not forever--my own notes on a subject of which my strength no longer
serves me to endure the stress and sorrow; but I may possibly be able to
collect, eventually, into more close form, the already manifold and
sufficient references scattered through _Fors Clavigera_: and perhaps to
reprint for the St. George's Guild the admirable compendium of British
ecclesiastical and lay authority on the subject, collected by John
Blaxton, preacher of God's Word at Osmington in Dorsetshire, printed by
John Norton under the title of "The English Usurer," and sold by Francis
Bowman, in Oxford, 1631. A still more precious record of the fierce
struggle of usury into life among Christians, and of the resistance to
it by Venice and her "Anthony,"[131] will be found in the dialogue
"della Usura," of Messer Speron Sperone (Aldus, in Vinegia, MDXIII.),
followed by the dialogue "del Cathaio," between "Portia, sola, e
fanciulla, fame, e cibo, vita, e morte, di ciascuno che la conosce," and
her lover Moresini, which is the source of all that is loveliest in the
_Merchant of Venice_. Readers who seek more modern and more scientific
instruction may consult the able abstract of the triumph of usury, drawn
up by Dr. Andrew Dickson White, President of Cornell University ("The
Warfare of Science," H. S. King & Co., 1877), in which the victory of
the great modern scientific principle, that two and two make five, is
traced exultingly to the final overthrow of St. Chrysostom, St. Jerome,
St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Bossuet, by "the
establishment of the Torlonia family in Rome." A better collection of
the most crushing evidence cannot be found than this, furnished by an
adversary; a less petulant and pompous, but more earnest voice from
America, "Usury the Giant Sin of the Age," by Edward Palmer (Perth
Amboys, 1865), should be read together with it. In the meantime, the
substance of the teaching of the _former_ Church of England, in the
great sermon against usury of Bishop Jewell, may perhaps not uselessly
occupy one additional page of the _Contemporary Review_:--
174. "Usury is a kind of lending of money, or corne, or oyle, or wine,
or of any other thing, wherein, upon covenant and bargaine, we receive
againe the whole principall which we delivered, and somewhat more, for
the use and occupying of the same; as if I lend 100 pound, and for it
covenant to receive 105 pound, or any other summe, greater then was the
summe which I did lend: this is that which we call usury: such a kind of
bargaining as no good man, or godly man ever used. Such a kind of
bargaining as all men that ever feared God's judgments have alwaies
abhorred and condemned. It is filthy gaines, and a worke of darkenesse,
it is a monster in nature: the overthrow of mighty kingdoms, the
destruction of flourishing States, the decay of wealthy cities, the
plagues of the world, and the misery of the people: it is theft, it is
the murthering of our brethren, its the curse of God, and the curse of
the people. This is Usury. By these signes and tokens you may know it.
For wheresoever it raigneth all those mischiefes ensue.
"Whence springeth usury? Soone shewed. Even thence whence theft, murder,
adultery, the plagues, and destruction of the people doe spring. All
these are the workes of the divell, and the workes of the flesh. Christ
telleth the Pharisees, You are of your father the divell, and the lusts
of your father you will doe. Even so may it truely be sayd to the
usurer, Thou art of thy father the divell, and the lusts of thy father
thou wilt doe, and therefore thou hast pleasure in his workes. The
divell entered into the heart of Judas, and put in him this greedinesse,
and covetousnesse of game, for which he was content to sell his master.
Judas's heart was the shop, the divell was the foreman to worke in it.
They that will be rich fall into tentation and snares, and into many
foolish and noysome lusts, which drowne men in perdition and
destruction. For the desire of money is the roote of all evil. And St.
John saith, Whosoever committeth sinne is of the Divell, 1 Joh. 3-8.
Thus we see that the divell is the planter, and the father of usury.
"What are the fruits of usury? A. 1. It dissolveth the knot and
fellowship of mankind. 2. It hardeneth man's heart. 3. It maketh men
unnaturall, and bereaveth them of charity, and love to their dearest
friends. 4. It breedeth misery and provoketh the wrath of God from
heaven. 5. It consumeth rich men, it eateth up the poore, it maketh
bankrupts, and undoeth many householders. 6. The poore occupiers are
driven to flee, their wives are left alone, their children are
hopelesse, and driven to beg their bread, through the unmercifull
dealing of the covetous usurer.
175. "He that is an usurer, wisheth that all others may lacke and come
to him and borrow of him; that all others may lose, so that he may have
gaine. Therefore our old forefathers so much abhorred this trade, that
they thought an usurer unworthy to live in the company of Christian men.
They suffered not an usurer to be witnesse in matters of Law. They
suffer him not to make a Testament, and to bestow his goods by will.
When an usurer dyed, they would not suffer him to be buried in places
appointed for the buriall of Christians. So highly did they mislike this
unmercifull spoyling and deceiving our brethren.
"But what speak I of the ancient Fathers of the Church? There was never
any religion, nor sect, nor state, nor degree, nor profession of men,
but they have disliked it. Philosophers, Greekes, Latins, lawyers,
divines, Catholikes, heretics; all tongues and nations have ever thought
an usurer as dangerous as a theefe. The very sense of nature proves it
to be so. If the stones could speak they would say as much. But some
will say all kindes of usury are not forbidden. There may be cases where
usury may stand with reason and equity, and herein they say so much as
by wit may be devised to paint out a foule and ugly idoll, and to shadow
themselves in manifest and open wickednesse. Whatsoever God sayeth, yet
this or this kind of usury, say they, which is done in this or this
sort, is not forbidden. It proffiteth the Commonwealth, it relieveth
great numbers, the poore should otherwise perish, none would lend them.
By like good reason, there are some that defend theft and murder; they
say, there may be some case where it is lawful to kill or to steale;
for God willed the Hebrews to rob the Ægyptians, and Abraham to kill his
owne sonne Isaac. In these cases the robbery and the killing of his
sonne were lawfull. So say they. Even so by the like reason doe some of
our countrymen maintayne concubines, curtizans, and brothel-houses, and
stand in defence of open stewes. They are (say they) for the benefit of
the country, they keepe men from more dangerous inconveniences; take
them away, it will be worse. Although God say, there shall be no whore
of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a whorekeeper of the
sonnes of Israel: yet these men say all manner of whoredom is not
forbidden. In these and these cases it is not amisse to alow it."
"As Samuel sayd to Saul, so may we say to the usurer, Thou hast
devised cases and colours to hide thy shame, but what regard hath
God to thy cases? What careth He for thy reasons? the Lord would
have more pleasure, if when thou heareth His voyce thou wouldest
obey Him. For what is thy device against the counsell, and
ordinance of God? What bold presumption is it for a mortall man to
controule the commandments of immortall God? And to weigh his
heavenly wisdome in the ballance of humane foolishnesse? When God
sayth, Thou shalt not take usury, what creature of God art thou
which canst take usury? When God maketh it unlawfull, what art
thou, oh man, that sayst, it is lawfull? This is a token of a
desperate mind. It is found true in thee, that Paul sayd, the love
of money is the root of all ill. Thou art so given over unto the
wicked Mammon, that thou carest not to doe the will of God."
Thus far, the theology of Old England. Let it close with the calm law,
spoken four hundred years before Christ, [Greek: a mê katethou, mê anelê].
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 124: _Contemporary Review_, February 1880.]
[Footnote 125: See below (p. 393, § 236), in the eighth letter on the
Lord's Prayer.--ED.]
[Footnote 126: In Proverbs xxviii. 8, "usury" is coupled with "unjust
gain," and a pitiless spirit towards the poor, which shows in what sense
the word is to be understood there, and in such other passages as Ps.
xv. 5 and Ezek. xviii. 8, 9.]
[Footnote 127: See post, p. 394, § 237.--ED.]
[Footnote 128: Speech of Mr. J. C. Hubbard, M.P. for London, reported in
_Standard_ of 26th July, 1879.]
[Footnote 129: See the Articles of Association of the East Surrey Hall,
Museum, and Library Company. (_Fors Clavigera_, Letter lxx.)]
[Footnote 130: "The Polar World," p. 342, Longmans, 1874.]
[Footnote 131:
"The dearest friend to me, the kindest man,
The best conditioned and unwearied spirit,
In doing courtesies; and one in whom
_The ancient Roman honor more appears,
Than any that draws breath in Italy._"
This is the Shakespearian description of that Anthony, whom the modern
British public, with its new critical lights, calls a "sentimentalist
and speculator!"--holding Shylock to be the real hero, and innocent
victim of the drama.]
USURY.[132]
A PREFACE.
176. In the wise, practical, and affectionate sermon, given from St.
Mary's pulpit last autumn to the youth of Oxford, by the good Bishop of
Carlisle, his Lordship took occasion to warn his eagerly attentive
audience, with deep earnestness, against the crime of debt; dwelling
with powerful invective on the cruelty and selfishness with which, too
often, the son wasted in his follies the fruits of his father's labor,
or the means of his family's subsistence; and involved himself in
embarrassments which, said the Bishop, "I have again and again known to
cause the misery of all subsequent life."
The sin was charged, the appeal pressed, only on the preacher's
undergraduate hearers. Beneath the gallery, the Heads of Houses sate,
remorseless; nor from the pulpit was a single hint permitted that any
measures could be rationally taken for the protection, no less than the
warning, of the youth under their care. No such suggestion would have
been received, if even understood, by any English congregation of this
time;--a strange and perilous time, in which the greatest commercial
people of the world have been brought to think Usury the most honorable
and fruitful branch, or rather perennial stem, of commercial industry.
177. But whose the fault that English congregations are in this temper,
and this ignorance? The saying of mine,[133] which the author of this
book quotes in the close of his introduction, was written by me with a
meaning altogether opposite, and far more forcible, than that which it
might seem to bear to a careless interpreter.[134] In the present state
of popular revolt against all conception and manner of authority, but
more especially spiritual authority, the sentence reads as if it were
written by an adversary of the Church,--a hater of its Prelacy,--an
advocate of universal liberty of thought and license of crime: whereas
the sentence is really written in the conviction (I might say knowledge,
if I spoke without deference to the reader's incredulity) that the
Pastoral Office must forever be the highest, for good or evil, in every
Christian land; and that when _it_ fails in vigilance, faith, or
courage, the sheep _must_ be scattered, and neither King nor law avail
any more to protect them against the fury of their own passions, nor any
human sagacity against the deception of their own hearts.
178. Since, however, these things are instantly so, and the Bishops of
England have now with one accord consented to become merely the highly
salaried vergers of her Cathedrals, taking care that the choristers do
not play at leapfrog in the Churchyard, that the Precincts are elegantly
iron-railed from the profane parts of the town, and that the doors of
the building be duly locked, so that nobody may pray in it at
improper times,--these things being so, may we not turn to the
"every-man-his-own-Bishop" party, with its Bible Society, Missionary
zeal, and right of infallible private interpretation, to ask at least
for some small exposition to the inhabitants of their own country, of
those Scriptures which they are so fain to put in the possession of
others; and this the rather, because the popular familiar version of the
New Testament among us, unwritten, seems to be now the exact contrary of
that which we were once taught to be of Divine authority.
