—and we wonder that we gain no victory. We have no means to make people believe the Church system, as it exists in theory, is true, or is important, and we wonder men neglect the sacraments. We cannot grapple with the wants of ourpeople;—hardly with the cravings of the earnest-minded on the one hand, and not at all adequately with the mass of irreligion, infidelity, and schismatical proceeding on the other.
These are but a few thoughts, on a small part, of a most large and painful subject.
But truly, “enough,” it may be said, “we have of [ministerial] trials and discouragements. Every one knows it. To what end then, merely to enumerate, and bewail them? Where, rather is the remedy; and what is the drift of these observations?”
I will very briefly address myself to this point, before I conclude.
First, then, surely, these things being so: it is well to know them. If they are so, we have need ofpatience, but surely we have need also offear. In the days of Jehoiachim, King of Judah, when iniquity abounded, and wickedness came to that pass, that the Word of the Prophet’s Roll, was not honoured, but “cut with the penknife,” and “burned in the fire,” what was even the additional sign of the hardness of heart then prevailing? When this was done, “yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments: neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words.” The utmost that was done was only this:—that “Elnathan, and Delaiah, and Gemariah, made intercession to the king, that he would not burn the Roll, but he would not hear them.” And, if now in our day our evil state be such, that, as I have said, if we do not discard, yet we much disbelieve God’s teaching; following any teacher of heresy or schism, whom we please, or following just the rule of our own private spirits; if thus doing, we have lost practically from among us, that is, from among the great bulk of our people, the belief of there being any Christian priesthood: the true doctrine of the nature, power, and importance of the sacraments: (I speak not of places where, under peculiarly advantageous circumstances, Catholic truth has been more closely brought home, but of the general state, if you “numbered the people” throughout the land, in our dense city populationsand crowded manufacturing towns; nay, in our wild rural districts and sequestered villages also,) if throughout the country generally our evil state be such, that not one in a hundred of our population ever dreams of coming to communion; if, again, when we, as God’s ministers; press upon them their duties, and privileges in such matters, speaking plainly, boldly, and without circumlocution the Church’s language; if then “bye and bye they are offended;” if, being offended, they will, as it were, excommunicate themselves,and think nothing of it; if, indeed, we seem to be living especially in that time and place where men “will not endure sound doctrine,” surely there is needof fear! yet, for all this,whereare our fears?whereare our lamentations?whereare the signs of our repentings! Nay, on the contrary, we havenotfeared; we havenotmourned; we havenothumbled ourselves; rather we have boasted, and been puffed up, as if we were better than our neighbours! Oh! I ask again, where indeed are our prayers; where our sorrows; where our fastings, for the sin and misery of our state? Where are our “supplications offered up with strong cryings and tears unto him that is able to save us,” with the hope “that we may be heardin that we fear.” “Mine eye runneth down with rivers of water,” says the prophet, “for the destruction of the daughter of my people.” “Oh! that my head were waters,” he says again, “and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people.” But, alas! is itsowith us? Rather is it not—that we arenothumbled: we arenotashamed: we arenotalarmed. We are in evil case, but we see it not. We are in awful blindness; and yetsoblinded, we find not our want of eyes. We are dull and heavy with sleep, yetsoinapprehensive, that we think ourselves in light and vigour: we cannot see the signs of woe, nor hear the sounds of warning!
And where are our means or hope of our remedy? The remedy for such a state of things?Surely,if any where,first,in being awakened,next in humiliation,and then in patience. We “have need of patience,” and all other thingswill fail without it. But with humility, and with patience there may be hope; “a hope that maketh not ashamed.” Oh! if we seek God rightly, “surely there must be hope in thine end, that thy children shall come again to their own border,” as saith the prophet.
If I humbly may, without going through other hopes, or ways of remedy, however nearer, more immediate, and more depending upon ourselves, (such for instance as the remedies that might come from the godly gathering together again of the Church’s National Synod); without dwelling upon such topics, I will direct your thoughts to one source of consolation and hope of remedy yet wider, more general, and more complete; more powerful and direct (if ever it please God to grant it us) than any other means, to salve our wounds, and restore the efficiency of our Church’s working for the salvation of souls. Surely there may be hope to heal our distractions, and to restore true faith and doctrine among us, (nay, even to domorethan this,) by a general council of the Church, if it please God to allow such to be again assembled. I know not what should forbid the hope. A general council of Christendom, East and West together might do such things for us, that “then should our mouth be filled with laughter, and our tongue with joy;” till it should “be told out among the heathen, the Lord hath done great things for them whereof they may” well “rejoice.”
