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 a calculation of consequences, and a regard to future contingencies, as they seemed dangerous or advantageous to 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 my letter. 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 court was at any rate so set aside and set at naught.
F. p. 48.
I CANNOT refrain 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, July 23, 1850.
G. p. 71.
I AM aware 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, and at 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 by the 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, May 1st. 1850.
H. p. 128.
I WILL venture 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.”
Hebrews x. 36, former part.
Patience would 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;” who warned his disciples that they should be “as their Master,” and promised them that they should indeed “drink of his cup, and be baptized with his baptism;” He did 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, the Holy Ghost is the Comforter, and that divine Paraclete; 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, of course, 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, where are the valid sacraments? Without these, where are the channels of saving grace? Without these, where are 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 for us), “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 take up his parable against us as a nation, and say, “Alas! who shall live when God doeth this?”
For indeed and in truth, if this be truth touching the nature of God’s covenant, who are there among us that believe it? “Who hath 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 a one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, is almost gone from among us! The belief in ONE BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, is almost gone from among us! The belief in the REAL POWER OF THE SACRAMENTS is almost gone from among us! The belief of there being any Christian priesthood, and any value in 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 among us ourselves, 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 the other:” 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, these bring railing accusation the one against the other; and that speaks 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 these views, (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 myself of myself, 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 and sacraments, 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.” Yet who will 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 who would be excommunicate, were the canons but in half their measure carried out, who die perchance in open schism, or other notorious sin, have yet 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 witness for them. 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. Who supposes 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? Are such indeed regarded when rarely they do occur?
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 man wholly 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 let remember what they please, and let forget what 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 and circumspection 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 when they know it 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 our people;—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 of patience, but surely we have need also of fear. 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 populations and 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 need of fear! yet, for all this, where are our fears? where are our lamentations? where are the signs of our repentings! Nay, on the contrary, we have not feared; we have not mourned; we have not humbled 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 heard in 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 it so with us? Rather is it not—that we are not humbled: we are not ashamed: we are not alarmed. We are in evil case, but we see it not. We are in awful blindness; and yet so blinded, we find not our want of eyes. We are dull and heavy with sleep, yet so inapprehensive, 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 things will 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 do more than 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 we so to receive it, we might only be filling up the measure of our iniquity. But, if we 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: or even if all the nation will not be re-absorbed into the Church, yet we who are of the Church may be again of one mind, and re-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.” To HIM let us pray, and in HIM let 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 the knots, even of men’s evil hearts, and evil passions. But “we have need of patience.” “Let us run with patience the race that is set before us.” “In our patience possess we our souls.” In this spirit, therefore, let us then thank God, and hope in God, and proceed upon our way!