Chapter II: Part 2

Still, I think it may reasonably be asked, as it is, if this principle of concession in consideration to _tender consciences_ be once admitted, where are the probable demands upon it likely to find a limit?

The question would seem then to resolve itself into a choice of evils, and _e malis minimum_, we must ask therefore, which would be most conducive to the welfare and _respectability_ of the Church, to require Subscription to be made unreservedly and according to the literal meaning of the words and sense in which they were imposed, or to allow such a latitude as may enable every one to subscribe in what sense he please?—“_Quicunque vult_, is an ill preface to a law.”

A proposition similar to the last has been stated and canvassed by _Bishop Jeremy Taylor_, and he says of it—“This is the last remedy, but it is the worst, it hath in it something of craft, but very little of ingenuity, and if it serve the ends of peace or external charity, or a fantastic concord, yet it cannot serve the ends of truth and holiness, and christian simplicity.” {32}

How far the Bishop of Norwich may be disposed to go in carrying out his benevolent object (and I speak it in perfect sincerity, for I believe his Lordship to be actuated by the very best intentions), of giving relief to tender consciences and promoting peace and unity amongst Christians, I pretend not to say—for his Lordship’s pamphlet leaves the matter more doubtful than his speech, inasmuch as amongst those whose sentiments his Lordship quotes as being most in accordance with his own, and with reference to whom “compared with many of their modern opponents,” he says—

Mallem magis cum Platone errare quam cum istis rectè sentire.

His Lordship quotes the opinion of Bishop Warburton, namely, that “_schism_ which all must admit to be an evil, is one which nothing but the Church _widening her communion_, can prevent or cure.” {33}

I confess I could never clearly see how the Church _can_ conscientiously _widen_ her communion. What are the pleas for separation? They hinge not on _letters_ and _iotas_, nor on this or that particular _passage_ in our Liturgy, they resolve themselves into _two_—our Doctrines and our Church Government. One or other of these is the plea alleged by _every denomination_ of separatists, from the frigid _Socinian_, to the fanatical _Jumper_. Giving these separatists therefore credit for seceding or keeping aloof of us on these grounds, and, that _for conscience sake_—we can only expect to “prevent schism,” by leaving the divinity of our Saviour “an open question,” and abolishing Episcopacy altogether.

But may we not ask, if tenderness of conscience is to be respected when it takes offence at _non-essentials_, why is it to be disregarded when it stumbles at the far more important matters, _the essentials_ of Christianity, the “distinguishing features of the Christian Church?” and is not Episcopacy a distinguishing feature? But with the exception of the Roman Catholic, there is not a separatist in the three kingdoms who is agreed with us on that point. Are the divinity of Christ and the atonement essential doctrines? But the so called Unitarian, in the exercise of his private judgment, pronounces them to be falsehoods. Is Infant Baptism a distinguishing feature? But the Baptist, as he styles himself, condemns it as a senseless and unscriptural rite, nor will the liberty in which he indulges his conscience permit him to hold communion with any Church that practises it. Is the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper a distinguishing feature? But the tender conscience of the Quaker rioting in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made him free, will not deign to return to these “beggarly elements,”—“the _policy of Satan_ busying people with outward signs.” {34a}

Since then we must give up the pleasing hope of bringing schismatics _back_ to the fold, we may narrow the question, and limit the proposed revision of our Articles and Liturgy, to the removal of every “cause of uneasiness” to the tender consciences of our brethren within the pale. “This,” as you justly observe, “would probably occasion some trouble and difficulty,” {34b} not that this ought to be objected if the charitable object could be effected by any _reasonable_ sacrifice. You admit that already “more is proposed that is either necessary or desirable.” {34c} The Bishop of London {34d} “would not be disposed to go as far as you,” whilst some perhaps with the modesty of old _Richard Baxter_, might propose to put the unclean thing away altogether, and to substitute a new and much improved Liturgy of their own. Let us once open the commission, institute this Court of Relief for tender consciences, and we shall have no lack of appellants.

