AND OTHER MATTERS THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
1838.
A LETTER, &C.
Rev. Sir,
1 I MAKE no apology for troubling you with this Letter, for I cannot conceal from myself that I am one of those against whom your recent Publication is directed. My first impulse indeed, when I heard of the probability of its appearance, was to resolve not to answer it, and to recommend the same course to others. I have changed my mind at the suggestion of friends, who, I feel, have taken a sounder view of the matter; but my original feeling was, that we have differences and quarrels enough all around us, without my adding to them. Sure I am, that the more stir is made about those opinions which you censure, the wider they will spread. This has been proved abundantly in the course of the last few years. Whatever be the mistakes and faults of their advocates, they have that root of truth in them which, as I do firmly believe, has a blessing with it. I do not pretend to say they will ever become widely popular, that is another matter; Truth is never, or at least never long, popular;—nor do I say they will ever gain that powerful external influence over the Many, which Truth vested in the Few, cherished, throned, energizing in the Few, often has possessed;—nor that they are not destined, as Truth has often been destined, to be cast away and at length trodden under foot as an odious thing;—but of this I am sure, that at this juncture in proportion as these opinions are known, they will make their way through the community, picking out their own, seeking and obtaining refuge in the hearts of Christians, high and low, here and there, with this man and that, as the case may be; doing their work in their day, as raising a memorial and a witness to this fallen generation of what once has been, of what God would ever have, of what one day shall be in perfection; and that, not from what they are in themselves, because viewed in the concrete they are mingled, as everything human must be, with error and infirmity, but by reason of the spirit, the truth, the old Catholic life and power which is in them.
And, moreover, while that inward principle of truth will carry on their tide of success to those bounds wider or straiter, which, in God’s inscrutable providence, they are to reach and not to pass, it is also a substitute for those artificial and sectarian bonds of co-operation between man and man, which constitute what is commonly called a party. I notice this, because though you do not use concerning their upholders the word party, you do speak of an existing “combination,” “an indefinite and apparently numerous body of friends,” nay you hint at a “formidable conspiracy;” words which mean more than that unity of action which unity of sentiment produces. Men who think deeply and strongly, will act upon their principles; and if they think alike, will act alike; and lookers on, seeing the acts, and not seeing the principles, impute that to concert which proceeds from unanimity. So much I would grant in the present case, and no more; unless the contingence of two persons thinking alike and acting on their thoughts be party spirit, it is impossible to help the appearance of party in cases where there is not the reality. Like actions inevitably follow; but their doers are not party men, till their own personal success becomes prior in their thoughts to that of their object.
2.
Such is the position in which the opinions and persons stand, whom you so heavily censure. And whatever be the consequence to those persons, I see nothing but advantage resulting to those opinions from such publicity and discussion as you are drawing upon them. As far as they are concerned, I should have no anxiety about addressing you; but a feeling of the miserable breach of peace and love which too commonly follows on such controversies, to say nothing of one’s own private convenience, is enough to make any one pause before engaging in such a discussion. I cannot doubt you feel it also, and therefore I deeply regret that a sense of imperative duty should have obliged you to commence it. No one of course can deny that there may be cases when it is a duty to hazard such a result; the claims of truth must not be compromised for the sake of peace. No one has any cause to complain of those who, from a religious regard to purity of doctrine, denounce what others admire. But this I think may fairly be required of all persons, that they do not go so far as to denounce in another what they do not at the same time show to be inconsistent with the doctrine of our Church. Now this is the first thought which rises in my mind on the perusal of your Remarks. I do not find in them any proof of the contrariety of the opinions and practices, which you condemn, to our Church’s doctrines. This seems to me an omission. You speak of an “increasing aberration from Protestant principles,” “a disposition to overvalue the importance of Apostolical tradition;” “exaggerated and unscriptural statements,” a “tendency to depreciate the principles of Protestantism,” and to “palliate” the “errors of Popery,” “gradual and near approximation towards” the “Roman superstitions” concerning “the Lord’s Supper.” Now this is all assertion, not proof; and no one person, not even a Bishop ex cathedrâ, may at his mere word determine what doctrine shall be received and what not. He is bound to appeal to the established faith. He is bound conscientiously to try opinions by the established faith, and in doing so appeals to an Unseen Power. He is bound to state in what respect they differ from it, if they do differ; and, in so doing, he appeals to his brethren. The decision, indeed, is in his own hands; he acts on his own responsibility; but before he acts he makes a solemn appeal before God and man. What is true of the highest authority in the Church, is true of others. We all have our private views; many persons have the same private views; but if ten thousand have the same, that does not make them less private; they are private till the Church’s judgment makes them public. I am not entering into the question about what is the Church, and the difference between the whole Church and parts of the Church, or what are, what are not, subjects for Church decisions; I only say, looking at the English Church at this moment, and practically, that if there be two parties in it, the one denouncing, the other denounced, in a matter of doctrine, either the latter is promoting heresy, or the former is promoting schism. I do not see that there is any medium; and it does seem incumbent on the former to show he is not infringing peace, by showing that the latter is infringing truth.