179. I place, side by side, the ancient and modern versions of the seven
verses of the New Testament which were the beginning, and are indeed the
heads, of all the teaching of Christ:--
_Ancient._
Blessed are the Poor in
Spirit, for their's is the
kingdom of Heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn,
for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for
they shall inherit the
earth.
Blessed are they which do
hunger for righteousness,
for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for
they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God.
Blessed are the Peacemakers,
for they shall be called the
children of God.
_Modern._
Blessed are the Rich in
Flesh, for their's is the
kingdom of Earth.
Blessed are they that are
merry, and laugh the last.
Blessed are the proud, in that
they _have_ inherited the
earth.
Blessed are they which hunger
for unrighteousness, in
that they shall divide its
mammon.
Blessed are the merciless, for
they shall obtain money.
Blessed are the foul in heart,
for they shall see no God.
Blessed are the War-makers,
for they shall be adored by
the children of men.
180. Who are the true "Makers of War," the promoters and supports of it,
I showed long since in the note to the brief sentence of "Unto this
last." "It is entirely capitalists' (_i.e._, Usurers') wealth[135] which
supports unjust Wars." But to what extent the adoration of the Usurer,
and the slavery consequent upon it, has perverted the soul or bound the
hands of every man in Europe, I will let the reader hear, from authority
he will less doubt than mine:--
"Financiers are the mischievous feudalism of the 19th century. A handful
of men have invented distant, seductive loans, have introduced national
debts in countries happily ignorant of them, have advanced money to
unsophisticated Powers on ruinous terms, and then, by appealing to small
investors all over the world, got rid of the bonds. Furthermore, with
the difference between the advances and the sale of bonds, they caused a
fall in the securities which they had issued, and, having sold at 80,
they bought back at 10, taking advantage of the public panic. Again,
with the money thus obtained, they bought up consciences, where
consciences are marketable, and under the pretense of providing the
country thus traded upon with new means of communication, they passed
money into their own coffers. They have had pupils, imitators, and
plagiarists; and at the present moment, under different names, the
financiers rule the world, are a sore of society, and form one of the
chief causes of modern crises.
"Unlike the Nile, wherever they pass they render the soil dry and
barren. The treasures of the world flow into their cellars, and there
remain. They spend one-tenth of their revenues; the remaining
nine-tenths they hoard and divert from circulation. They distribute
favors, and are great political leaders. They have not assumed the place
of the old nobility, but have taken the latter into their service.
Princes are their chamberlains, dukes open their doors, and marquises
act as their equerries when they deign to ride.
"These new grandees canter on their splendid Arabs along Rotten Ron, the
Bois de Boulogne, the Prospect, the Prater, or Unter den Linden. The
shopkeepers, and all who save money, bow low to these men, who represent
their savings, which they will never again see under any other form.
Proof against sarcasms, sure of the respect of the Continental Press,
protecting each other with a sort of freemasonry, the financiers dictate
laws, determine the fate of nations, and render the cleverest political
combinations abortive. They are everywhere received and listened to, and
all the Cabinets feel their influence. Governments watch them with
uneasiness, and even the Iron Chancellor has his gilded Egeria, who
reports to him the wishes of this the sole modern Autocrat"--_Letter
from Paris Correspondent_, "_Times_," _30th January_, 1885.
* * * * *
181. But to this statement, I must add the one made to § 149 (see note)
of "Munera Pulveris," that if we could trace the innermost of all causes
of modern war, they would be found, not in the avarice or ambition, but
the idleness of the upper classes. "They have nothing to do but to teach
the peasantry to kill each other"--while that the peasantry are thus
teachable, is further again dependent on their not having been educated
primarily in the common law of justice. See again "Munera Pulveris,"
Appendix I.: "Precisely according to the number of just men in a nation
is their power of avoiding either intestine or foreign war."
I rejoice to see my old friend Mr. Sillar gathering finally together the
evidence he has so industriously collected on the guilt of usury, and
supporting it by the always impressive language of symbolical art;[136]
for indeed I had myself no idea, till I read the connected statement
which these pictures illustrate, how steadily the system of
money-lending had gained on the nation, and how fatally every hand and
foot was now entangled by it. Yet in commending the study of this book
to every virtuous and patriotic Englishman, I must firmly remind the
reader, that all these sins and errors are only the branches from one
root of bitterness--mortal Pride. For this we gather, for this we war,
for this we die--here and hereafter; while all the while the Wisdom
which is from above stands vainly teaching us the way to Earthly Riches
and to Heavenly Peace, "What doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but
to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk _humbly_ with thy God?"
BRANTWOOD, _7th March_, 1885.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 132: Introduction to a pamphlet entitled "Usury and the
English Bishops," or more fully, "Usury, its pernicious effects on
English agriculture and commerce: An allegory dedicated without
permission to the Bishops of Manchester, Peterborough and Rochester"
(London: A. Southey, 146, Fenchurch Street, 1885). By R. J. Sillar. (See
_Fors Clavigera_, vol. v. Letter 56.)--ED.]
[Footnote 133: "Everything evil in Europe is primarily the fault of her
Bishops."]
[Footnote 134: "I knew, in using it, perfectly well what you meant."
(Note by Mr. Sillar.)]
[Footnote 135: "Cash," I should have said, in accuracy--not "wealth."]
[Footnote 136: Mr. Sillar's pamphlet consists of a collection of
paragraphs, all condemnatory of usury, from the writings of the English
bishops, from the sixteenth century down to the present time; and is
illustrated by five emblematic woodcuts representing an oak tree
(English commerce) gradually overgrown and destroyed by an ivy-plant
(usury).--ED.]
* * * * *
THEOLOGY.
NOTES ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHEEPFOLDS.
(Pamphlet, 1851.)
THE LORD'S PRAYER AND THE CHURCH.
(_Letters and Epilogue_, 1879-1881.)
THE NATURE AND AUTHORITY OF MIRACLE.
(_Contemporary Review, March_ 1873.)
* * * * *
NOTES ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHEEPFOLDS.[137]
PREFACE (CALLED "ADVERTISEMENT") TO THE FIRST EDITION.
_Many persons will probably find fault with me for publishing opinions
which are not new: but I shall bear this blame contentedly, believing
that opinions on this subject could hardly be just if they were not 1800
years old. Others will blame me for making proposals which are
altogether new: to whom I would answer, that things in these days seem
not so far right but that they may be mended. And others will simply
call the opinions false and the proposals foolish--to whose goodwill, if
they take it in hand to contradict me, I must leave what I have
written--having no purpose of being drawn, at present, into religious
controversy. If, however, any should admit the truth, but regret the
tone of what I have said, lean only pray them to consider how much less
harm is done in the world by ungraceful boldness, than by untimely
fear._
DENMARK HILL,
_February, 1851._
PREFACE TO THE SECOND (1851) EDITION.
_Since the publication of these Notes, I have received many letters upon
the affairs of the Church, from persons of nearly every denomination of
Christians; for all these letters I am grateful, and in many of them I
have found valuable information, or suggestion: but I have not leisure
at present to follow out the subject farther; and no reason has been
shown me for modifying or altering any part of the text as it stands. It
is republished, therefore, without change or addition_.
_I must, however, especially thank one of my correspondents for sending
me a pamphlet, called "Sectarianism, the Bane of Religion and the
Church,"[138] which I would recommend, in the strongest terms, to the
reading of all who regard the cause of Christ; and, for help in reading
the Scriptures, I would name also the short and admirable arrangement of
parallel passages relating to the offices of the clergy, called "The
Testimony of Scripture concerning the Christian Ministry."_[139]
PREFACE TO THIRD (CALLED SECOND) EDITION.
_I have only to add to this first preface, that the boldness of the
pamphlet,--ungraceful enough, it must be admitted,--has done no one any
harm, that I know of; but on the contrary, some definite good, as far as
I can judge; and that I republish the whole now, letter for letter, as
originally printed, believing it likely to be still serviceable, and, on
the ground it takes for argument, (Scriptural authority,)
incontrovertible as far as it reaches; though it amazes me to find on
re-reading it, that, so late as 1851, I had only got the length of
perceiving the schism between sects of Protestants to be criminal, and
ridiculous, while I still supposed the schism between Protestants and
Catholics to be virtuous and sublime._
_The most valuable part of the whole is the analysis of governments, §§
213-15; the passages on Church discipline, §§ 204-5, being also
anticipatory of much that I have to say in Fors, where I hope to
re-assert the substance of this pamphlet on wider grounds, and with more
modesty._
BRANTWOOD,
_3rd August, 1875._
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 137: This pamphlet was originally published in 1851, under the
title of "Notes on the Construction of Sheepfolds," by John Ruskin,
M.A., author of the "Seven Lamps of Architecture," etc. (Smith, Elder, &
Co.). A second edition, with an additional preface, followed in the same
year, after which the pamphlet remained out of print till 1875, when it
was reprinted in a third, erroneously called a second, edition (George
Allen, Sunnyside, Orpington, Kent).--ED.]
[Footnote 138: London: 1846. Nisbet & Co., Berners Street.]
[Footnote 139: London: 1847. T. K. Campbell, 1, Warwick Square.]
NOTES,
ETC., ETC.
182. The following remarks were intended to form part of the appendix to
an essay on Architecture: but it seemed to me, when I had put them into
order, that they might be useful to persons who would not care to
possess the work to which I proposed to attach them: I publish them,
therefore, in a separate form; but I have not time to give them more
consistency than they would have had in the subordinate position
originally intended for them. I do not profess to teach Divinity, and I
pray the reader to understand this, and to pardon the slightness and
insufficiency of notes set down with no more intention of connected
treatment of their subject than might regulate an accidental
conversation. Some of them are simply copied from my private diary;
others are detached statements of facts, which seem to me significative
or valuable, without comment; all are written in haste, and in the
intervals of occupation with an entirely different subject. It may be
asked of me, whether I hold it right to speak thus hastily and
insufficiently respecting the matter in question? Yes. I hold it right
to _speak_ hastily; not to _think_ hastily. I have not thought hastily
of these things; and, besides, the haste of speech is confessed, that
the reader may think of me only as talking to him, and saying, as
shortly and simply as I can, things which, if he esteem them foolish or
idle, he is welcome to cast aside; but which, in very truth, I cannot
help saying at this time.
