Part 11

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!

* * * * *

FINIS.

* * * * *

* * * * *

C. Whittingham, Chiswick.

FOOTNOTES.

{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 your _now_ faith, hope, trust and determination; but I have _not_—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 we _ought_ to 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. _He_ has no doubt about the Church of England: yet _I_ know that, at whatever cost and pain, God’s truth alone must be fought for. Yet for all this, do not conclude that I have _decided_:—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 be _glad_ to 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, nay NONE, (_can_ it 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 to _what_ the 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 is _but one_ doctrine out of many:—reckon them up by tale, and you will never miss _one_:—no Churches settle _everything_:—why then so uneasy?” What hope, what possible chance that a mind constituted so as to be _able_ to 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 it _could_ be 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. So _one_ open 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:—we _hope_ that the child is regenerate: we _hope_ the 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 of _the_’ (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, and _force_ this 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_, or _hath sanctified_ would not express the sense intended; just as the Holy Ghost who _comforted_, or _hath 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 infers _that 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}