DISCIPLINE THE DEFENCE OF DOCTRINE.-No. III.

THERE are two thoughts arising out of the points of history commented upon in our foregoing papers, which, inasmuch as they depend upon our belief of our Blessed LORD's rule over His Church, will well connect that history with the subject of our present paper, with the requirements, that is, of the Ruler of the Church regarding the Discipline of the Church, and the application of the whole to our own times and circumstances.

In the first place, when the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum was mentioned, we said that we would by no means make ourselves responsible for it as a whole: and of the times of the Restoration it was observed that although unfavourable for the re-assertion of the Church's purely spiritual power, they were favourable for the remodelling the administration of Episcopal Jurisdiction. Now the sense of the imperfections of one scheme, or of the practicability, at one time, only of a partial reformation, does not prevent a regret that such attempts were not made. We can hardly believe that the most objectionable parts of the Reformatio, such as the Enactments regarding Divorce, would have passed both Parliament and Convocation; nor can we think that a reformation of our Church Courts would not have rendered easy an extension of discipline into our parishes. It would be faithlessness to doubt that God's blessing will ever rest on an honest attempt made by His Church to promote holiness of life. "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." Increase of light comes from obedience to the light. We believe therefore that a sincere attempt to establish a godly discipline (and in this epithet we include the proviso that the attempt contains nothing that militates directly against the faith, or the fundamental order of the Church) will lead under God's providence, although it be imperfect in its mode and partial in its form, to the introduction of a purer and wider rule. Unhappily, the course of our Church has been diametrically opposite to this. Proposals, without attempts, to supply our deficiencies, and the gradual relinquishment of power which was to be exercised through obsolescent forms,these have ended, so far as the authority of the Church is concerned, in a complete inactivity; in the mischievous opinion, that there is no spiritual chastisement of sin, except in the private remonstrance of the pastor; no call to repentance, except in his exhortation. And the just retribution has been, a series of larger and larger secessions from the Church, with fits of paralytic torpor in those who still remained within her pale.

In the second place, may not those grievances of the Clergy VOL. XIX.-AUGUST, 1857. 2 Y

which arise from the inconsistencies with the Church's rule of the statute law, or of the decisions of temporal courts, be traced to our relaxation of discipline? At the very time we are writing another grievance is presenting itself. That which has hitherto been done, case by case, by private bills, is now proposed generally under the sanction of a public act; and it may be that the Clergy will soon be subjected to heavy penalties if they refuse to solemnize marriages proposed upon a principle which certainly the Church has never adopted, and which very many believe it could not adopt consistently with the rule of Holy Scripture. Had the Church proved itself a more vigilant defender of the sanctity of the marriage tie-by greater carefulness in admitting to it than is exhibited by proctors and surrogates-by connecting the solemnity itself more closely with the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist than is done in the cold Rubric, "It is convenient that new married persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their marriage, or at the first opportunity after their marriage"-by censuring breaches of marriage faith otherwise than has been done in the processes of the ecclesiastical courts, and that too by measures really pro salute animæ, not merely when the parties sued for a divorce-in short, by treating marriage as a sacrament, which the homilies style it, and the service represents it to be would then the spirit have been abroad which now prompts and allows our legislature to pass an act on the subject without a formal consultation of the Church in her Synods?

Again, notwithstanding the interpretation which we cannot but think that fairness requires, and a due regard for the holiness of the Sacrament demands, a curate is not justified in the temporal courts for refusing to admit to the Holy Communion a notorious evil liver, unless the notoriety be that of a verdict in a court of law. As matters have stood, indeed, in the Church, it was perhaps not unnatural that such a rule was adopted, but it is very difficult to persuade oneself, that the Rubric in question was not designed to vest in the curate, as the guardian of the sanctity of the Sacrament, a power of dealing with those cases of portentous wickedness, which ever and anon appear of a sudden, those sins which go before to judgment. The modern interpretation it is perfectly impossible to carry into effect in all cases. And surely it is not difficult to connect by way of cause and effect, the relaxation of discipline, and the tyrannical interpretation of this Rubric.1

text.