183. The passages in the essay which required notes, described the
repression of the political power of the Venetian Clergy by the Venetian
Senate; and it became necessary for me--in supporting an assertion made
in the course of the inquiry, that the idea of separation of Church and
State was both vain and impious--to limit the sense in which it seemed
to me that the word "Church" should be understood, and to note one or
two consequences which would result from the acceptance of such
limitation. This I may as well do in a separate paper, readable by any
person interested in the subject; for it is high time that _some_
definition of the word should be agreed upon. I do not mean a definition
involving the doctrine of this or that division of Christians, but
limiting, in a manner understood by all of them, the sense in which the
_word_ should thenceforward be used. There is grievous inconvenience in
the present state of things. For instance, in a sermon lately published
at Oxford, by an anti-Tractarian divine, I find this sentence,--"It is
clearly within the province of the State to establish a national
_church_, or _external institution of certain forms of worship_." Now
suppose one were to take this interpretation of the word "Church," given
by an Oxford divine, and substitute it for the simple word in some Bible
texts, as, for instance, "Unto the angel of the external institution of
certain forms of worship of Ephesus, write," etc. Or, "Salute the
brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the external
institution of certain forms of worship which is in his house,"--what
awkward results we should have, here and there! Now I do not say it is
possible for men to agree with each other in their religious _opinions_,
but it is certainly possible for them to agree with each other upon
their religious _expressions_; and when a word occurs in the Bible a
hundred and fourteen times, it is surely not asking too much of
contending divines to let it stand in the sense in which it there
occurs; and when they want an expression of something for which it does
_not_ stand in the Bible, to use some other word. There is no compromise
of religious opinion in this; it is simply proper respect for the
Queen's English.
184. The word occurs in the New Testament, as I said, a hundred and
fourteen times.[140] In every one of those occurrences, it bears one
and the same grand sense: that of a congregation or assembly of men. But
it bears this sense under four different modifications, giving four
separate meanings to the word. These are--
I. The entire Multitude of the Elect; otherwise called the Body of
Christ; and sometimes the Bride, the Lamb's Wife; including the Faithful
in all ages;--Adam, and the children of Adam yet unborn.
In this sense it is used in Ephesians v. 25, 27, 32; Colossians i. 18;
and several other passages.
II. The entire multitude of professing believers in Christ, existing on
earth at a given moment; including false brethren, wolves in sheep's
clothing, goats and tares, as well as sheep and wheat, and other forms
of bad fish with good in the net.
In this sense it is used in 1 Cor. x. 32, xv. 9; Galatians i. 13; 1 Tim.
iii. 5, etc.
III. The multitude of professed believers, living in a certain city,
place, or house. This is the most frequent sense in which the word
occurs, as in Acts vii. 38, xiii. 1; 1 Cor. i. 2, xvi. 19, etc.
IV. Any assembly of men: as in Acts xix. 32, 41.
185. That in a hundred and twelve out of the hundred and fourteen texts,
the word bears some one of these four meanings, is indisputable.[141]
But there are two texts in which, if the word had alone occurred, its
meaning might have been doubtful. These are Matt. xvi. 18, and xviii.
17.
The absurdity of founding any doctrine upon the inexpressibly minute
possibility that, in these two texts, the word might have been used with
a different meaning from that which it bore in all the others, coupled
with the assumption that the meaning was this or that, is self-evident:
it is not so much a religious error as a philological solecism;
unparalleled, so far as I know, in any other science but that of
divinity.
Nor is it ever, I think, committed with open front by Protestants. No
English divine, asked in a straightforward manner for a Scriptural
definition of "the Church," would, I suppose, be bold enough to answer
"the Clergy." Nor is there any harm in the common use of the word, so
only that it be distinctly understood to be not the Scriptural one; and
therefore to be unfit for substitution in a Scriptural text. There is no
harm in a man's talking of his son's "going into the Church; "meaning
that he is going to take orders: but there is much harm in his supposing
this a Scriptural use of the word, and therefore, that when Christ said,
"Tell it to the Church," He might possibly have meant, "Tell it to the
Clergy."
186. It is time to put an end to the chance of such misunderstanding.
Let it but be declared plainly by all men, when they begin to state
their opinions on matters ecclesiastical, that they will use the word
"Church" in one sense or the other;--that they will accept the sense in
which it is used by the Apostles, or that they deny this sense, and
propose a new definition of their own. We shall then know what we are
about with them--we may perhaps grant them their new use of the term,
and argue with them on that understanding; so only that they will not
pretend to make use of Scriptural authority, while they refuse to employ
Scriptural language. This, however, it is not my purpose to do at
present. I desire only to address those who are willing to accept the
Apostolic sense of the word Church; and with them, I would endeavor
shortly to ascertain what consequences must follow from an acceptance of
that Apostolic sense, and what must be our first and most necessary
conclusions from the common language of Scripture[142] respecting these
following points:--
(1) The distinctive characters of the Church,
(2) The Authority of the Church.
(3) The Authority of the Clergy over the Church.
(4) The Connection of the Church with the State.
187. These are four separate subjects of question; but we shall not have
to put these questions in succession with each of the four Scriptural
meanings of the word Church, for evidently its second and third meaning
may be considered together, as merely expressing the general or
particular conditions of the Visible Church, and the fourth
signification is entirely independent of all questions of a religious
kind. So that we shall only put the above inquiries successively
respecting the Invisible and Visible Church; and as the two last--of
authority of Clergy, and connection with State--can evidently only have
reference to the Visible Church, we shall have, in all, these six
questions to consider:--
(1) The distinctive characters of the Invisible Church.
(2) The distinctive characters of the Visible Church.
(3) The Authority of the Invisible Church.
(4) The Authority of the Visible Church,
(5) The Authority of Clergy over the Visible Church.
(6) The Connection of the Visible Church with the State.
188. (1) What are the distinctive characters of the Invisible Church?
That is to say, What is it which makes a person a member of this Church,
and how is he to be known for such? Wide question--if we had to take
cognizance of all that has been written respecting it, remarkable as it
has been always for quantity rather than carefulness, and full of
confusion between Visible and Invisible: even the Article of the Church
of England being ambiguous in its first clause: "The _Visible_ Church is
a congregation of Faithful men." As if ever it had been possible, except
for God, to see Faith, or to know a Faithful man by sight! And there is
little else written on this question, without some such quick confusion
of the Visible and Invisible Church;--needless and unaccountable
confusion. For evidently, the Church which is composed of Faithful men
is the one true, indivisible, and indiscernible Church, built on the
foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the
chief corner-stone. It includes all who have ever fallen asleep in
Christ, and all yet unborn, who are to be saved in Him: its Body is as
yet imperfect; it will not be perfected till the last saved human spirit
is gathered to its God.
A man becomes a member of this Church only by believing in Christ with
all his heart; nor is he positively recognizable for a member of it,
when he has become so, by any one but God, not even by himself.
Nevertheless, there are certain signs by which Christ's sheep may be
guessed at. Not by their being in any definite Fold--for many are lost
sheep at times; but by their sheeplike behavior; and a great many are
indeed sheep, which, on the far mountain side, in their peacefulness, we
take for stones. To themselves, the best proof of their being Christ's
sheep is to find themselves on Christ's shoulders; and, between them,
there are certain sympathies (expressed in the Apostles' Creed by the
term "communion of Saints"), by which they may in a sort recognize each
other, and so become verily visible to each other for mutual comfort.
189. (2) The Limits of the Visible Church, or of the Church in the
Second Scriptural Sense, are not so easy to define: they are awkward
questions, these, of stake-nets. It has been ingeniously and plausibly
endeavored to make Baptism a sign of admission into the Visible Church:
but absurdly enough; for we know that half the baptized people in the
world are very visible rogues, believing neither in God nor devil; and
it is flat blasphemy to call these Visible Christians; we also know that
the Holy Ghost was sometimes given before Baptism,[143] and it would be
absurdity to call a man, on whom the Holy Ghost had fallen, an Invisible
Christian. The only rational distinction is that which practically,
though not professedly, we always assume. If we hear a man profess
himself a believer in God and in Christ, and detect him in no glaring
and willful violation of God's law, we speak of him as a Christian; and,
on the other hand, if we hear him or see him denying Christ, either in
his words or conduct, we tacitly assume him not to be a Christian. A
mawkish charity prevents us from outspeaking in this matter, and from
earnestly endeavoring to discern who are Christians and who are not; and
this I hold[144] to be one of the chief sins of the Church in the
present day; for thus wicked men are put to no shame; and better men are
encouraged in their failings, or caused to hesitate in their virtues, by
the example of those whom, in false charity, they choose to call
Christians. Now, it being granted that it is impossible to know,
determinedly, who are Christians indeed, that is no reason for utter
negligence in separating the nominal, apparent, or possible Christian,
from the professed Pagan or enemy of God. We spend much time in arguing
about efficacy of sacraments and such other mysteries; but we do not act
upon the very certain tests which are clear and visible. We know that
Christ's people are not thieves--not liars--not busybodies--not
dishonest--not avaricious--not wasteful--not cruel. Let us then get
ourselves well clear of thieves--liars--wasteful people--avaricious
people--cheating people--people who do not pay their debts. Let us
assure them that they, at least, do not belong to the Visible Church;
and having thus got that Church into decent shape and cohesion, it will
be time to think of drawing the stake-nets closer.
I hold it for a law, palpable to common sense, and which nothing but the
cowardice and faithlessness of the Church prevents it from putting in
practice, that the conviction of any dishonorable conduct or willful
crime, of any fraud, falsehood, cruelty, or violence, should be ground
for the excommunication of any man:--for his publicly declared
separation from the acknowledged body of the Visible Church: and that he
should not be received again therein without public confession of his
crime and declaration of his repentance. If this were vigorously
enforced, we should soon have greater purity of life in the world, and
fewer discussions about high and low churches. But before we can obtain
any idea of the manner in which such law could be enforced, we have to
consider the second respecting the Authority of the Church. Now
authority is twofold: to declare doctrine, and to enforce discipline;
and we have to inquire, therefore, in each kind,--
190. (3) What is the authority of the Invisible Church? Evidently, in
matters of doctrine, all members of the Invisible Church must have been,
and must ever be, at the time of their deaths, right in the points
essential to Salvation. But, (A), we cannot tell who _are_ members of
the Invisible Church.
(B) We cannot collect evidence from death-beds in a clearly stated form.
(C) We can collect evidence, in any form, only from some one or two out
of every sealed thousand of the Invisible Church. Elijah thought he was
alone in Israel; and yet there were seven thousand invisible ones around
him. Grant that we had Elijah's intelligence; and we could only
calculate on collecting one seven-thousandth part of the evidence or
opinions of the part of the Invisible Church living on earth at a given
moment: that is to say, the seven-millionth or trillionth of its
collective evidence. It is very clear, therefore, we cannot hope to get
rid of the contradictory opinions, and keep the consistent ones, by a
general equation. But, it has been said, these are no contradictory
opinions; the Church is infallible. There was some talk about the
infallibility of the Church, if I recollect right, in that letter of Mr.