Why should we not pray, and hope, that universal Christendom might meet again in council. I do not mean now, at once. I fear we are not fit for such a council, if it came. We should refuse to submit to it. We should despise its authority; and too probably, at once repudiate its decrees. If it were to come so, and wesoto receive it, we might only be filling up the measure of our iniquity. But,ifwe prepare for it, God may give it us, when we can receive it in a better temper. If we prepare for it, hoping for it, longing for it, and being ready to submit rightly, and give due weight to it, God may make it our remedy, and the healing of all our distractions, heart-burnings, and disorders. We may become again a united people among ourselves: oreven if all the nationwillnot be re-absorbed into the Church, yet we who are of the Church may be again of one mind, andre-union in Christendom might follow! Oh! if this were so indeed, “who should express the noble acts of the Lord, or shew forth all his praise?” “Then,” indeed, “should the earth bring forth her increase, and God, even our own God should give us his blessing. God should bless us, and all the ends of the world should fear him!” Oh! then, let him who would deserve well of the Church of England, pray yet for such a day; and set forward constantly and continually the mind and temper which shall first long for, and next be prepared for, such a council. The temper which would not presumptuously reject, but gladly accept such appeal to smooth our differences and sharp contentions, is perhaps our best defence against the danger, or the charge of schism; and when we are in such a mind, let us not fear, but rather let us humbly hope, that the general council will come. Nay, be not impatient: be content to wait for years upon years, seeking to grow towards it, in love, and preparation for it. Perchance it would be of the Lord, even were it now ordered by authority that one day weekly, besides the Church’s continued rule of a weekly fast, should be set apart; (and gladly by many would it be observed) as a day of humiliation, and of prayer: if it were appointed, for seven, for fourteen, nay, for forty years, (it may be needful a generation should pass away, as was the case in those that came up out of Egypt;) whilst we earnestly continued to supplicate and beseech our God that it might please him thus to grant us peace and consolation: that what we lack might be restored to us, even “the years which the locust, and the caterpillar, and the canker-worm have eaten;” a renewed strength, a good courage, a sound discipline, a believing heart; surely all things are possible with him, “He bloweth with his wind, and the waters flow.” ToHIMlet us pray, and inHIMlet us trust, who can “renew our strength as eagles:” who is “mighty to save:” “who only doeth wondrous things:” who can “make a way under us for to go,” even when there seemeth no path, and disentangle all theknots, even of men’s evil hearts, and evil passions. But “we have need of patience.” “Let us runwith patiencethe race that is set before us.” “In our patiencepossess we our souls.” In this spirit, therefore, let us then thank God, and hope in God, and proceed upon our way!
FINIS.
C. Whittingham, Chiswick.
[6]Second Letter, p. 4.
[8]The above was written several weeks before Mr. Maskell took the final step which he has since taken. Possibly many will point to this, and wonder at my blind credulity, as it will seem to them. But, I neither cancel, nor wish to cancel, any part of my remarks. All I will venture to do, is to add (and I trust I shall have Mr. Maskell’s forgiveness, under these peculiar circumstances, for quoting from a private letter) one or two extracts which may perhaps help to justify what I have said, and do him at the same time no wrong. In a letter to me, bearing date, “Easter Eve, 1850,” not long before the publication of the “Second Letter,” he says—“I wish, for my own present comfort, that I had yournowfaith, hope, trust and determination; but I havenot—yet let me think that we may yet be, as we ever have been, true friends; you will not repudiate me, even if I do find that for a while we must be separate in communion; for you will know, surely, that I am not one who ‘would change his faith like a garment unsuited to the clime in which he dwells.’ . . . All this is sad enough—sad for it will break up many ties near and very dear. . . . Well! it is God’s will—now one, now another; here a few; there many: as He sees fit, so He calls, and so weoughtto obey. . . . I am very, very sad: sad especially, because of seeming to desert and forsake one acting so nobly and so bravely as my Bishop.Hehas no doubt about the Church of England: yetIknow that, at whatever cost and pain, God’s truth alone must be fought for. Yet for all this, do not conclude that I havedecided:—only, you will be prepared to know that the first step has been taken, I mean resignation—and with it my second letter. . . . Pray do not judge me harshly. . . . What an Easter! yet one day there will be the rising of the morning of the resurrection: may God grant to you and me, and all whom we love, so to do our duty here towards him, and to his Church, and to the faith, that we may begladto look upon the brightness of those beams. Here all seems trouble and anxiety and fear; sorrows, and regret, and parting. I have had sorrows before this: scarcely any, nayNONE, (canit be true?) more bitter. There is now responsibility; before, endurance only. God ever bless you, my dear Friend, ever yours affectionately—W. M.” And in a letter somewhat later, written I believe on my first intimating my intention to publish a second letter to him: he says—“Clear up these doubts; not one or two, but generally the subject of the dogmatic teaching; say, especially, with reference to justification and the Holy Eucharist, and no man will bless you more fervently than I shall.” Those who do not know Mr. Maskell may judge him hardly. I trust I shall never have that guilt upon my conscience, however I differ from him, or combat his conclusions. And perhaps some even of those who may have been least indulgent to him heretofore, will not now so much question my remarks, and may possibly believe I know him at least as well as they do.
