HL Deb 05 May 1899 vol 70 cc1394-401
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH

My Lords, I beg to ask the Lord Bishop of St. Albans whether he intends to take any steps to stop the circulation of a manual, entitled, "Before the Altar," by his diocesan missioner, the Rev. H. Darwin Burton. In putting this question, I think it would be, more suitable to your Lordships if I endeavour very concisely to refer to the plain teaching of the Prayer Book in respect of confession, and, having done that, I call the attention of your Lordships to confession as it is advocated in the manual "Before the Altar." Habitual confession is, indeed, taught in the Prayer Book, but the confession is always directed to be made to Almighty God. In the daily exhortation to confess morning and evening we are told— To confess our sins with an humble, lowly penitent, and obedient heart, and, although we ought at all times humbly to acknowledge our sins before God, yet ought we most chiefly so to do— When? In private, in the confessional to a priest? No; but when we assemble and meet together before, God, and most chiefly in public worship. I would like to remind your Lordships of the fact that this commencement of daily service was not in the first Prayer Book, but was inserted in the second, and retained in our present Prayer Book. Provision for private confession was made, in the first Prayer Book, but is omitted from the second, and is not in our present authoritative Prayer Book, and at the same time that this provision for private confession was omitted the public confession was put in. Under the present Prayer Book the priest is directed to pronounce absolution in morning and evening prayer for sins confessed, not to him, but to God. The confession is to God alone. The absolution is a declaration of His forgiveness to all penitent sinners. The principle of the Prayer Book is perfectly clear and plain—that you should examine your lives and consciences by the rule of God's Commandments, and then, wheresoever they have offended, to confess yourselves to Almighty God. The words of the first exhortation after prayer for a Church Militant in the Communion Service run as follows— If there be any of you who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience…let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God's word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God's Holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice. Let us first of all notice that, whatever this may mean, and whatever interpretation may be, put upon it, it refers to exceptional cases only, and is not to be treated as an habitual or accustomed rule; but I think the meaning of this passage in the authoritative Prayer Book will become, perhaps, clearer by the light of the changes made in our present Prayer Book as compared with the first Prayer Book. In the first Prayer Book the passage read thus— And if there be any of you whose conscience is troubled and grieved in anything lacking comfort or counsel, let him come to me or to some other discreet and learned priest taught in the law of God, and confess and open his sin and grief secretly, that he may receive such ghostly counsel, advice, and comfort, that his conscience may be relieved, and that of us (as the ministers of God and of His Church) he may receive comfort and absolution, requiring such as shall be satisfied with a general confession, not to be offended with them that do use to their further satisfying the auricular and secret confession to the priest. In the second Prayer Book the words "confess" and "secretly," and the last sentence about "them that do use auricular and secret confession to the priest," are all now omitted. In 1662, at the last revision which gave us our authoritative Prayer Book, the revisers proposed to insert the word "priest" before "the minister of God's Word," but Convocation refused to sanction the change, and the exhortation, as it now stands, may be lawfully read by a deacon, who may be a discreet and learned minister of God's Holy Word, but, as your Lordships are aware, cannot possibly give, even according to Ecclesiastical Law, priestly absolution. Another point to be noted is that in the first Prayer Book the form of absolution given in the visitation of the sick was ordered by a rubric "to be used in all private confessions." But in our Prayer Book this rubric is omitted, and the book contains no form of absolution for private use. It is necessary for me to call your Lordships' attention to the changes which have been made, and which appear in the authoritative Prayer Book, as I presume, the right reverend Prelate, as well as every other member of the Church of England, is bound to adhere to the Prayer Book as it now stands. There is, perhaps, a more striking authoritative statement against the abuse of confession in the Homilies, which were set forth in the reign of Elizabeth "to be read in every parish church." They contain the authoritative teaching of the Church of England, and Article 35 directs that they shall be read in churches by the ministers diligently and distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people. In the Homily on Repentance we find the following— I do not say but that if any do find themselves troubled in conscience they may repair to their learned curate or pastor, or to some other godly, learned man, and show the trouble and doubt of their conscience to them, that they may receive at their hand the comfortable salve of God's Word, but it is against the true Christian liberty that any man should be bound to the numbering of his sins, as it hath been used heretofore in the time of blindness and ignorance. And now to turn to the particular manual circulated by the Rev. H. Darwin Burton. Let us compare the teaching of this manual with the teaching of the Prayer Book. In the first place, this manual uses the language of transubstantiation, and in some passages uses that language in a most gross and materialistic form. The whole language of the manual is the language of a Roman Catholic manual. The Holy Communion is not mentioned; it is a "sacrifice" and a "sacrament." One chapter is headed, The Holy Sacrifice in the Eucharist." On page 28 I find these words respecting the receiving of the Holy Sacrament— Kneel upright, and do not crouch. Receive the Lord's body in the palm of your hand, being careful not to leave or drop crumbs. Guide the chalice if it is not given into your hands, otherwise the priest cannot say whether you have partaken of the precious