MY CLERICAL FRIENDS.* PROBABLY the most amusing and edifying spectacle
that can be presented to those unbelieving philosophers for whom the writer of this book expresses such a hearty contempt, is the one pre- sented to us here, that of a recent convert satirising his former associates. We know nothing about the writer of this book, and we are not told haw long he acted as an English clergyman, or how lately he has joined the Church of Rome. But when we know that for some time at least he must have been contented with those Orders which he now thinks notoriously invalid, must have administered those Sacraments which he now calls a mockery, must have accepted the divine mission of that body which he now calls, with excessive iteration, the sect of Barlow, we feel that there is something incongruous in the sudden assumption of authority with which he declares that all who hold his former opinions are either wilfully blind or helpless idiots, conscious agents of an imposture, or victims of a devilish delusion: Which was he, we are tempted to aak, an idiot or an impostor? The question is, perhaps, somewhat pain- ful, but however it may be answered, it leads necessarily to others of still graver import. How osn the writer be sure in the one case, or convince us in the other, that he is not in the same condi- tion now, or acting the same part? If he could once be so foolish, what safeguard has he for the future ? if it is so notorious that the whole Anglican system is a mass of error, yet he could fail for so long a time to detect it, what can he the value of his judgment ? Thoughts such as these must occur to many readers of a book which is chiefly made up of violent attacks against the writer's former faith. A modest tone of regret for the past, of humble trust in the efficacy of a great change, would have produced a very different impression. As it is, we feel that the writer is trying to confirm his mind in his present opinions by savage abuse of those which he formerly held, as though he were afraid of a relapse, and wished to commit himself irrevocably. It is much to be regretted that a writer of ability, and one who is undoubtedly sincere in his religious belief, should expose himself by his intemperance to such a charge. We do not say that be would be at all likely to return to the Church of
• My Clerical Friends and their Relations to Modern Thought. London : Burns, Claim miti CO. 187$.
England, even if his abuse of her had not made his return impos- sible. But when we examine the arguments by which he supports the Church of Rome; when we find his whole theory resting .tspon isolated texts, sometimes detached from their context, at ether times, we regret to say, garbled, when we notice his recklessness of assertion and his manner of dealing with authorities, we can hardly wonder at his resort to some other weapon them log* for the support of his convictions.
The great discovery which this writer appears to tare made, and which may be taken to have suggested to him in the first instance a series of clerical studies, is that the English Clergy do not form a priestly caste removed altogether from the laity. Having meditated upon this as long as its novelty and importance required, he seems to have been led on to other equally valuable considera- tions. It occurred to him that all clergymen in England do not agree upon all questions of doctrine ; that some maintain the necessity of Apostolical succession, and call themselves Catholics, while others care little about the hereditary descent of their Orders, and prefer the name of Protestant ; and that as people have once got into the way of thinking for themselves, neither Bishops, nor ecclesiastical Courts, nor Parliathent have been able to enforce a system of uniformity. All this was manifestly opposed to a text which the writer found in one of St. Paul's Epistles, and whieh we cannot find in quite the same shape. As the text is cited here, it runs, " If any man or if an angel from heaven should introduce the slightest variation of doctrine, let him be anathema." But when we look into the Epistles themselves, the nearest approach to this text that we can discover is the invo- cation of a curse upon those who should preach to the Gala- tians " any other gospel " than they had received from St. Paul's preaching. If a slight variation of doctrine is the same as a totally different gospel, the writer no doubt faithfully represents St. Paul's meaning, only putting it in stronger language, as befits one who is more positive than the Apostle. When, however, we find him referring to the same chapter in order to prove that St. Paul admitted the primacy of St. Peter, we cannot give him credit for fair quotation. "St. Paul," we are told, "is careful to record that he went- up to Jerusalem to see Peter,' while lie adds, ' other of the apostles saw I none," As the writer gives us chapter and verse, he probably does not cite from memory. Why, then, does he stop short at the word none, when that is imme- diately followed by the words, " save James, the Lord's brother "? We suppose he means that James the Lord's brother was not an apostle, which is most probable. Still he was clearly an authority held to be on a level with St. Peter, and it would therefore have been much more candid to include the words. The necessity of verifying every reference, the suspicion inevitably attaching to every passage cited without the exact place being given, the frequent discovery of attempts to palm off unsound inferences by casual allusion to words detached from their context, would form the grounds of a very serious charge. We should have to point out how the writer quotes as an argument for St. Peter's supremacy St. Paul's denunciation of divisions, but that he forgets the express application of that censure to those who claimed to be of Cephas. We should have to show that the writer recurs more than once to the'text which contains the words " hear the Church," but that he never thinks of the subject-matter of the verse, which has reference, not to general matters of doctrine, but to disagreements between brothers. However, it-is not neces sary for us to enter upon this discussion. We may leave the writer's citations and inferences to be grappled with by all who have their Bibles at hand, and who will be able to appreciate the weight as well as the honesty of his Scriptural arguments.