[10]Second Letter, p., 77.
[12]Second Letter, App., p., 85.
[13]Second Letter, App., pp., 85, 86.
[14a]Letter to Maskell, p. 7.
[14b]Ibid. pp. 14, 15.
[15]See Appendix A.
[18]Second Letter, pp. 78, 79.
[20]Second Letter, p. 19, note; p. 75.
[21]Judgment of the Privy Council, p. 18.
[22a]Judgment of the Privy Council, p. 18.
[22b]Appendix B.
[23]Lord Campbell’s first letter to Miss Sellon, Guardian, April 17th.
[24]Lord Campbell in his second letter to Miss Sellon, (Guardian, Ap. 17,) has these words, which are likewise remarkable. “No reproach can be brought upon her (the Church of England) by a misconstruction of her articles and formularies; and it must be a very slight reproach to her if she has omitted to denounce one false doctrine as heretical, considering that no Christian Church has professed to settle dogmatically all points of doctrine.” The beginning of this sentence is a tolerably bold assumption, I think, unless Lord Campbell will allow a few words to be supplied, to explain what I trust he will feel to be an omission; that no reproach will come upon her, by a misconstruction of her formularies, by that court,if only with all her heart and soul,she set herself to correct it,and cast the misconstruction from her: but the latter part of the above quotation seems to admit of no palliation by any possible addition, and is surely a most marvellous slip for a mind of any acuteness to have made. “A very slight reproach,” Lord Campbell says it must be, “to have omitted to denounce one false doctrine as heretical;” without apparently a single thought as towhatthe doctrine in question may be. That it is an article of the creed which is expunged, and therefore denied, appears never to have crossed his Lordship’s mind, as worthy of the slightest consideration. “It isbut onedoctrine out of many:—reckon them up by tale, and you will never missone:—no Churches settleeverything:—why then so uneasy?” What hope, what possible chance that a mind constituted so as to beableto write such a sentence, can ever have appreciated, or believed, or understood, the meaning or importance of dogmatic teaching at all. Had he lived in the time of the Arian controversy, could the writer of the above sentence have believed it was possible any matter of moment was, or could be, involved in so minute a distinction as in the two letters of the ὁμοούσιον, that itcouldbe worth the toil of Athanasius’s life, to contend for so slight a point? and repay all the labours and persecutions of a host of saints to win it? and in truth Lord Campbell’s method of arguing, or consolation to an afflicted Church, would apply just as much, had it been the doctrine of the atonement, or of the divinity of the Son of God, which had been brought in question by Mr. Gorham’s examination. “No need to settle every thing. Sooneopen question can be no great matter, and no great reproach!”
[27a]Judgment, p. 8.
[27b]Judgment, p. 9.
[28a]Bp. of Exeter’s Letter, p. 52.
[28b]Efficacy of Baptism, p. 85.
[28c]P. 88.
[28d]P. 112.
[28e]P. 113.
[29]P. 197.
[30a]Judgment, p. 14.
[30b]Ibid. 14.
[31]A letter in the Guardian, of March 13th, signed “Solicitus,” has placed this statement in a very intelligible point of view. As it is brief I will venture to quote it.
