Part 10

“Now comes the question which presses most on my mind. Having stated my reasons for the opinion which I 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 regret that 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 due _to the peace of the Church_, and _to the tranquillity of the State_. It seems to me that we should be _putting every thing to hazard_ and _leading 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 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_ 1_st._ 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?