Bennett's to the Bishop of London. If any Church is infallible, it is
assuredly the Invisible Church, or Body of Christ: and infallible in the
main sense it must of course be by its definition. An Elect person must
be saved, and therefore cannot eventually be deceived on essential
points: so that Christ says of the deception of such, "If it were
_possible_" implying it to be impossible. Therefore, as we said, if one
could get rid of the variable opinions of the members of the Invisible
Church, the constant opinions would assuredly be authoritative: but, for
the three reasons above stated, we cannot get at their constant
opinions: and as for the feelings and thoughts which they daily
experience or express, the question of Infallibility -which is practical
only in this bearing--is soon settled. Observe, St. Paul, and the rest
of the Apostles, write nearly all their epistles to the Invisible
Church:--those epistles are headed,--Romans, "To the beloved of God,
called to be saints; "1 Corinthians, "To them that are sanctified in
Christ Jesus; "2 Corinthians, "To the saints in all Achaia;" Ephesians,
"To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ
Jesus; "Philippians, "To all the saints which are at Philippi;
"Colossians, "To the saints and faithful brethren which are at Colosse;"
1 and 2 Thessalonians, "To the Church of the Thessalonians, which is
in God the Father, and the Lord Jesus; "1 and 2 Timothy, "To his own son
in the faith; "Titus, to the same; 1 Peter, "To the Strangers, Elect
according to the foreknowledge of God;" 2 Peter, "To them that have
obtained like precious faith with us; " 2 John, "To the Elect lady; "
Jude, " To them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in
Jesus Christ, and called."
191. There are thus fifteen epistles, expressly directed to the members
of the Invisible Church. Philemon and Hebrews, and 1 and 3 John, are
evidently also so written, though not so expressly inscribed. That of
James, and that to the Galatians, are as evidently to the Visible
Church: the one being general, and the other to persons "removed from
Him that called them." Missing out, therefore, these two epistles, but
including Christ's words to His disciples, we find in the Scriptural
addresses to members of the Invisible Church, fourteen, if not more,
direct injunctions "not to be deceived."[145] So much for the
"Infallibility of the Church."
Now, one could put up with Puseyism more patiently, if its fallacies
arose merely from peculiar temperaments yielding to peculiar
temptations. But its bold refusals to read plain English; its elaborate
adjustments of tight bandages over its own eyes, as wholesome
preparation for a walk among traps and pitfalls; its daring trustfulness
in its own clairvoyance all the time, and declarations that every pit it
falls into is a seventh heaven; and that it is pleasant and profitable
to break its legs;--with all this it is difficult to have patience. One
thinks of the highwayman with his eyes shut in the "Arabian Nights"; and
wonders whether any kind of scourging would prevail upon the Anglican
highwayman to open "first one and then the other."
192. (4) So much, then, I repeat, for the infallibility of the
_In_visible Church, and for its consequent authority. Now, if we want to
ascertain what infallibility and authority there is in the Visible
Church, we have to alloy the small wisdom and the light weight of
Invisible Christians, with the large percentage of the false wisdom and
contrary weight of Undetected Anti-Christians. Which alloy makes up the
current coin of opinions in the Visible Church, having such value as we
may choose--its nature being properly assayed--to attach to it.
There is, therefore, in matters of doctrine, _no such thing_ as the
Authority of the Church. We might as well talk of the authority of a
morning cloud. There may be light _in_ it, but the light is not of it;
and it diminishes the light that it gets; and lets less of it through
than it receives, Christ being its sun. Or, we might as well talk of the
authority of a flock of sheep--for the Church is a body to be taught and
fed, not to teach and feed: and of all sheep that are fed on the earth,
Christ's Sheep are the most simple, (the children of this generation are
wiser): always losing themselves; doing little else in this world _but_
lose themselves;--never finding themselves; always found by Some One
else; getting perpetually into sloughs, and snows, and bramble thickets,
like to die there, but for their Shepherd, who is forever finding them
and bearing them back, with torn fleeces and eyes full of fear.
193. This, then, being the No-Authority of the Church in matter of
Doctrine, what Authority has it in matters of Discipline?
Much, every way. The sheep have natural and wholesome power (however far
scattered they may be from their proper fold) of getting together in
orderly knots; following each other on trodden sheepwalks, and holding
their heads all one way when they see strange dogs coming; as well as of
casting out of their company any whom they see reason to suspect of not
being right sheep, and being among them for no good. All which things
must be done as the time and place require, and by common consent. A
path may be good at one time of day which is bad at another, or after a
change of wind; and a position may be very good for sudden defense,
which would be very stiff and awkward for feeding in. And common consent
must often be of such and such a company on this or that hillside, in
this or that particular danger,--not of all the sheep in the world: and
the consent may either be literally common, and expressed in assembly,
or it may be to appoint officers over the rest, with such and such
trusts of the common authority, to be used for the common advantage.
Conviction of crimes, and excommunication, for instance, could neither
be effected except before, or by means of, officers of some appointed
authority.
194. (5) This then brings us to our fifth question. What is the
Authority of the Clergy over the Church?
The first clause of the question must evidently be,--Who _are_ the
Clergy? And it is not easy to answer this without begging the rest of
the question.
For instance, I think I can hear certain people answering, that the
Clergy are folk of three kinds;--Bishops, who overlook the Church;
Priests, who sacrifice for the Church; Deacons, who minister to the
Church: thus assuming in their answer, that the Church is to be
sacrificed _for_, and that the people cannot overlook and minister to
her at the same time;--which is going much too fast. I think, however,
if we define the Clergy to be the "Spiritual Officers of the
Church,"--meaning, by Officers, merely People in office,--we shall have
a title safe enough and general enough to begin with, and corresponding
too, pretty well, with St. Paul's general expression [Greek:
proistamenoi], in Rom. xii. 8, and 1 Thess. v. 13.
Now, respecting these Spiritual Officers, or office-bearers, we have to
inquire, first, What their Office or Authority is, or should be?
secondly, Who gave, or should give, them that Authority? That is to say,
first, What is, or should be, the _nature_ of their office? and
secondly, What the _extent_, or force, of their authority in it? for
this last depends mainly on its derivation.
195. First, then, What should be the offices, and of what kind should be
the authority, of the Clergy?
I have hitherto referred to the Bible for an answer to every question. I
do so again; and, behold, the Bible gives me no answer. I defy you to
answer me from the Bible. You can only guess, and dimly conjecture, what
the offices of the Clergy _were_ in the first century. You cannot show
me a single command as to what they shall be. Strange, this; the Bible
gives no answer to so apparently important a question! God surely would
not have left His word without an answer to anything His children ought
to ask. Surely it must be a ridiculous question--a question we ought
never to have put, or thought of putting. Let us think of it again a
little. To be sure,--It _is_ a ridiculous question, and we should be
ashamed of ourselves for having put it:--What should be the offices of
the Clergy? That is to say, What are the possible spiritual necessities
which at any time may arise in the Church, and by what means and men are
they to be supplied?--evidently an infinite question. Different kinds of
necessities must be met by different authorities, constituted as the
necessities arise. Robinson Crusoe, in his island, wants no Bishop, and
makes a thunderstorm do for an Evangelist. The University of Oxford
would be ill off without its Bishop; but wants an Evangelist besides;
and that forthwith. The authority which the Vaudois shepherds need is of
Barnabas, the Son of Consolation; the authority which the city of London
needs is of James, the Son of Thunder. Let us then alter the form of our
question, and put it to the Bible thus: What are the necessities most
likely to arise in the Church? and may they be best met by different
men, or in great part by the same men acting in different capacities?
and are the names attached to their offices of any consequence? Ah, the
Bible answers now, and that loudly. The Church is built on the
Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the
corner-stone. Well; we cannot have two foundations, so we can have no
more Apostles nor Prophets:--then, as for the other needs of the Church
in its edifying upon this foundation, there are all manner of things to
be done daily;--rebukes to be given; comfort to be brought; Scripture to
be explained; warning to be enforced; threatenings to be executed;
charities to be administered; and the men who do these things are
called, and call themselves, with absolute indifference, Deacons,
Bishops, Elders, Evangelists, according to what they are doing at the
time of speaking. St. Paul almost always calls himself a deacon, St.
Peter calls himself an elder, 1 Peter v. 1; and Timothy, generally
understood to be addressed as a bishop, is called a deacon in 1 Tim. iv.
6--forbidden to rebuke an elder, in v. 1, and exhorted to do the work of
an evangelist, in 2 Tim. iv. 5. But there is one thing which, as
officers, or as separate from the rest of the flock, they _never_ call
themselves,--which it would have been impossible, as so separate, they
ever _should_ have called themselves; that is--_Priests_.
196. It would have been just as possible for the Clergy of the early
Church to call themselves Levites, as to call themselves (ex-officio)
Priests. The whole function of Priesthood was, on Christmas morning, at
once and forever gathered into His Person who was born at Bethlehem; and
thenceforward, all who are united with Him, and who with Him make
sacrifice of themselves; that is to say, all members of the Invisible
Church become, at the instant of their conversion, Priests; and are so
called in 1 Peter ii. 5, and Rev. i. 6, and xx. 6, where, observe, there
is no possibility of limiting the expression to the Clergy; the
conditions of Priesthood being simply having been loved by Christ, and
washed in His blood. The blasphemous claim on the part of the Clergy of
being _more_ Priests than the godly laity--that is to say, of having a
higher Holiness than the Holiness of being one with Christ,--is
altogether a Romanist heresy, dragging after it, or having its origin
in, the other heresies respecting the sacrificial power of the Church
officer, and his repeating the oblation of Christ, and so having power
to absolve from sin:--with all the other endless and miserable
falsehoods of the Papal hierarchy; falsehoods for which, that there
might be no shadow of excuse, it has been ordained by the Holy Spirit
that no Christian minister shall once call himself a Priest from one end
of the New Testament to the other, except together with his flock; and
so far from the idea of any peculiar sanctification, belonging to the
Clergy, ever entering the Apostles' minds, we actually find St. Paul
defending himself against the possible imputation of inferiority: "If
any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think
this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's" (2 Cor. x.
7). As for the unhappy retention of the term Priest in our English
Prayer-book, so long as it was understood to mean nothing but an upper
order of Church officer, licensed to tell the congregation from the
reading-desk, what (for the rest) they might, one would think, have
known without being told,--that "God pardoneth all them that truly
repent,"--there was little harm in it; but, now that this order of
Clergy begins to presume upon a title which, if it mean anything at all,
is simply short for Presbyter, and has no more to do with the word
Hiereus than with the word Levite, it is time that some order should be
taken both with the book and the Clergy. For instance, in that dangerous
compound of halting poetry with hollow Divinity, called the "Lyra
Apostolica," we find much versification on the sin of Korah and his
company: with suggested parallel between the Christian and Levitical
Churches, and threatening that there are "Judgment Fires, for
high-voiced Korahs in their day." There are indeed such fires. But when
Moses said, "a Prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you, like unto me,"
did he mean the writer who signs [Greek: g] in the "Lyra Apostolica"?
The office of the Lawgiver and Priest is now forever gathered into One
Mediator between God and man; and THEY are guilty of the sin of Korah
who blasphemously would associate themselves in His Mediatorship.
197. As for the passages in the "Ordering of Priests" and "Visitation of
the Sick" respecting Absolution, they are evidently pure Romanism, and
might as well not be there, for any practical effect which they have on
the consciences of the Laity; and had much better not be there, as
regards their effect on the minds of the Clergy. It is indeed true that
Christ promised absolving powers to His Apostles: He also promised to
those who believed, that they should take up serpents; and if they drank
any deadly thing, it should not hurt them. His words were fulfilled
literally; but those who would extend their force to beyond the
Apostolic times, must extend both promises or neither.
