CONSECRATED GROUND.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTLTOR."]
• freely confess any ignorance of many things with which
I ought to be acquainted, but I hope that it is not so dire as "Episcopus " imagines. If I conveyed the impression that I considered that the object of Churchmen in consecration was to intrench their bodies from chance contact with the bodies of Nonconformists, I must have expressed my meaning very im- perfectly. I was thinking of the effect, rather than the purpose, —an effect which a recent case in Cornwall has, as I intimated, somewhat painfully forced upon our sight. I always study close compression when writing for space as valuable as yours, and I see that if I had used more words, I might easily have made my meaning more plain.
In the ages in which consecration was a power, and was inweaving itself with the system of the Church, of course there were no Nonconformists to intrench against. There was always a deep undertone of protest within the Church against the Church, which had its root in an enlightened conscience and is the Word of God. Indeed, we may say that this struggle of the truth with the Church which enshrined, but partially paralysed it, was the chronic agony of Christian Society. But to suppose that in those days con- secration was regarded as protective as against religious dis- sent of any sort would be dark ignorance indeed. But when in these days Churchmen and Nonconformists are already peacefully lying side by side in a cemetery, and a Bishop stirs himself vehemently to get a bit of it consecrated and marked off from the rest for the use of his own communion, I submit that the impression naturally produced is very much what I have described.
The pleas for consecration which " Episcopus " urges, in his kindly and courteous letter, I am already tolerably familar with, but they do not touch the heart of the difficulty. He asks—Why should we quarrel with them for consecrating some particular clods, to which they believe the principle of separation to apply ? I ask, in return, why should not Churchmen, now that the cemetery is taking the place of the churchyard, and can as perfectly protect the grave from violation, learn the lesson of the burial of their Lord, and consider that the grave is con- secrated by the Christian dead who lie in it ? They would thus avoid the appearance of jealous exclusion, which is essentially un-Christian; and they would let brethren lie together as brethren in death, with a hope that they might learn to work together as brethren in life, in time.
Into the legal aspect of the matter, I do not venture to follow your correspondent. We Nonconformists believe that a Church established by law, is fettered by law; and to be told that certain Christian acts can only be done in certain places as ordained by law, does not tend to increase our reverence for a Church which in the discharge of its vital functions makes the dictum of the law so absolutely supreme. But on the subject of the sentiment of the matter, I am entirely at one with "Episcopus." It is the fashion now to sneer at senti- ment. As well sneer at the flash on the cheek, the gleam in the eye, the play of the lips on a human_ countenance. It is like stripping the flesh from the bones of a human body, this divorce of the sentiment from the truth of Christianity. But it seems to me that we Nonconformists realise all that is valuable in this sentiment without the con- secration of the clods. We bury our dead with prayer ; we commit them to the care of God ; we have sacred associations with their resting-place, and we make the sepulchre sure. But our benediction rests, not on the clods, but on the dear remains that lie there, and which make our graveyards holy ground to us ; while we do not kindle heart-burnings and angry passions, by keeping the folds of the Christian flock separate even in death. A sentiment taking a form which bears such fruits of
strife, is an un-Christian sentiment; and the consecration of the clods, however useful it may have been in the past, is in these days among the things which are decaying and waxing old, and ready to vanish away.
I am so deeply persuaded of the efficacy of the fervent prayer of a righteous man, that I see very clearly, however blind I may be as to other matters, that doubt about the power of prayer is in no sense the real ground of my objection to the consecration of clods. And let me tell " Episoopus," with all 'respect, that this attributing such un-Christian doubts and de- nials to those who may be honestly seeking to purge Christianity of the superstitions which have grown round it, has a sad ten- dency to drive into unbelief those, at any rate, whose faith is not very firmly fixed on God. I am at one with him about the efficacy of prayer, but I should probably differ with him as to the real value of official petitions about things which have no 'reality behind them, and which minister to strife. I believe, too, with him in giving of thanks with our daily bread ; but I have heard grace " said or sung," on public and private occasions, after a fashion which could not add much sanctity to the feast. But as to prayer, I say,—Would God we had more of it, warm and living from the heart ! I think that then we should recover the power with God and with man which we appear to have well-nigh lost, and should once more prevail.
I cannot say that " Episcopus," though I thank him for answering my letter, has done much to make me appreciate better the virtue of consecrated clods. And I am more than -ever sure that if the scattered sections of the flock are to be drawn together in that unity for which the Saviour prayed, it must be on the basis of a truth which goes behind unreal dis- tinctions, and by means of a sentiment which is healthy, intelli- gent, and aglow with charity. Warmly thanking you for your kindness in sparing me space for these letters, I am, Sir, &c., J. BALDWIN BROWN.
Previous page