blood. On page 33 in the prayer you are asked to make an act of faith, and these are the words— I believe that Thou my Saviour, true God and true man, art really here. On page 38 are the words— I believe that Thy body and blood, Thy soul and Thy divinity, are in the Blessed Sacrament. Lord strengthen my faith. And on page 66, after the Holy Sacrament has been received, you are asked to say— I adore Thee, O Lord my God, whom I know to be veiled beneath these earthly forms. Then, my Lords, in another part of the book I find a sort of parody of what the author is pleased to call "Sins against the Commandments." I know that your Lordships are in agreement, with the very strong feeling among Christian men generally, that the Church of England should be a broad and a comprehensive Church, but I would ask your Lordships how comprehensive, how tolerant, and how liberal is the Church likely to be, or is it likely to be presented to the people to be, if the teachings of this manual are to be maintained and sanctioned. Among the sins enumerated against the Second Commandment is the joining in schismatical worship, so that when Her Majesty attends a Presbyterian Church in Scotland she is, according to this manual, breaking that Commandment; and, in the same way, any of your Lordships are equally guilty when you attend Nonconformist places of worship. I have no hesitation in characterising the book as one which promulgates not only the doctrine of superstition, but of intolerant and intolerable bigotry. On page 24 of this manual appear the following words, headed, "Advice to Communicants "— If you have not hitherto been to get absolution from God's minister, or have not done so for a long time, yet feel you need it, you had better get another little book, such as 'Help to Repentance' or 'Pardon through the Precious Blood,' which will explain to you what to do. Of course, I turned to the advice and directions contained in these Manuals, and I find that the Manual, "Pardon through the Precious Blood, or the Benefit of Absolution, and how to obtain it," is edited by a committee of clergy, and on page 14, I find the following words— Now if your conscience is burdened with sin, if you are in doubt and disquietude about your state, if you desire earnestly some assurance of God's pardon— I would call your Lordships' attention to the imperative language— You must, as the Church directs you, make use of the Ministry of Reconciliation. Go to some Priest in whom you feel confidence, and open your grief, that is, tell him all your sins. Lay the whole state of your soul clearly before him, and then listen with reverence and humility to his counsel and advice. And then, in speaking of "In Confession," I find in both of these Manuals the following words— When you have confessed all that you remember, say, 'For these and all my other sins, which I cannot now remember, I most humbly ask pardon of God and of you, my ghostly father, penance, counsel, and absolution. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that these Manuals have gone through a very large circulation, that "Pardon through the Precious Blood" is edited by a committee of clergy, and that "Help to Repentance" has been compiled by a canon of the Church of England. These Manuals break the principles of the Prayer Book and the principles of the Protestant Church. It is true you cannot compel men to confess before they go to Communion, but you can, by Manuals of this kind, make it morally compulsory for young people. Before I put my question, I think I ought to read to your Lordships a correspondence that has passed between me and the Bishop of St. Albans in regard to this matter. I see the reverend Prelate in his place to-day, but I am in great doubt as to the line the right reverend Prelate is going to take in this Debate. I communicated to the Bishop of St. Albans, merely as a matter of personal courtesy, my intention to bring this matter under the notice of the House. On Saturday last I received the following letter from the right reverend Prelate— My Lord,—I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date. I shall not be able to be in the House of Lords on Friday, 5th of May, as I have a confirmation on that day in a remote part of Essex. I am engaged with confirmations and other diocesan work nearly every day until Whitsuntide. Having carefully considered your question, I have come to the conclusion that if I were asked it in the House, I should have to say that in my opinion it is not in the interest of the proper administration of my diocese that I should answer such a question in the House of Lords. On receipt of that letter I at once placed myself in communication with the Clerk of Parliaments, and asked him whether, under the circumstances, it would be more conformable to the traditions of the House that I should substitute for my Question a Notice to the effect that I would that day call attention to the distribution of this Manual, to the conduct of the Bishop of St. Albans relative thereto, and to my correspondence with the right reverend Prelate on the subject. Following upon the letter came a telegram from the right reverend Prelate, in which he said he had arranged his work so that he could be in the House on Friday. I wish to speak in language of no personal discourtesy to the right reverend Prelate, but I must be excused if I speak somewhat plainly. The proper administration of his diocese is not a private or personal matter as between him and me. It is a serious public responsibility. As a Bishop of an Established Church, that responsibility is not to a sect, but to the nation and to Parliament. Mr. Burton is not an incumbent, nor the owner of a freehold. To stop his circulating this book cannot involve the Bishop in costly legal proceedings. His word is in this case the law. There is no third course open. Either the right reverend Prelate does or does not sanction this Manual and its circulation. If he declines to give an answer, or gives an evasive answer, the responsibility is his. I am acting within my rights, and I feel it my duty to bring before your Lordships' House, where such matters can be properly discussed, and where the Bishops can defend themselves, if any defence is forthcoming, this class of literature, this religious poison which is being widely circulated and sedulously instilled into the minds of young people for the purpose, I am afraid, of destroying the principles of the Reformation and the Protestant religion. I beg to ask the question which stands in my name.