Utor permisso—caudœque pilos ut equinæ,
Paulatim vello—demo unum, demo etiam unum,
Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi. {36a}

The difficulties of the subject seem to be confessed by all, except it may be by the _Brothers Hull_, who seem to see none or very few. But the Bishop of Norwich observes, “_I agree that there are what to some may be deemed almost insuperable difficulties in the way of any change in the Liturgy_, _and perhaps in the Articles_.” Nor would these difficulties seem to be lessened, if his Lordship’s view of the present state of the Church be correct, it being his opinion “that there never was a period perhaps of our Church History with so little harmony within the pale, and so fearful a prospect of fiercer and wider dissention.” {36b} “There is a lion in the way”—and for my own part I am craven enough to say there let him lie—_couchant_ he is likely to be less troublesome than _rampant_. And the better part of valour is discretion.

And as his Lordship tells us that “he believes the Clergy as a body would not consent to any change” in the Liturgy. We may infer that that absence of harmony to which his Lordship alludes, from whatever other causes it may arise, originates in no want of unanimity in the Church on the score of _Subscription_, and that there would seem but little necessity, for the sake of _peace_, to embark upon the dangerous experiment of a revision.

It being then admitted that “the Clergy as a body would not consent to any change in the Liturgy or Articles,” we must presume that they can _unreservedly_ make the Subscription in its present form. And putting aside your own peculiar case, we must also presume of those persons who recently petitioned parliament, in the character of Clergymen of the Church of England, that although they might think some _Expansion_ of Subscription desirable, in consideration to others, did nevertheless make their own with a safe conscience and with the honest intention of fulfilling their engagements, by a general conformity to the prescribed Services of our Church. They subscribed, we must presume, with no _such latitude_ of _opinion_ as would admit of an habitual _deviation_ from, either by alteration or a summary omission, of such parts of our Services, as they could not satisfactorily reconcile with their own private opinions. _Mr. Maty_, a former seceder from our establishment, could not consider such a latitude of the construction of his Subscription compatible with his honesty. In a letter to _Mr. Lindsey_, he says, “finally, I can neither submit to acquiesce in silence, after having made my objections known, nor take upon me to alter the Service of the Church as long as I continue to profess myself a minister of it.” {37}

Properly appreciating this sentiment, we must conclude that the Bishop of Norwich understood the prayer of the petitioners with no reference to such a practice as _Mr. Maty_ here condemns, when he represented them as praying “that that which is consented to and allowed privately, may be the avowed and acknowledged sentiments of the Church at large.” Yet in their “explanation of the statements of the petition,” and the object which _they_ had in view, the _Messrs. Hull_, enumerate amongst these deviations from the authorized forms and positive obligations of _the Church_, _sanctioned_ as they assert _by general practice_; the omission of the Athanasian Creed, the change or omission of certain sentences in the Burial Service, and the substitution of other lessons than those appointed by the Church. Now I must think, that if a complaint were preferred against a Clergyman to his Diocesan for _habitually_ and advisedly deviating thus from his _positive obligations_, the complainants would scarcely be told that such things were _consented to and allowed privately by the Church_. If so, for consistency’s sake it might be as well to expunge in future from the Churchwardens’ Articles of Enquiry exhibited at Episcopal Visitations, any such query as the following, “Doth the Incumbent or Curate regularly read service with the Litany and Creeds, exactly according to the Rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, without omission, addition, or alteration?” {38}

_You_ represent the petitioners “as having presented to parliament the sound and reasonable prayer, _that the law and the practice should be assimilated_.” You mean, I presume, that some regard should be had to the nature of the thing _practised_, otherwise I must think your principle a very _unsound_ one. For instance, it is to be feared that a habit prevails sadly too much amongst both high and low, of neglecting the observance of the sabbath day and keeping it anything but holy. But I would not therefore assimilate the _law_ to this practice and go to parliament for an act to legalize sabbath breaking. And even in respect to the prayer of the petitioners, I should say that the Archbishop’s proposition that steps should be taken to assimilate the _practice_ to the _law_, was the sounder one of the two.

