Chapter 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!

* * * * *

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}

It appears to me that in some sense, i.e. in reference, at any rate, to posterior legislation, _the pre-reformation doctrines_ may be called the _common law_ of 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_, or _beside 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}

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}

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 a _presumption_ of its unsoundness, yet this, I think, is _all_ that can be made out of its treatment by that tribunal. Whatever, therefore, be the _presumption_, it is _certainly no proof_ and no _sentence_ as 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, they _may have_ admitted 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 the _Church of England_ to anything, but _himself_ only. 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.

{116} Neale’s Few Words of Hope, p. 22.

{120} No doubt there are persons whose habitual view is so absorbed in the majesty of human law, that they appear to forget there is any higher law with which we have to do. “Sir, I have had the honour to receive your letter, in which you intimate to me your intention of violating the law,” was an answer of some celebrity in its day. Perchance the question had not presented itself to the writer’s mind,

“What law is that?
’Tis not the law of God, nor yet _above_ it.”

{122} Convocations and Synods, by an Anglican Layman, p. 6.

{124} Convocations and Synods, p. 11–14.

{125a} Archdeacon Manning’s Letter, p. 23.

{125b} Ibid. p. 41.

{126} Manning, p. 23.

{127} Bramhall’s Works, p. 141. See also Manning’s Sermon on the Rule of Faith.

“The Church of England so far from submitting either the rule, or her
decisions according to the rule, to the judgment of her individual
members, will not submit them even to the judgment of particular
Churches, or to any tribunal less than that to which all particular
churches are subject, that is, a general council, of which either the
members shall truly _represent_ the Church Catholic, or the decrees
be universally _received_. * *

“We therefore no more submit the doctrinal decisions of the Church to
the judgment of individual minds, than the canon of Scripture itself.
We do acknowledge an authority higher than either the Church of
England, or of Rome in particular. What hinders an appeal to that
tribunal, Dr. Wiseman knows as well as we. But if such a council,
truly general, freely assembled, should meet to-morrow, the rule of
its decisions would be, ‘non sua posteris tradere, sed a majoribus
accepta servare.’”—Pp. 25, 26, note.

{128} See Appendix H.

{131} Second Letter, p. 80.