THE BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS

My Lords, I claim the indulgence of your Lordships for one who has never had the honour of addressing this House before—the more so as the subject is in many Ways a difficult and delicate one. I do not think that a theological discussion on the various points raised by the noble Lord would be altogether suitable, and I doubt if your Lordships desire it on this occasion. I think the fact of the noble Lord asking such a question raises a point of considerable difficulty and delicacy. Of course, I acknowledge that any question may be asked in this House, but I suppose your Lordships will allow that a person who is asked the question may very rightly consider whether it is altogether expedient that he should give an answer. There may be points raised which would really interfere with the due administration of matters. Just as one of Her Majesty's Ministers might refuse at times to answer a question because it would interfere with the administration of his office, so, considering the very delicate and difficult matters which a Bishop has sometimes to deal with, I venture, with all due respect to your Lordships, to submit that there may be times when a Bishop may feel he is not really justified, considering his duties to the Church, in entering publicly upon a discussion of certain points which may be claiming his private consideration. I think a Bishop has to consider whether he can rightly answer certain questions. I venture to call your Lordships' attention to the question which is asked. It is not asked about my administration of my diocese, not about any practice, not upon something I may be called upon in that way to justify in this House, but I am asked to state my intentions. I should regard it as a very serious matter if anybody was at liberty to rise and ask any Bishop his intentions with regard to various questions which may be claiming his consideration. It may be he is considering some matter which will have to come before him judicially, or which may have to come before a court of law. Is a Bishop to be called upon to state his intentions in this public and formal way, and thus commit himself in regard to matters as to which he may be called upon to adjudicate afterwards? I think I am entitled to treat this question, not merely by itself, but as one of a class, and I am entitled to say that I am not called upon to answer a question that may form a very inconvenient precedent. I do not think that it will be for the interests of the Church that a Bishop should be publicly examined in this House as to his intentions about the performance of certain spiritual duties which are committed to him, and in which he has to exercise his discretion. I think that such a course would be, to say the least, extremely inconvenient, and I am quite sure it would raise such a feeling in his diocese that he would not be able to administer it. The question touches a very important point—namely, a book. There are not only Manuals, but a very large number of other books upon religious subjects, and it is open to any clergyman to give such a book to one of his people. I may say that Mr. Burton is a licensed curate. He has charge of a certain district, and it is not open to me—even if I desired to do so, which I do not—to dismiss him. He would have an appeal to the Archbishop. A licensed curate has a legal position, and whether he has or has not, I think it is intolerable to deal with a gentleman in a way by which advantage is taken of a certain position he occupies, when you are not allowed so to deal with others who are in a more privileged position. It is only right that a, Bishop should give the curates in his diocese the same consideration he is bound by law to give to the incumbents in his diocese. Is a Bishop to be required to go through all the books that ever have been written on these controversies in order that he may have a list which he is to allow his curates to use in the distribution of books? Are your Lordships to lay down that each Bishop is to have an Index Expurgatorius for his own diocese; that each Bishop is to exercise a censorship over books? That will be what it means if you call upon a Bishop to vindicate or disavow the choice of a book by one of those working in his diocese. For these reasons, with the deepest regret to your Lordships' House, I venture to say that I do not think it is desirable in the interests of the administration of his diocese that a Bishop should be called upon to publicly declare his intentions, especially when the question raised does not relate to any public action in the performance of Service in church, but the private use of books dealing with religious subjects. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will not consider me guilty of any discourtesy if I decline to answer the question.