Whether the writer's own conversion was effected by these texts or by his studies of history, it is a pity that he and his readers should so soon' be turned away from those sketches of his Clerical Friends which promised at first to be amusing. There are some lively scenes in the opening pages of the book, and though we detect some caricature, it is at least good-humoured. Thus we are introduced to an English Bishop of great solemnity and op- pressive dignity, and we are told that his manner of eating a cut- let was peculiarly adapted to bring out these characteristics. " He had a cutlet on his plate," says the writer, " and seemed to my disordered imagination to be mentally addressing the ewe of which it once formed a part. ' If you had known,' I fancied he was saying, the fate reserved for your remains, you would have gone. apart from the common herd and fed in solitary pastures.'" in another place we have an account of the -writer going through a rehearsal of the process of baptising a child, his instructor being the parish clerk, and the.child being represeutel by &folio prayer-
book. Again', here is an amusing sketch of the writer and others being examined for ordination:— "My immediate neighbour was a young gentleman of good family, whose father was member for the county, and for whom a lucrative family living was destined. Invited to transcribe the collect for Good Friday, he gave a moderately faithful version of the one for Christmas Day, which he furtively submitted to my inspection, evi- dently with the flattering persuasion that I knew more about it than ho did. I could not possibly have known less. In his private interview with the Bishop, as he afterwards told me, the latter said to him, with indulgent sadness, ' You knew nothing last year, Mr. —. and this year you know, if possible, still less.' But he got the family living. z which I have no doubt ho still retains, to the common advantage of the neighbourhood and of himself."
It might be desirable to know how long it is since this scene occurred, as we believe there are Bishops now who would not be
contented with such an amount of knowledge. But the writer is indifferent to any change that may have occurred in the Church of England since the beginning of the century. In his judgment, she is in a state of stupor as regards the vital principles of religion, and
only exists for the purpose of containing every divergence of opinion. She cannot pray, or preach, or teach, or do anything save float with the stream, and surrender every shred of ancient faith to every fresh assailant. Her missionary societies are merely 44 English associations for the more effectual demoralisation of the heathen." Nothing strikes him more than the cordial welcome given by the English clergy to the Divorce Court. " The Church of England, always in. harmony with modern civilisation, has," he says, " accepted this beautiful invention with her accustomed docility, and perhaps we shall some day see an
Anglican Bishop avail himself of its ' practical conveniences.'" These are the writer's judgments on facts which are sufficiently notorious. as they are open to anyone who reads a newspaper ; and if the writer cannot be trusted in these matters, what are we to say of his treatment of history ? The report of a recent action for libel by one clergyman against another, arising out of the marriage of a divorced woman in the defendant's church, and the consequent withdrawal of the plaintiff's licence by the Bishop, is a comment on the " docility " which has been mentioned. As to the stupor and indifference of the Chureh of England to, the want of all preaching save fashionable sermons, to the deadness of prayer, and failure of missionary effort, we have only to look around us and form our own conclusion. The writer is much safer when he discusses such questions as those of the validity of Anglican Orders and of the necessity of miraculous gifts to a Christian Church, though his logical surrender in the one case and his bold assumption in the other may be easily turned against him. Thus on the first point he says :-
"Even if it were true that they possess valid Orders—a suggestion which would amuse Barlow and Parker if those departed jesters were mirthful in a condition to indulge in mirthful:1 emotions—it would only put them on a level with a crowd of unclean sects of antiquity, who possessed them without dispute. Even if it wore true, it would only he an additional reason, one would think, to flee from a community which began its career by destroying all the altars in the land, and 'taking away the continual Sacrifice' which used to be offered upon them—and in which the priest of the Most High would be as little at home, if her janitors would consent to admit him, as a Christian maiden would be in the combats of the circus or in the orgies of a Roman banquet."
Aud our the second :-
"Miraculous appearances, it is alleged, have been witnessed in the celebration of the Anglican Lord's Supper. As I am personally cog- nisant of at least one similar occurrence among the Irvingites, which was undeniably preternatural, I can easily believe that they take place also in the Church of England, and that they have the same author. Dial3olical miracles have been common in every age among Pagans, and appear to be still common in India, China, and Thibet. Nothing, I suppose, reveals in a more horrible light the real character of the pretended ' Catholic movement' in the national Church, at least irr some of its self-willed and presumptuous leaders, than this direct intervention of. Satan in their unhallowed ministry."
We need hardly cite anything stronger than this charitable assign- ment of the writer's former Church and former brethren to Satan. Passages about the bestial Tudor and the mitred comedians whom his fierce daughter employed and despised, who are compared in one place to Pan and Silenus, and in another are called notorious buffoons and unbelievers, might amuse those who watch the suc- cessive phases of odium theologicum. Bat we have had enough of that for the present, and we are much mistaken if we cannot
answer fir our readers also.
Previous page