Although, however, the Protestant laity do not often admit the absolving
power of their clergy, they are but too apt to yield, in some sort, to
the impression of their greater sanctification; and from this instantly
results the unhappy consequence that the sacred character of the Layman
himself is forgotten, and his own Ministerial duty is neglected. Men
not in office in the Church suppose themselves, on that ground, in a
sort unholy; and that, therefore, they may sin with more excuse, and be
idle or impious with less danger, than the Clergy: especially they
consider themselves relieved from all ministerial function, and as
permitted to devote their whole time and energy to the business of this
world. No mistake can possibly be greater. Every member of the Church is
equally bound to the service of the Head of the Church; and that service
is pre-eminently the saving of souls. There is not a moment of a man's
active life in which he may not be indirectly preaching; and throughout
a great part of his life he ought to be _directly_ preaching, and
teaching both strangers and friends; his children, his servants, and all
who in any way are put under him, being given to him as special objects
of his ministration. So that the only difference between a Church
officer and a lay member is either a wider degree of authority given to
the former, as apparently a wiser and better man, or a special
appointment to some office more easily discharged by one person than by
many: as, for instance, the serving of tables by the deacons; the
authority or appointment being, in either case, commonly signified by a
marked separation from the rest of the Church, and the privilege or
power[146] of being maintained by the rest of the Church, without being
forced to labor with his hands, or incumber himself with any temporal
concerns.
198. Now, putting out of the question the serving of tables, and other
such duties, respecting which there is no debate, we shall find the
offices of the Clergy, whatever names we may choose to give to those who
discharge them, falling mainly into two great heads:--Teaching;
including doctrine, warning, and comfort: Discipline; including reproof
and direct administration of punishment. Either of which functions would
naturally become vested in single persons, to the exclusion of others,
as a mere matter of convenience: whether those persons were wiser and
better than others or not; and respecting each of which, and the
authority required for its fitting discharge, a short inquiry must be
separately made.
199. I. Teaching.--It appears natural and wise that certain men should
be set apart from the rest of the Church that they may make Theology the
study of their lives: and that they should be thereto instructed
specially in the Hebrew and Greek tongues; and have entire leisure
granted them for the study of the Scriptures, and for obtaining general
knowledge of the grounds of Faith, and best modes of its defense against
all heretics: and it seems evidently right, also, that with this
Scholastic duty should be joined the Pastoral duty of constant
visitation and exhortation to the people; for, clearly, the Bible, and
the truths of Divinity in general, can only be understood rightly in
their practical application; and clearly, also, a man spending his time
constantly in spiritual ministrations, must be better able, on any given
occasion, to deal powerfully with the human heart than one unpracticed
in such matters. The unity of Knowledge and Love, both devoted
altogether to the service of Christ and His Church, marks the true
Christian Minister; who, I believe, whenever he has existed, has never
failed to receive due and fitting reverence from all men,--of whatever
character or opinion; and I believe that if all those who profess to be
such were such indeed, there would never be question of their authority
more.
200. But, whatever influence they may have over the Church, their
authority never supersedes that of either the intellect or the
conscience of the simplest of its lay members. They can assist those
members in the search for truth, or comfort their over-worn and doubtful
minds; they can even assure them that they are in the way of truth, or
that pardon is within their reach: but they can neither manifest the
truth, nor grant the pardon. Truth is to be discovered, and Pardon to be
won, for every man by himself. This is evident from innumerable texts of
Scripture, but chiefly from those which exhort every man to seek after
Truth, and which connect knowing with doing. We are to seek after
knowledge as silver, and search for her as for hid treasures; therefore,
from every man she must be naturally hid, and the discovery of her is
to be the reward only of personal search. The kingdom of God is as
treasure hid in a field; and of those who profess to help us to seek for
it, we are not to put confidence in those who say,--Here is the
treasure, we have found it, and have it, and will give you some of it;
but in those who say,--We think that is a good place to dig, and you
will dig most easily in such and such a way.
201. Farther, it has been promised that if such earnest search be made,
Truth shall be discovered: as much truth, that is, as is necessary for
the person seeking. These, therefore, I hold, for two fundamental
principles of religion,--that, without seeking, truth cannot be known at
all; and that, by seeking, it may be discovered by the simplest. I say,
without seeking it cannot be known at all. It can neither be declared
from pulpits, nor set down in Articles, nor in anywise "prepared and
sold" in packages, ready for use. Truth must be ground for every man by
himself out of its husk, with such help as he can get, indeed, but not
without stern labor of his own. In what science is knowledge to be had
cheap? or truth to be told over a velvet cushion, in half an hour's talk
every seventh day? Can you learn chemistry so?--zoology?--anatomy? and
do you expect to penetrate the secret of all secrets, and to know that
whose price is above rubies; and of which the depth saith,--It is not in
me,--in so easy fashion? There are doubts in this matter which evil
spirits darken with their wings, and that is true of all such doubts
which we were told long ago--they can "be ended by action alone."[147]
202. As surely as we live, this truth of truths can only so be
discerned: to those who act on what they know, more shall be revealed;
and thus, if any man will do His will, he shall know the doctrine
whether it be of God. Any man,--not the man who has most means of
knowing, who has the subtlest brains, or sits under the most orthodox
preacher, or has his library fullest of most orthodox books,--but the
man who strives to know, who takes God at His word, and sets himself to
dig up the heavenly mystery, roots and all, before sunset, and the night
come, when no man can work. Beside such a man, God stands in more and
more visible presence as he toils, and teaches him that which no
preacher can teach--no earthly authority gainsay. By such a man, the
preacher must himself be judged.
203. Doubt you this? There is nothing more certain nor clear throughout
the Bible: the Apostles themselves appeal constantly to their flocks,
and actually _claim_ judgment from them, as deserving it, and having a
right to it, rather than discouraging it. But, first notice the way in
which the discovery of truth is spoken of in the Old Testament: "Evil
men understand not judgment; but they that seek the Lord understand all
things," Proverbs xxviii. 5. God overthroweth, not merely the
transgressor or the wicked, but even "the words of the transgressor,"
Proverbs xxii. 12, and "the counsel of the wicked," Job v. 13, xxi. 16;
observe again, in Proverbs xxiv. 14, "My son, eat thou honey, because it
is good--so shall the knowledge of wisdom be unto thy soul, when thou
hast _found it_, there shall be a reward;" and again, "What man is he
that feareth the Lord? him shall He teach in the way that He shall
choose;" so Job xxxii. 8, and multitudes of places more; and then, with
all these places, which express the definite and personal operation of
the Spirit of God on every one of His people, compare the place in
Isaiah, which speaks of the contrary of this human teaching: a passage
which seems as if it had been written for this very day and hour.
"Because their fear towards me is taught by the _precept of men_;
therefore, behold, the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the
understanding of their prudent men shall be hid" (xxix. 13,14). Then
take the New Testament, and observe how St. Paul himself speaks of the
Romans, even as hardly needing his epistle, but able to admonish one
another: "_Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto
you in some sort, as putting you in mind_" (xv. 15). Anyone, we should
have thought, might have done as much as this, and yet St. Paul
increases the modesty of it as he goes on; for he claims the right of
doing as much as this, only "because of the grace given to me of God,
that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles." Then
compare 2 Cor. v. 11, where he appeals to the consciences of the people
for the manifestation of his having done his duty; and observe in verse
21 of that, and I of the next chapter, the "pray" and "beseech," not
"command"; and again in chapter vi. verse 4, "approving ourselves as the
ministers of God." But the most remarkable passage of all is 2 Cor. iii.
1, whence it appears that the churches were actually in the habit of
giving letters of recommendation to their ministers; and St. Paul
dispenses with such letters, not by virtue of his Apostolic authority,
but because the power of his preaching was enough manifested in the
Corinthians themselves. And these passages are all the more forcible,
because if in any of them St. Paul had claimed absolute authority over
the Church as a teacher, it was no more than we should have expected him
to claim, nor could his doing so have in anywise justified a successor
in the same claim. But now that he has not claimed it,--who,
following him, shall dare to claim it? And the consideration of the
necessity of joining expressions of the most exemplary humility, which
were to be the example of succeeding ministers, with such assertion of
Divine authority as should secure acceptance for the epistle itself in
the sacred canon, sufficiently accounts for the apparent inconsistencies
which occur in 2 Thess. iii. 14, and other such texts.
204. So much, then, for the authority of the Clergy in matters of
Doctrine. Next, what is their authority in matters of Discipline? It
must evidently be very great, even if it were derived from the people
alone, and merely vested in the clerical officers as the executors of
their ecclesiastical judgments, and general overseers of all the Church.
But granting, as we must presently, the minister to hold office directly
from God, his authority of discipline becomes very great indeed; how
great, it seems to me most difficult to determine, because I do not
understand what St. Paul means by "delivering a man to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh." Leaving this question, however, as much too
hard for casual examination, it seems indisputable that the authority of
the Ministers or court of Ministers should extend to the pronouncing a
man Excommunicate for certain crimes against the Church, as well as for
all crimes punishable by ordinary law. There ought, I think, to be an
ecclesiastical code of laws; and a man ought to have jury trial,
according to this code, before an ecclesiastical judge; in which, if he
were found guilty, as of lying, or dishonesty, or cruelty, much more of
any actually committed violent crime, he should be pronounced
excommunicate; refused the Sacrament; and have his name written in some
public place as an excommunicate person until he had publicly confessed
his sin and besought pardon of God for it. The jury should always be of
the laity, and no penalty should be enforced in an ecclesiastical court
except this of excommunication.
205. This proposal may seem strange to many persons; but assuredly this,
if not much more than this, is commanded in Scripture, first in the
(much-abused) text, "Tell it unto the Church;" and most clearly in 1
Cor. v. 11-13; 2 Thess. iii. 6 and 14; 1 Tim. v. 8 and 20; and Titus
iii. 10; from which passages we also know the two proper degrees of the
penalty. For Christ says, Let him who refuses to hear the Church, "be
unto thee as an heathen man and a publican," But Christ ministered to
the heathen, and sat at meat with the publican; only always with
declared or implied expression of their inferiority; here, therefore, is
one degree of excommunication for persons who "offend" their brethren,
committing some minor fault against them; and who, having been
pronounced in error by the body of the Church, refuse to confess their
fault or repair it; who are then to be no longer considered members of
the Church; and their recovery to the body of it is to be sought exactly
as it would be in the case of an heathen. But covetous persons, railers,
extortioners, idolaters, and those guilty of other gross crimes, are to
be entirely cut off from the company of the believers; and we are not so
much as to eat with them. This last penalty, however, would require to
be strictly guarded, that it might not be abused in the infliction of
it, as it has been by the Romanists. We are not, indeed, to eat with
them, but we may exercise all Christian charity towards them, and give
them to eat, if we see them in hunger, as we ought to all our enemies;
only we are to consider them distinctly as our _enemies_: that is to
say, enemies of our Master, Christ; and servants of Satan.