“It has been asserted by the Privy Council that the baptismal and burial offices are parallel cases:—wehopethat the child is regenerate: wehopethe dead brother is to rise to eternal life?“But are the cases parallel? Is it not a notorious fact, that at the Savoy Conference in consequence of the Puritan objections, the words ‘in sure and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life’ were altered into ‘in sure and certain hope ofthe’ (i.e. the general) ‘resurrection to eternal life.’ And on the other hand when the words ‘it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant by thy Holy Spirit,’ were objected to by the same parties (on the ground that the ‘regeneration of every child that is baptised,’ is at least’ a ‘disputable point,’) no alteration was made. How came this to pass? Surely the Church of England wanted to show that her language with regard to the dead was only that of charitable hope; but that she held the doctrine of regeneration in baptism absolutely and without qualification.—Yours, faithfully,“Solicitus.”
“It has been asserted by the Privy Council that the baptismal and burial offices are parallel cases:—wehopethat the child is regenerate: wehopethe dead brother is to rise to eternal life?
“But are the cases parallel? Is it not a notorious fact, that at the Savoy Conference in consequence of the Puritan objections, the words ‘in sure and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life’ were altered into ‘in sure and certain hope ofthe’ (i.e. the general) ‘resurrection to eternal life.’ And on the other hand when the words ‘it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant by thy Holy Spirit,’ were objected to by the same parties (on the ground that the ‘regeneration of every child that is baptised,’ is at least’ a ‘disputable point,’) no alteration was made. How came this to pass? Surely the Church of England wanted to show that her language with regard to the dead was only that of charitable hope; but that she held the doctrine of regeneration in baptism absolutely and without qualification.—Yours, faithfully,
“Solicitus.”
As I have said, the notion of the general resurrection being the object of the hope alluded to, appears never to have presented itself to the mind of the Court. If it did not; where was their ability? If it did; where their honesty; so entirely to suppress all mention of it, andforcethis service to one construction only, in order to open the door to many constructions in another?
[33]Faery Queen, Book I. C. IX. St. 43.
[34a]See Appendix C.
[34b]Judgment of Sir H. J. Fust, p. 48.
[34c]Office for Private Baptism of Infants.
[35a]Office for Private Baptism of Infants. See also Appendix D.
[35b]Badeley’s Speech, pp. 58, 59.
[36a]Judgment, p. 16.
[36b]Ibid.
[37a]See Bishop of Exeter’s Letter, p. 88.
[37b]Judgment, p. 17.
[38]Judgment, p. 17.
[40]Rubric in Office for private Baptism.
[42]It is obvious,sanctified, orhath sanctifiedwould not express the sense intended; just as the Holy Ghost whocomforted, orhath comforted, would not convey the meaning of the words “The Holy Ghost” (who is,) “the Comforter.”
[46]“In any ordinary set of circumstances, in the case of an enclosure, of a railway or matter of property, we should have no question whatever that the doubt of any one on the bench would have made further enquiry desirable. I should instantly have agreed, &c.” Lord Denman’s judgement in the Hampden case; Report of the Case of the Right Rev. R. D. Hampden, D.D. by R. Jebb, Esq. p. 495. See also Appendix E.
[48]Appendix F.
[50]Maskell on Absolution, p. 49.
[51]Maskell’s Doctrine of Absolution, pp. 49, 50.
[52]Maskell’s Doctrine of Absolution, pp. 50, 51.
[54]Maskell’s Second Letter, pp. 41, 42.