1 The writer intended to attempt a justification of the opinion expressed in the But it would take up too much space, and he must bear the charge of presumption for venturing to oppose the whole host of lawyers and the many divines who are on the other side. He may point out, however, the line of argument he would have taken.

(1.) The matter seems to rest upon the question whether the rubric is a penal statute, and to be interpreted strictly. Lawyers affirm that it is. On the other hand, it may be assumed that a liberal interpretation would not so limit the

In short, every sin and every neglect has its appropriate punishment in the very fruit of the sin and neglect: and we dare not deny that in the many evils which our Church is suffering from, we read the fulfilment of GOD's law, which is of universal application, that men shall eat the fruit of their own ways.

In referring to the rule of Holy Scripture on this subject, it is not possible in one short paper to argue the case of discipline generally. We can do little more than quote the rule, and insist on its application to our present times and circumstances. Such application does not appear to be sufficiently dwelt upon. It is this—that we can hope to make sure that recurrence to the principles of Apostolic Christianity which marks our days, to secure the grace vouchsafed to us, only by a recurrence to primitive strictness of rule; that the deeper appreciation and larger use of the means of grace makes more felt the want of discipline, and

notoriety. Now the law is a law of the Church, primarily. It was not enacted as or for a penal statute; nor is it in itself penal, for real spiritual excommunication can, ex vi sua, produce no civil effect whatever. Again the order of the Church requires a liberal interpretation, to meet the sudden cases of scandal which cannot but occur, and because every Priest to whom is committed the administration of the Sacrament is thereby a guardian of its sanctity. If then the State, for its own purposes, attached to this form of excommunication certain disqualifications or penalties, is it right that therefore the original interpretation of the statute should be altered? These secondary enactments ought to be framed in accordance with the original interpretation, not as overruling it and thereby perverting the law. The law is essentially a law of the Church, it became a penal statute accidentally-the interpretation proper to it is that of its original import.

(2.) With regard to the injury done to a man's character by the refusal, such refusal ought to be esteemed a privileged action, analogous to the privileged communications of the law of libel.

(3.) It may be observed that lawyers are very shy of touching upon the bearing of the third paragraph of the rubric upon the second. These paragraphs are closely connected, and cannot be interpreted independently of each other. No one, so far as we know, has ventured to assert that the Curate's perception of hatred and malice is limited to the case of the parties being bound over to keep the peace. And if a discretionary power is confessedly given by the third paragraph, if the "order" in that and in the second is "the same," if the minister, so repelling in either case, is to give notice to the ordinary, that the offender may be proceeded against, does not the legal construction of the two clauses so connected imply a discretionary power in the former case?

(4.) The divines who insist so strongly upon the admission of Judas by our Blessed LORD, appear to warp their theology to suit their law. In the light of our LORD'S foreknowledge indeed Judas was the predestined traitor, but that foreknowledge was consistent with Judas' possession of freedom sufficient for the ground of his responsibility: and GOD's dealings with man appear to us as regulated by the latter truth, not the former. We may not therefore say that our LORD admitted the traitor Judas: our LORD admitted one who had promised to be a traitor, but who had it then in his power to repent. Judas' admission was the last striving of grace with him. He might have repented, and braved the anger of the Priests. The nearest case we can conceive is that of a Curate becoming aware (say by a misdirected letter) of a man's intending to commit a mortal sin-the man refusing all communication on the subject so brought to light-and presenting himself at the LORD'S Table. We by no means say that such a man ought to be repelled. There is no scandal. His application may be a token of repentance-his admission the seal of his repentance. The case is widely different from that of a notorious evil liver.