206. As for the rank or name of the officers in whom the authorities,
either of teaching or discipline, are to be vested, they are left
undetermined by Scripture. I have heard it said by men who know their
Bible far better than I, that careful examination may detect evidence of
the existence of three orders of Clergy in the Church. This may be; but
one thing is very clear, without any laborious examination, that
"bishop" and "elder" sometimes mean the same thing; as, indisputably, in
Titus i. 5 and 7, and I Peter v. I and 2, and that the office of the
bishop or overseer was one of considerably less importance than it is
with us. This is palpably evident from I Timothy iii., for what divine
among us, writing of episcopal proprieties, would think of saying that
bishops "must not be given to wine," must be "no strikers," and must not
be "novices"? We are not in the habit of making bishops of novices in
these days; and it would be much better that, like the early Church, we
sometimes ran the risk of doing so; for the fact is we have not bishops
enough--by some hundreds. The idea of overseership has been practically
lost sight of, its fulfillment having gradually become physically
impossible, for want of more bishops. The duty of a bishop is, without
doubt, to be accessible to the humblest clergymen of his diocese, and to
desire very earnestly that all of them should be in the habit of
referring to him in all cases of difficulty; if they do not do this of
their own accord, it is evidently his duty to visit them, live with them
sometimes, and join in their ministrations to their flocks, so as to
know exactly the capacities and habits of life of each; and if any of
them complained of this or that difficulty with their congregations, the
bishop should be ready to go down to help them, preach for them, write
general epistles to their people, and so on: besides this, he should of
course be watchful of their errors--ready to hear complaints from their
congregations of inefficiency or aught else; besides having general
superintendence of all the charitable institutions and schools in his
diocese, and good knowledge of whatever was going on in theological
matters, both all over the kingdom and on the Continent. This is the
work of a right overseer; and I leave the reader to calculate how many
additional bishops--and those hard-working men, too--we should need
to have it done, even decently. Then our present bishops might all
become archbishops with advantage, and have general authority over the
rest.[148]
207. As to the mode in which the officers of the Church should be
elected or appointed, I do not feel it my business to say anything at
present, nor much respecting the extent of their authority, either over
each other or over the congregation, this being a most difficult
question, the right solution of which evidently lies between two most
dangerous extremes--insubordination and radicalism on one hand, and
ecclesiastical tyranny and heresy on the other: of the two,
insubordination is far the least to be dreaded--for this reason, that
nearly all real Christians are more on the watch against their pride
than their indolence, and would sooner obey their clergyman, if
possible, than contend with him; while the very pride they suppose
conquered often returns masked, and causes them to make a merit of their
humility and their abstract obedience, however unreasonable: but they
cannot so easily persuade themselves there is a merit in abstract
_dis_obedience.
208. Ecclesiastical tyranny has, for the most part, founded itself on
the idea of Vicarianism, one of the most pestilent of the Romanist
theories, and most plainly denounced in Scripture. Of this I have a word
or two to say to the modern "Vicarian." All powers that be are
unquestionably ordained of God; so that they that resist the Power,
resist the ordinance of God. Therefore, say some in these offices, We,
being ordained of God, and having our credentials, and being in the
English Bible called ambassadors for God, do, in a sort, represent God.
We are Vicars of Christ, and stand on earth in place of Christ. I have
heard this said by Protestant clergymen.
209. Now the word ambassador has a peculiar ambiguity about it, owing to
its use in modern political affairs; and these clergymen assume that the
word, as used by St. Paul, means an Ambassador Plenipotentiary;
representative of his King, and capable of acting for his King. What
right have they to assume that St. Paul meant this? St. Paul never uses
the word ambassador at all. He says, simply, "We are in embassage from
Christ; and Christ beseeches you through us." Most true. And let it
further be granted, that every word that the clergyman speaks is
literally dictated to him by Christ; that he can make no mistake in
delivering his message; and that, therefore, it is indeed Christ
Himself who speaks to us the word of life through the messenger's lips.
Does, therefore, the messenger represent Christ? Does the channel which
conveys the waters of the Fountain represent the Fountain itself?
Suppose, when we went to draw water at a cistern, that all at once the
Leaden Spout should become animated, and open its mouth and say to us,
See, I am Vicarious for the Fountain. Whatever respect you show to the
Fountain, show some part of it to me. Should we not answer the Spout,
and say, Spout, you were set there for our service, and may be taken
away and thrown aside[149] if anything goes wrong with you? But the
Fountain will flow forever.
210. Observe, I do not deny a most solemn authority vested in every
Christian messenger from God to men. I am prepared to grant this to the
uttermost; and all that George Herbert says, in the end of "The
Church-porch," I would enforce, at another time than this, to the
uttermost. But the Authority is simply that of a King's _Messenger_; not
of a King's _Representative_. There is a wide difference; all the
difference between humble service and blasphemous usurpation.
Well, the congregation might ask, grant him a King's messenger in cases
of doctrine,--in cases of discipline, an officer bearing the King's
Commission. How far are we to obey him? How far is it lawful to dispute
his commands?
For, in granting, above, that the Messenger always gave his message
faithfully, I granted too much to my adversaries, in order that their
argument might have all the weight it possibly could. The Messengers
rarely deliver their message faithfully; and sometimes have declared, as
from the King, messages of their own invention. How far are we, knowing
them for King's messengers, to believe or obey them?
211. Suppose, for instance, in our English army, on the eve of some
great battle, one of the colonels were to give his order to his
regiment: "My men, tie your belts over your eyes, throw down your
muskets, and follow me as steadily as you can, through this marsh, into
the middle of the enemy's line," (this being precisely the order issued
by our Puseyite Church officers). It might be questioned, in the real
battle, whether it would be better that a regiment should show an
example of insubordination, or be cut to pieces. But happily in the
Church there is no such difficulty; for the King is always with His
army: not only with His army, but at the right hand of every soldier of
it. Therefore, if any of their colonels give them a strange command, all
they have to do is to ask the King; and never yet any Christian asked
guidance of his King, in any difficulty whatsoever, without mental
reservation or secret resolution, but he had it forthwith. We conclude
then, finally, that the authority of the Clergy is, in matters of
discipline, large (being executive, first, of the written laws of God,
and secondly, of those determined and agreed upon by the body of the
Church), in matters of doctrine, dependent on their recommending
themselves to every man's conscience, both as messengers of God, and as
themselves men of God, perfect, and instructed to good works.[150]
212. (6) The last subject which we had to investigate was, it will be
remembered, what is usually called the connection of "Church and State."
But, by our definition of the term Church, throughout the whole of
Christendom, the Church (or society of professing Christians) _is_ the
State, and our subject is therefore, properly speaking, the connection
of lay and clerical officers of the Church; that is to say, the degrees
in which the civil and ecclesiastical governments ought to interfere
with or influence each other.
It would of course be vain to attempt a formal inquiry into this
intricate subject;--I have only a few detached points to notice
respecting it.
213. There are three degrees or kinds of civil government. The first and
lowest, executive merely; the government in this sense being simply the
National Hand, and composed of individuals who administer the laws of
the nation, and execute its established purposes.
The second kind of government is deliberative; but in its deliberation,
representative only of the thoughts and will of the people or nation,
and liable to be deposed the instant it ceases to express those thoughts
and that will. This, whatever its form, whether centered in a king or in
any number of men, is properly to be called Democratic. The third and
highest kind of government is deliberative, not as representative of the
people, but as chosen to take separate counsel for them, and having
power committed to it, to enforce upon them whatever resolution it may
adopt, whether consistent with their will or not. This government is
properly to be called Monarchical, whatever its form.
214. I see that politicians and writers of history continually run into
hopeless error, because they confuse the Form of a Government with its
Nature. A Government may be nominally vested in an individual; and yet
if that individual be in such fear of those beneath him, that he does
nothing but what he supposes will be agreeable to them, the Government
is Democratic; on the other hand, the Government may be vested in a
deliberative assembly of a thousand men, all having equal authority, and
all chosen from the lowest ranks of the people; and yet if that assembly
act independently of the will of the people, and have no fear of them,
and enforce its determinations upon them, the Government is Monarchical;
that is to say, the Assembly, acting as One, has power over the Many,
while in the case of the weak king, the Many have power over the One.
A Monarchical Government, acting for its own interest, instead of the
people's, is a tyranny. I said the Executive Government was the hand of
the nation:--the Republican Government is in like manner its tongue.
The Monarchical Government is its head.
All true and right government is Monarchical, and of the head. What is
its best form, is a totally different question; but unless it act _for_
the people, and not as representative of the people, it is no government
at all; and one of the grossest blockheadisms of the English in the
present day, is their idea of sending men to Parliament to "represent
_their_ opinions." Whereas their only true business is to find out the
wisest men among them, and send them to Parliament to represent their
_own_ opinions, and act upon them. Of all puppet-shows in the Satanic
Carnival of the earth, the most contemptible puppet-show is a Parliament
with a mob pulling the strings.
215. Now, of these three states of Government, it is clear that the
merely executive can have no proper influence over ecclesiastical
affairs. But of the other two, the first, being the voice of the people,
or voice of the Church, must have such influence over the Clergy as is
properly vested in the body of the Church. The second, which stands in
the same relation to the people as a father does to his family, will
have such farther influence over ecclesiastical matters, as a father has
over the consciences of his adult children. No absolute authority,
therefore, to enforce their attendance at any particular place of
worship, or subscription to any particular Creed. But indisputable
authority to procure for them such religious instruction as he deems
fittest,[151] and to recommend it to them by every means in his power;
he not only has authority, but is under obligation to do this, as well
as to establish such disciplines and forms of worship in his house as he
deems most convenient for his family: with which they are indeed at
liberty to refuse compliance, if such disciplines appear to them clearly
opposed to the law of God; but not without most solemn conviction of
their being so, nor without deep sorrow to be compelled to such a
course.
216. But it may be said, the Government of a people never does stand to
them in the relation of a father to his family. If it do not, it is no
Government. However grossly it may fail in its duty, and however little
it may be fitted for its place, if it be a Government at all, it has
paternal office and relation to the people. I find it written on the one
hand,--"Honor thy Father; "on the other,--"Honor the King:" on the one
hand,--"Whoso smiteth his Father, shall be put to death;"[152] on the
other,--"They that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Well,
but, it may be farther argued, the Clergy are in a still more solemn
sense the Fathers of the People, and the People are their beloved Sons;
why should not, therefore, the Clergy have the power to govern the civil
officers?
217. For two very clear reasons.
In all human institutions certain evils are granted, as of necessity;
and, in organizing such institutions, we must allow for the consequences
of such evils, and make arrangements such as may best keep them in
check. Now, in both the civil and ecclesiastical governments there will
of necessity be a certain number of bad men. The wicked civilian has
comparatively little interest in overthrowing ecclesiastical authority;
it is often a useful help to him, and presents in itself little which
seems covetable. But the wicked ecclesiastical officer has much interest
in overthrowing the civilian, and getting the political power into his
own hands. As far as wicked men are concerned, therefore, it is better
that the State should have power over the Clergy, than the Clergy over
the State.