[59a]It may be worth while to observe here also how entirely this principle is acknowledged in the foundations of English law. I should indeed soon get beyond my depth, were I to attempt an analysis of this part of the subject; but I gladly avail myself of the labours of another whose pen and legal knowledge the present crisis has put in motion, to bring into juxtaposition with my own observations, one or two of the acknowledged maxims by which the construction of legal documents among us is governed. Mr. Chambers,[59b]in his recent letter to the Bishop of Salisbury, has several times referred to this subject. Thus he quotes Mr. Dwarris (himself quoting Lord Coke):—
“To know what the common law was before the making of a statute, whereby it may be seen whether the statute be introductory of a new law, or only affirmatory of the common law, is the very lock and key to open the windows of the statute. For it is not to be presumed that the Legislature intended to make any innovation upon the common law further than the case absolutely required; the law rather infersthat the act did not intend to make any alteration other than what is specified,and beside what has been plainly pronounced: for if the Parliament had had that design,it is naturally said they would have expressed it.”[60a]
“To know what the common law was before the making of a statute, whereby it may be seen whether the statute be introductory of a new law, or only affirmatory of the common law, is the very lock and key to open the windows of the statute. For it is not to be presumed that the Legislature intended to make any innovation upon the common law further than the case absolutely required; the law rather infersthat the act did not intend to make any alteration other than what is specified,and beside what has been plainly pronounced: for if the Parliament had had that design,it is naturally said they would have expressed it.”[60a]
It appears to me that in some sense, i.e. in reference, at any rate, to posterior legislation,the pre-reformation doctrinesmay be called thecommon lawof our Church; and if so, we shall readily see the analogy of the civil law, and the authoritative declaration of its rule of construction of statutes, is, that no alteration is made by subsequent enactments,but what is specified, orbeside what is plainly pronounced;—that is to say, what is not “openly, plainly, and dogmatically” altered, remains as it was before. To the same purpose exactly Mr. Chambers adds another passage, stating again “the canon of construction appropriate to statutes,” and again quoting Mr. Dwarris:—
“Affirmative words do not take away the common law, former custom, or a former statute.”[60b]
“Affirmative words do not take away the common law, former custom, or a former statute.”[60b]
And again, a little further on, citing further authorities:—
“When particular words are followed by general ones, the latter are to be held as applying to persons and things of the same kind only which precede,”[61a]so that “if a particular thing be given or limited in the preceding parts of a statute this shall not be altered by the subsequent general words of the same statute;”[61b]an observation surely of much weight to show how definitely any part of a statute must be examined, and how directly mentioned in order to its repeal, according to the usage of English law. Once more, to quote but one further passage to the same effect:—
“Unless the intention be apparent for that purpose, the general words of another and later statute shall not repeal the provisions of a former one.”[61c]
“Unless the intention be apparent for that purpose, the general words of another and later statute shall not repeal the provisions of a former one.”[61c]
Such is the testimony from rules of English law to the principles I desire to maintain, that the pre-reformation dogmatic teaching remains to us, except where it has been “openly, plainly, and dogmatically” repealed.
I need hardly say, these extracts very inadequately represent the force of Mr. Chambers’s argument. A reference to the pamphlet itself will well repay the trouble.
[59b]A Review of the Gorham Case, by John David Chambers, M.A. Recorder of New Sarum.
[60a]Chambers’ Review, pp. 23, 24. Lord Coke, 2 Ins. 30; 3 Rep. 31, per Dwarris, 564.
[60b]Chambers, p. 34. Dwarris, 605.
[61a]Chambers, p. 44. Sandeman v. Breach, 7 B. and C. 96.
[61b]Ibid. Stanton v. University of Oxford, 1 Jon. 26.
[61c]Ibid. p. 45. Gregory’s Ca. 6 Rep. 196; Dwarris, 514.
[63]Speech of Edward Badeley, Esq. pp. 95–97.
[64]Badeley, p. 99.
[66a]Badeley’s Speech, pp. 101, 102.
[66b]Ibid. p. 102.
[69]The objection to be drawn from the sentence of the court in the case in question, with reference to Mr. Badeley’s argument from antiquity, and the teaching of the Church previous to the reformation, is even of less real weight than I have here implied; because that court does not appear at all to have applied itself to the principle for which Mr. Badeley contended. It seems rather to have forgotten its existence, than seriously to have examined and condemned it; and though it may be said, perhaps, that such passing it over affords apresumptionof its unsoundness, yet this, I think, isallthat can be made out of its treatment by that tribunal. Whatever, therefore, be thepresumption, it iscertainly no proofand nosentenceas to the unsoundness of the position taken up by Mr. Badeley even for the purpose of the particular case, much less of its unsoundness generally. So many other causes may be conceived to have operated upon the Judges’ minds in coming to the conclusion they did; for instance, theymay haveadmitted Mr. Badeley’s principle, but thought the doctrine in question, as maintained by the Bishop of Exeter, was not sufficiently identified with the universal teaching of the Church; or that that very teaching was itself vague; or that posterior documents of the English Church absolutely contradicted the earlier doctrine; (however improbable, such reasons are conceivable as influencing the actual decision;) and thus we are not warranted in supposing there is any sentence unfavourable to the soundness of Mr. Badeley’s principle of catholic tradition, by the proceedings of this court of appeal in reference to it.