increases the necessity of its re-establishment. This lesson, we believe, is plainly written in the annals of our Church; it is plainly written too in Holy Scripture. To trace the matter to its root, recourse must be had in the first place to our LORD's words, already quoted,-words which are of general import, and belong to every successive phase of revelation, that if any man will do GOD's will he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of GODthen, in agreement with this general law, to the offices and work of our LORD Himself, Who was not only the first preacher of the Word, which Himself was, but also the fulfiller of the law, which He magnified; and to the consequent fact, that the word of the Law and the word of the Gospel, as both are from the beginning, so both endure to the end-next, to the corresponding constitution of the Christian Church, with its means of grace and reconciliation on the one hand, its corrections and censures other hand, the key to open, and the key to shut-so passing to the conclusion, that these powers in the Church are correlative, every increased exercise of the one requiring a corresponding increase in the exercise of the other. The application of this to our times is plain. For we thankfully acknowledge the larger use of the key to open-we need the corresponding use-it is the sterner duty of the key to shut.

on the

"That Christianity is rather a divine life than a divine science, that Christian knowledge is not mere speculation, ushered in with syllogisms and demonstrations, but that which springs from true goodness, truth and true goodness being inseparable, and that consequently the knowledge of God's will is to be sought in the path of obedience to His commandments,-this is the prime maxim to be followed by those who would attain the wisdom that is unto salvation."1 Consequently it is also the prime maxim for the ordering and regulating a Christian Church. Our LORD accordingly, Who stated the doing of God's will to be the essential condition of knowing His doctrine, and Who came not to destroy but to fulfil the law and the prophets, when He committed to His Apostles the word of reconciliation, committed to them also the word of the Law. "This is the love of God, that ye keep His commandments." It is GOD's ordinance, therefore, that the Law and the Gospel proceed together to reduce all nations to the obedience of faith, in accordance with His character, in Whom mercy and truth meet together, and righteousness and peace kiss each other. Or rather the Gospel includes in itself the highest revelation of the law, and faith includes obedience.

Now if the general preaching of CHRIST crucified-the general announcement of the possibility of forgiveness were the sole ordinance for the salvation of men, we might more easily rest contented with the mere enunciation of the commandments. The general

1 John Smith.

declaration of the law would perhaps be the proper accompaniment and correlative of the general declaration of forgiveness. The two stand on the same footing, and answer one the other. Of this nature was the temporary preparation made for the establishment of the Church by the preaching of the Baptist and of our LORD Himself. "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of GOD is at hand, repent ye and believe the Gospel." Nor do we undervalue these general ordinances. They are great means of bringing men to GOD. The preacher of the Gospel holds up CHRIST crucified, in faith that men will be drawn to the cross: he wields also the sword of the Spirit, the word of God's law, two-edged, piercing to the dividing soul and spirit. And he does not this in vain. But when in addition to this general ordinance, and for the highest and most effectual manifestation of CHRIST crucified, we have means of grace of particular application, used with reference to the condition of individual men, when we have Baptism, Confirmation, Absolution, and the Holy Eucharist, then the steward of these mysteries finds the necessity of some dispensation of the law agreeing with this dispensation of grace and subservient to it. It is not only that these sacraments and ordinances must be guarded from profanation, but still more, that men must be prepared for their right reception, disciplined for their proper use, corrected in righteousness that they may receive the grace. A general enunciation of the commandments does not and cannot answer this end. The prefixing the Decalogue to the Eucharistic Office, and a Commination once a year is a poor substitute for the discipline of the Gospel, which requires that sinners shall be rebuked before all, that others may fear; which prescribes that if a brother trespass against a brother, and do not repent upon a private expostulation, or upon an admonition before witnesses, the matter shall be told to the Church, which failing in effect, the offender shall be to us a heathen man and a publican,—a poor exercise of the inherent power in Church assemblies which S. Paul recognized, when he directed the Corinthians to deal with their incestuous members; which S. James recognized, when he bade Christians in their assemblies have no respect of persons, lest they should become partial and judges of evil thoughts a poor mode of dealing with sins which go before to judgment-a poor use of that power, which God has given to edification and not to destruction, the power of binding on earth so closely that it shall be bound in heaven too. Equally inefficient with this is the discharge-or we should say rather, alike utter is the neglect of the duty of restoring a penitent in the spirit of meekness, alike disregarded the discretionary power of restoring by the prayers of the faithful those who have been led into mortal sin. (1 S. John v. 16.) The Church in her neglect of discipline is neglecting the means of bringing sinners to repentance. For the censures of the Church are remedial, and that not only to those on