Secondly, supposing both the Civil and Ecclesiastical officers to be
Christians; there is no fear that the civil officer should underrate the
dignity or shorten the serviceableness of the minister; but there is
considerable danger that the religious enthusiasm of the minister might
diminish the serviceableness of the civilian. (The History of Religious
Enthusiasm should be written by someone who had a life to give to its
investigation; it is one of the most melancholy pages in human records,
and one of the most necessary to be studied.) Therefore, as far as good
men are concerned, it is better the State should have power over the
Clergy than the Clergy over the State.
218. This we might, it seems to me, conclude by unassisted reason. But
surely the whole question is, without any need of human reason, decided
by the history of Israel. If ever a body of Clergy should have received
independent authority, the Levitical Priesthood should; for they were
indeed a Priesthood, and more holy than the rest of the nation. But
Aaron is always subject to Moses. All solemn revelation is made to
Moses, the civil magistrate, and he actually commands Aaron as to the
fulfillment of his priestly office, and that in a necessity of life and
death: "Go, and make an atonement for the people." Nor is anything more
remarkable throughout the whole of the Jewish history than the perfect
subjection of the Priestly to the Kingly Authority. Thus Solomon thrusts
out Abiathar from being priest, I Kings ii. 27; and Jehoahaz administers
the funds of the Lord's House, 2 Kings xii. 4, though that money was
actually the Atonement Money, the Hansom for Souls (Exod. xxx. 12).
219. We have, however, also the beautiful instance of Samuel uniting in
himself the offices of Priest, Prophet, and Judge; nor do I insist on
any special manner of subjection of Clergy to civil officers, or _vice
versâ_; but only on the necessity of their perfect unity and influence
upon each other in every Christian kingdom. Those who endeavor to effect
the utter separation of ecclesiastical and civil officers, are striving,
on the one hand, to expose the Clergy to the most grievous and most
subtle of temptations from their own spiritual enthusiasm and spiritual
pride; on the other, to deprive the civil officer of all sense of
religious responsibility, and to introduce the fearful, godless,
conscienceless, and soulless policy of the Radical and the (so-called)
Socialist. Whereas, the ideal of all government is the perfect unity of
the two bodies of officers, each supporting and correcting the other;
the Clergy having due weight in all the national councils; the civil
officers having a solemn reverence for God in all their acts; the Clergy
hallowing all worldly policy by their influence; and the magistracy
repressing all religious enthusiasm by their practical wisdom. To
separate the two is to endeavor to separate the daily life of the nation
from God, and to map out the dominion of the soul into two
provinces--one of Atheism, the other of Enthusiasm. These, then, were
the reasons which caused me to speak of the idea of separation of Church
and State as Fatuity; for what Fatuity can be so great as the not having
God in our thoughts; and, in any act or office of life, saying in our
hearts, "There is no God"?
220. Much more I would fain say of these things, but not now: this only
I must emphatically assert, in conclusion:--That the schism between the
so-called Evangelical and High Church Parties in Britain, is enough to
shake many men's faith in the truth or existence of Religion at all. It
seems to me one of the most disgraceful scenes in Ecclesiastical
history, that Protestantism should be paralyzed at its very heart by
jealousies, based on little else than mere difference between high and
low breeding. For the essential differences in the religious opinions of
the two parties are sufficiently marked in two men whom we may take as
the highest representatives of each--George Herbert and John Milton; and
I do not think there would have been much difficulty in atoning those
two, if one could have got them together. But the real difficulty,
nowadays, lies in the sin and folly of both parties; in the
superciliousness of the one, and the rudeness of the other. Evidently,
however, the sin lies most at the High Church door, for the Evangelicals
are much more ready to act with Churchmen than they with the
Evangelicals; and I believe that this state of things cannot continue
much longer; and that if the Church of England does not forthwith unite
with herself the entire Evangelical body, both of England and Scotland,
and take her stand with them against the Papacy, her hour has struck.
She cannot any longer serve two masters; nor make courtesies alternately
to Christ and Antichrist. That she _has_ done this is visible enough by
the state of Europe at this instant. Three centuries since Luther--three
hundred years of Protestant knowledge--and the Papacy not yet
overthrown! Christ's truth still restrained, in narrow dawn, to the
white cliffs of England and white crests of the Alps;--the morning star
paused in its course in heaven;--the sun and moon stayed, with Satan
for their Joshua.
221. But how to unite the two great sects of paralyzed Protestants? By
keeping simply to Scripture. The members of the Scottish Church have not
a shadow of excuse for refusing Episcopacy; it has indeed been abused
among them, grievously abused; but it is in the Bible; and that is all
they have a right to ask.
They have also no shadow of excuse for refusing to employ a written form
of prayer. It may not be to their taste--it may not be the way in which
they like to pray; but it is no question, at present, of likes or
dislikes, but of duties; and the acceptance of such a form on their part
would go half-way to reconcile them with their brethren. Let them allege
such objections as they can reasonably advance against the English form,
and let these be carefully and humbly weighed by the pastors of both
churches: some of them ought to be at once forestalled. For the English
Church, on the other hand, _must_ cut the term Priest entirely out of
her Prayer-book, and substitute for it that of Minister or Elder; the
passages respecting Absolution must be thrown out also, except the
doubtful one in the Morning Service, in which there is no harm; and then
there would be only the Baptismal question left, which is one of words
rather than of things, and might easily be settled in Synod, turning the
refractory Clergy out of their offices, to go to Rome if they chose.
Then, when the Articles of Faith and form of worship had been agreed
upon between the English and Scottish Churches, the written forms and
articles should be carefully translated into the European languages, and
offered to the acceptance of the Protestant churches on the Continent,
with earnest entreaty that they would receive them, and due
entertainment of all such objections as they could reasonably allege;
and thus the whole body of Protestants, united in one great Fold, would
indeed go in and out, and find pasture; and the work appointed for them
would be done quickly, and Antichrist overthrown.
222. Impossible: a thousand times impossible!--I hear it exclaimed
against me. No--not impossible. Christ does not order impossibilities,
and He _has_ ordered us to be at peace one with another. Nay, it is
answered--He came not to send peace, but a sword. Yes, verily: to send a
sword upon earth, but not within His Church; for to His Church He said,
"My Peace I leave with you."
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 140: I may, perhaps, have missed count of one or two
occurrences of the word; but not, I think, in any important passages.]
[Footnote 141: The expression "House of God," in 1 Tim. iii. 15, is
shown to be used of the congregation by 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17.
I have not noticed the word [Greek: kyriakê (oikia)] from which the
German "Kirche," the English "Church," and the Scotch "Kirk" are
derived, as it is not used with that signification in the New
Testament.]
[Footnote 142: Any reference _except_ to Scripture, in notes of this
kind would, of course, be useless: the argument from, or with, the
Fathers is not to be compressed into fifty pages. I have something to
say about Hooker; but I reserve that for another time, not wishing to
say it hastily, or to leave it without support.]
[Footnote 143: Acts x. 44.]
[Footnote 144: Let not the reader be displeased with me for these short
and apparently insolent statements of opinion. I am not writing
insolently, but as shortly and clearly as I can; and when I seriously
believe a thing, I say so in a few words, leaving the reader to
determine what my belief is worth. But I do not choose to temper down
every expression of personal opinion into courteous generalities, and so
lose space, and time, and intelligibility at once. We are utterly
oppressed in these days by our courtesies, and considerations, and
compliances, and proprieties. Forgive me them, this once, or rather let
us all forgive them to each other, and learn to speak plainly first,
and, if it may be, gracefully afterwards; and not only to speak, but to
stand by what we have spoken. One of my Oxford friends heard, the other
day, that I was employed on these notes, and forthwith wrote to me, in a
panic, not to put my name to them, for fear I should "compromise
myself." I think we are most of us compromised to some extent already,
when England has sent a Roman Catholic minister to the second city in
Italy, and remains herself for a week without any government, because
her chief men cannot agree upon the position which a Popish cardinal is
to have leave to occupy in London.]
[Footnote 145: Matt. xxiv. 4; Mark xiii. 5; Luke xxi. 8; 1 Cor. iii. 18,
vi. 9, xv. 33; Eph. iv. 14, v. 6; Col. ii. 8; 2 Thess. ii. 3; Heb. iii.
13; 1 John i. 8, iii. 7; 2 John 7, 8.]
[Footnote 146: [Greek: exousia] in 1 Cor. ix. 12. 2 Thess, iii. 9.]
[Footnote 147: (Carlyle, "Past and Present," chapter xi.) Can anything
be more striking than the repeated warnings of St. Paul against strife
of words; and his distinct setting forth of Action as the only true
means of attaining knowledge of the truth, and the only sign of men's
possessing the true faith? Compare 1 Timothy vi. 4, 20, (the latter
verse especially, in connection with the previous three,) and 2 Timothy
ii. 14, 19, 22, 23, tracing the connection here also; add Titus i. 10,
14, 16, noting "_in works_ they deny him," and Titus iii. 8, 9, "affirm
constantly that they be careful to maintain good works; but avoid
foolish questions;" and finally, 1 Timothy i. 4-7: a passage which seems
to have been especially written for these times.]
[Footnote 148: I leave, in the main text, the abstract question of the
fitness of Episcopacy unapproached, not feeling any call to speak of it
at length at present; all that I feel necessary to be said is, that
bishops being granted, it is clear that we have too few to do their
work. But the argument from the practice of the Primitive Church appears
to me to be of enormous weight,--nor have I ever heard any rational
plea alleged against Episcopacy, except that, like other things, it is
capable of abuse, and has sometimes been abused; and as, altogether
clearly and indisputably, there is described in the Bible an episcopal
office, distinct from the merely ministerial one; and, apparently, also
an episcopal officer attached to each church, and distinguished in the
Revelation as an Angel, I hold the resistance of the Scotch Presbyterian
Church to Episcopacy to be unscriptural, futile, and schismatic.]
[Footnote 149: "By just judgment be deposed," Art. 26.]
[Footnote 150: The difference between the authority of doctrine and
discipline is beautifully marked in 2 Timothy ii. 25, and Titus ii.
12-15. In the first passage, the servant of God, teaching divine
doctrine, must not strive, but must "in _meekness_ instruct those that
oppose themselves;" in the second passage, teaching us "that denying
ungodliness and worldly lusts he _is to live soberly, righteously, and
godly_ in this _present world_," the minister is to speak, exhort, and
rebuke with ALL AUTHORITY--both functions being expressed as united in 2
Timothy iv. 3.]
[Footnote 151: Observe, this and the following conclusions depend
entirely on the supposition that the Government is part of the Body of
the Church, and that some pains have been taken to compose it of
religious and wise men. If we choose, knowingly and deliberately, to
compose our Parliament, in great part, of infidels and Papists, gamblers
and debtors, we may well regret its power over the Clerical officer; but
that we should, at any time, so compose our Parliament, is a sign that
the Clergy themselves have failed in their duty, and the Church in its
watchfulness;--thus the evil accumulates in reaction. Whatever I say of
the responsibility or authority of Government, is therefore to be
understood only as sequent on what I have said previously of the
necessity of closely circumscribing the Church, and then composing the
Civil Government out of the circumscribed Body. Thus, all Papists would
at once be rendered incapable of share in it being subjected to the
second or most severe degree of excommunication--first, as idolaters, by
1 Cor. v. 10; then as covetous and extortioners (selling absolution,) by
the same text; and, finally, as heretics and maintainers of falsehoods,
by Titus iii. 10, and 1 Tim. iv. 1.