I am persuaded no lawyer will contradict what I have here said, as to secular affairs, and I see no reason why the same measure should not be dealt forth in causes ecclesiastical and spiritual. I mean, that no lawyer will contradict the principle, that because a certain argument or line of defence has not been taken into consideration, or not admitted as conclusive upon the side on which it is advanced in any given instance, it should be looked upon as judicially condemned, or not be used again if occasion should arise. If even the reasons of a court of law on which it founds its sentence are really no formal part of the judgment, much less can the mere overlooking or ignoring a particular line of argument, disable or disfranchise that line of argument, so as to render it for ever unavailable.
[71]Eccles. Polity, book viii. ch. ii. § 17, vol. iii. pp. 447–8, Keble’s Edit. See also Appendix G.
[75]Coke’s 4th Inst. p. 323.
[76]25 Henry VIII. c. 19, § 7.
[78a]This, however, in the particular case, is an almost impossible supposition, because it was from the petition of the clergy themselves, however obtained, that the scheme emanated, and in accordance with its prayer that this board of two-and-thirty persons was to be appointed. 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, s. 1. See also Gladstone’s Letter to the Bishop of London, p. 9.
[78b]Gladstone, p. 9.
[78c]Ibid. p. 62.
[82]Badeley, p. 99.
[87]See p. 19.
[89]Second Letter, p. 42.
[90a]Second Letter, p. 57.
[90b]Ibid. p. 61.
[91]Second Letter, p. 63.
[92a]Second Letter, p. 72.
[92b]“As regards the Church of England in particular, it may be that the so-called reformation contained—perhaps unknown to the original promoters of it—poisonous seeds of evil, bringing in certain though slow decay; and that either new principles were then secretly established, which in their development would most surely lead to the destruction and confusion of essential truths, or old principles were, in ignorance, given up, which the gradual course of time would prove to be necessary, because they lie at the very foundation of Christianity itself. Or, once more, it may be with portions of the Church Catholic as with the vine, her mysterious type. ‘I am the vine, ye are the branches,’ were the words of our Blessed Lord, speaking of His body, the Church, of which he is himself the Head. And we may well conceive how a branch, full of sap and vigour, may be severed from the stem, and yet for a period—longer or shorter—still continue to put forth leaves, and perhaps the blossoms of fruit also; nevertheless, cut off all the while, and severed; requiring time to die, but death itself inevitable at last.”—Second Letter, pp. 72, 73.
[101]Maskell’s Doctrine of Absolution, p. 291.
[102]Letter, p. 16.
[105a]Letter in Guardian, March 20th, 1850.
[105b]Guardian, May 8th, 1850.
[106]Bishop of Exeter’s Letter, p. 90. I am not unaware that Mr. Keble has recently further explained his views on this matter in a second number of his “Church Matters in 1850;” and of course I am not forgetful that the Bishop of Exeter has repeated his protest and declaration on the point: but as these authorities serve only to confirm and strengthen the substance of what I had previously noted down, I do not see any occasion to withdraw or alter it.
[112]It may be useful to observe here, that nothing affecting our Church at large seems to me to result from the correspondence published in May last, between the Archbishop and Mr. Maskell. However unsatisfactory the answers given by the Archbishop to Mr. Maskell’s queries may be deemed, they do not, as it appears to me, commit theChurch of Englandto anything, buthimselfonly. I cannot but think his Grace is quite right when he says he cannot be understood, in an unofficial correspondence of that kind, to speak for the Church, but only for himself. Therefore, however his answers may serve as evidence of his own opinion, and be a help in determining how far he stands committed to having, personally, little or no dogmatic teaching on the subjects brought under his notice by Mr. Maskell; however, therefore, those answers may be valuable in the settlement of the question whether we are morally bound to withdraw from communion with his Grace, they prove nothing as to our Church at large, and can commit her to nothing unless accepted, confirmed, and adopted by herself; that is to say, they have no bearing at all in reference to the argument of this letter, and being unauthoritative statements, are no refutation of any proofs I may have given of our rule of dogmatic teaching. If the intentions of our reformers are not to be taken as evidence of the meaning of our various formularies, much less the construction of them by an individual archbishop.