I do not write this hastily, nor without earnest consideration both, of
the difficulty and the consequences of such Church Discipline. But
either the Bible is a superannuated book, and is only to be read as a
record of past days; or these things follow from it, clearly and
inevitably. That we live in days when the Bible has become
impracticable, is (if it be so) the very thing I desire to be
considered. I am not setting down these plans or schemes as at present
possible. I do not know how far they are possible; but it seems to me
that God has plainly commanded them, and that, therefore, their
impracticability is a thing to be meditated on.]
[Footnote 152: Exod. xxi. 15.]
THE LORD'S PRAYER AND THE CHURCH.[153]
LETTERS.
I.[154]
BRANTWOOD, CONISTON, LANCASHIRE,
_20th June, 1879._
223. DEAR MR. MALLESON,--I could not at once answer your
important letter; for, though I felt at once the impossibility of my
venturing to address such an audience as you proposed, I am unwilling to
fail in answering to any call relating to matters respecting which my
feelings have been long in earnest, if in any wise it may be possible
for me to be of service therein. My health--or want of it--now utterly
forbids my engagement in any duty involving excitement or acute
intellectual effort; but I think, before the first Tuesday in August, I
might be able to write one or two letters to yourself, referring to,
and more or less completing, some passages already printed in _Fors_ and
elsewhere, which might, on your reading any portions you thought
available, become matter of discussion during the meeting at some
leisure time, after its own main purposes had been answered.
At all events, I will think over what I should like, and be able, to
represent to such a meeting, and only beg you not to think me insensible
of the honor done me by your wish, and of the gravity of the trust
reposed in me.
Ever most faithfully yours,
J. RUSKIN.
THE REV. F. A. MALLESON.
II.
BRANTWOOD, CONISTON, _23rd June, 1879._
224. DEAR MR. MALLESON,--Walking, and talking, are now alike
impossible to me;[155] my strength is gone for both; nor do I believe
talking on such matters to be of the least use except to promote,
between sensible people, kindly feeling and knowledge of each other's
personal characters. I have every trust in _your_ kindness and truth;
nor do I fear being myself misunderstood by you; what I may be able to
put into written form, so as to admit of being laid before your friends
in council, must be set down without any question of personal
feeling--as simply as a mathematical question or demonstration.
225. The first exact question which it seems to me such an assembly may
be earnestly called upon by laymen to solve, is surely axiomatic: the
definition of themselves as a body, and of their business as such.
Namely: as clergymen of the Church of England, do they consider
themselves to be so called merely as the attached servants of a
particular state? Do they, in their quality of guides, hold a position
similar to that of the guides of Chamouni or Grindelwald, who, being a
numbered body of examined and trustworthy persons belonging to those
several villages, have nevertheless no Chamounist or Grindelwaldist
opinions on the subject of Alpine geography or glacier walking; but are
prepared to put into practice a common and universal science of Locality
and Athletics, founded on sure survey and successful practice? Are the
clergymen of the Ecclesia of England thus simply the attached and
salaried guides of England and the English, in the way, known of all
good men, that leadeth unto life?--or are they, on the contrary, a body
of men holding, or in any legal manner required, or compelled to hold,
opinions on the subject--say, of the height of the Celestial Mountains,
the crevasses which go down quickest to the pit, and other cognate
points of science--differing from, or even contrary to, the tenets of
the guides of the Church of France, the Church of Italy, and other
Christian countries?
Is not this the first of all questions which a Clerical Council has to
answer in open terms?
Ever affectionately yours,
J. RUSKIN.
III.
BRANTWOOD, _6th July._
226. My first letter contained a Layman's plea for a clear answer to the
question, "What is a clergyman of the Church of England?" Supposing the
answer to this first to be, that the clergy of the Church of England are
teachers, not of the Gospel to England, but of the Gospel to all
nations; and not of the Gospel of Luther, nor of the Gospel of
Augustine, but of the Gospel of Christ,--then the Layman's second
question would be:
Can this Gospel of Christ be put into such plain words and short terms
as that a plain man may understand it?--and, if so, would it not be, in
a quite primal sense, desirable that it should be so, rather than left
to be gathered out of Thirty-nine Articles, written by no means in
clear English, and referring, for further explanation of exactly the
most important point in the whole tenor of their teaching,[156] to a
"Homily of Justification,"[157] which is not generally in the
possession, or even probably within the comprehension, of simple
persons?
Ever faithfully yours,
J. RUSKIN.
IV.
BRANTWOOD, _8th July._
227. I am so very glad that you approve of the letter plan, as it
enables me to build up what I would fain try to say, of little stones,
without lifting too much for my strength at once; and the sense of
addressing a friend who understands me and sympathizes with me prevents
my being brought to a stand by continual need for apology, or fear of
giving offense.
But yet I do not quite see why you should feel my asking for a simple
and comprehensible statement of the Christian Gospel at starting. Are
you not bid to go into _all_ the world and preach it to every creature?
(I should myself think the clergyman most likely to do good who accepted
the [Greek: pasê thê ktisei] so literally as at least to sympathize with
St. Francis' sermon to the birds, and to feel that feeding either sheep
or fowls, or unmuzzling the ox, or keeping the wrens alive in the snow,
would be received by their Heavenly Feeder as the _perfect_ fulfillment
of His "Feed my sheep" in the higher sense.)[158]
228. That's all a parenthesis; for although I should think that your
good company would all agree that kindness to animals was a kind of
preaching to them, and that hunting and vivisection were a kind of
blasphemy to them, I want only to put the sterner question before your
council, _how_ this Gospel is to be preached either [Greek: pantachou]"
or to "[Greek: panta ta ethnê] if first its preachers have not
determined quite clearly what it _is_? And might not such definition,
acceptable to the entire body of the Church of Christ, be arrived at by
merely explaining, in their completeness and life, the terms of the
Lord's Prayer--the first words taught to children all over the Christian
world?
I will try to explain what I mean of its several articles, in following
letters; and in answer to the question with which you close your last, I
can only say that you are at perfect liberty to use any, or all, or any
parts of them, as you think good. Usually, when I am asked if letters of
mine may be printed, I say: "Assuredly, provided only that you print them
entire." But in your hands, I withdraw even this condition, and trust
gladly to your judgment, remaining always
Faithfully and affectionately yours,
J. RUSKIN.
THE REV. F. A. MALLESON.
V.
[Greek: pater hêmon ho en tois ouranois]
_Pater noster qui es in cælis._
BRANTWOOD, _10th July._
229. My meaning, in saying that the Lord's Prayer might be made a
foundation of Gospel-teaching, was not that it contained all that
Christian ministers have to teach; but that it contains what all
Christians are agreed upon as first to be taught; and that no good
parish-working pastor in any district of the world but would be glad to
take his part in making it clear and living to his congregation.
And the first clause of it, of course rightly explained, gives us the
ground of what is surely a mighty part of the Gospel--its "first and
great commandment," namely, that we have a Father whom we _can_ love,
and are required to love, and to desire to be with Him in Heaven,
wherever that may be.
And to declare that we have such a loving Father, whose mercy is over
_all_ His works, and whose will and law is so lovely and lovable that it
is sweeter than honey, and more precious than gold, to those who can
"taste" and "see" that the Lord is Good--this, surely, is a most
pleasant and glorious good message and _spell_ to bring to men--as
distinguished from the evil message and accursed spell that Satan has
brought to the nations of the world instead of it, that they have no
Father, but only "a consuming fire" ready to devour them, unless they
are delivered from its raging flame by some scheme of pardon for all,
for which they are to be thankful, not to the Father, but to the Son.
Supposing this first article of the true Gospel agreed to, how would the
blessing that closes the epistles of that Gospel become intelligible and
living, instead of dark and dead: "The grace of Christ, and the _love_
of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost,"--the most _tender_ word
being that used of the Father?
VI.
[Greek: hagiasthêtô to onoma sou]
_Sanctificetur nomen tuum._
BRANTWOOD, _12th July, 1879._
230. I wonder how many, even of those who honestly and attentively join
in our Church services, attach any distinct idea to the second clause of
the Lord's Prayer, the _first petition_ of it, the first thing that they
are ordered by Christ to seek of their Father?
Am I unjust in thinking that most of them have little more notion on the
matter than that God has forbidden "bad language," and wishes them to
pray that everybody may be respectful to Him?
Is it any otherwise with the Third Commandment? Do not most look on it
merely in the light of the statute of swearing? and read the words "will
not hold him guiltless" merely as a passionless intimation that however
carelessly a man may let out a round oath, there really _is_ something
wrong in it?
On the other hand, can anything be more tremendous than the words
themselves--double-negatived:
[Greek: "ou gar mê katharisê ... kurios"]
For _other_ sins there is washing;--for this, none! the seventh verse,
Ex. xx., in the Septuagint, marking the real power rather than the
English, which (I suppose) is literal to the Hebrew.
To my layman's mind, of practical needs in the present state of the
Church, nothing is so immediate as that of explaining to the
congregation the meaning of being gathered in His name, and having Him
in the midst of them; as, on the other hand, of being gathered in
blasphemy of His name, and having the devil in the midst of
them--presiding over the prayers which have become an abomination.
231. For the entire body of the texts in the Gospel against hypocrisy
are one and all nothing but the expansion of the threatening that closes
the Third Commandment. For as "the name whereby He shall be called is
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,"--so the taking that name in vain
is the sum of "the deceivableness of _un_righteousness in them that
perish."
Without dwelling on the possibility--which I do not myself, however, for
a moment doubt--of an honest clergyman's being able actually to prevent
the entrance among his congregation of persons leading openly wicked
lives, could any subject be more vital to the purposes of your meetings
than the difference between the present and the probable state of the
Christian Church which would result, were it more the effort of zealous
parish priests, instead of getting wicked _poor_ people to _come_ to
church, to get wicked rich ones to stay out of it?
Lest, in any discussion of such question, it might be, as it too often
is, alleged that "the Lord looketh upon the heart," etc., let me be
permitted to say--with as much positiveness as may express my deepest
conviction--that, while indeed it is the Lord's business to look upon
the heart, it is the pastor's to look upon the hands and the lips; and
that the foulest oaths of the thief and the street-walker are, in the
ears of God, sinless as the hawk's cry, or the gnat's murmur, compared
to the responses in the Church service, on the lips of the usurer and
the adulterer, who have destroyed, not their own souls only, but those
of the outcast ones whom they have made their victims.
It is for the meeting of clergymen themselves--not for a layman
addressing them--to ask further, how much the name of God may be taken
in vain, and profaned instead of hallowed--_in_ the pulpit, as well as
under it.
Ever affectionately yours,
J. RUSKIN.
VII
[Greek: elthetô ê basilheia sou]
_Adveniat regnum tuum._