But the _Messrs. Hull_ in _their_ view of the matter, represent the Bishop of Norwich—“as pleading strongly for that privilege which should be conceded to every ingenuous mind, to mean what it says, and to say what it means.” A form of Subscription such as would admit of every one saying what he means, seems to have been the view which the Bishop of London took of the object of the petitioners, and called it very truly,—“expansion with a vengeance.”

But you would make us, by our present Subscription, say much more than we mean, and mean much more than we say, for instance, you would contend that we declare by Subscription, “that every word of the _Homilies_, is _agreeable_ to the word of God,” the laity, you say “_feel_ not what it is to subscribe _literally_ to _every word_ of the _Homilies_, Rites, and Ceremonies,” {39a} and again, “if a Subscription to _the Liturgy_ as _agreeable_ to the word of God is still maintained to be indispensable,” {39b} and further, the petition states, that the Clergy are “commonly understood to be _bound_ to the observance of _all the Canons_.” {39c} Now, I cannot think that you give quite a correct view of Subscription. Amongst your illustrations, you say, “our Subscription _literally_ taken calls upon a person to declare that the delivery of a marriage ring and the Apostles’ Creed are equally _agreeable_ to scripture!” {40} But the very _letter_ of our Subscription is opposed to this view of it.—We know of nothing in scripture agreeable to or agreeing with any part of our marriage ceremony, unless it be a supper; neither have we any “scripture warrant” for our custom of kneeling when receiving the sacrament, none for signing with the sign of the cross, no _direct_ warrant baptizing infants, in short, _literally_ we do _not_ subscribe to _the Liturgy_ as being _agreeable_ to the word of God, but containing nothing _contrary_ to it.

Neither do we “subscribe _literally_ and to every word of the Homilies” as being agreeable to the word of God. I could produce you many a quaint passage from their exhortations, to which we should be puzzled to find anything agreeable in scripture, though nothing perhaps contrary to the spirit of them.

And as to the Canons, so far from feeling ourselves _bound_ to a _voluntary_ observance of them all, I have no recollection of pledging myself by any Subscription at my ordination to the observance of any of them. “As to the Canons,” says _Archdeacon Sharpe_, “to which we are _not bound by any formal promise_, but only by virtue of their own authority. I believe no one will say that we are bound to pay obedience to them all, according to the letter of them.” Say then, that there are amongst them some, which as the petitioners allege “could not in these days be acted upon,” if so, they are the less likely to cause them any grievance. And as to the alleged inexpediency of acting upon others, let us leave that to be judged of by our superiors, whom we are bound to obey, at least so I understood my ordination vows. But our objection to a revision of our Laws Ecclesiastical arises from no over-weaning affection for these inoperative canons, but from a desire rather to

“ . . . bear the ills we have
Than fly to others, that we know not of.”

But to the observance of the Rubric, we are unquestionably pledged. And it is preferred by the _Messrs. Hull_, “as a charge against the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, that at their ordination they pledged themselves to observe the Rubric, and so to confirm in a given way. But they do not confirm in that way, and do confirm in another,” _ergo valet consequentia_. But, after mentioning in the strongest terms our obligations to a strict observance of the Rubric, _Archdeacon Sharpe_ says, “this indeed we must always take along with us, that our obligations to observe the Rubric, how indispensable soever, are subject to this _proviso_—namely, that the thing prescribed _be a thing practicable_.” And as the _Messrs. Hull_ admit that “the Bishops from the multitudes of candidates, _could not_ confirm according to the Rubric,” we will leave the Bishops to settle this matter with their own consciences, believing that their characters are not so far compromised by the deviation, as to render it imperative upon them, to plunge at all hazards into a revision.

Our Articles were agreed upon, as you observe, “for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the stablishing consent touching true religion.” In accomplishing this, you seem to think that they have signally failed. In those cases, however, where the Article has advisedly been drawn up for the purpose of admitting men holding certain differences of opinion on the general doctrine contained in it, the contemplated result can scarcely be looked upon as indicative of any failure of the object. But I cannot see that the existence of one evil in a system, if the extent to which this latitude goes _be_ one, which I do not admit, is a sound argument for the bringing in of many more. “If,” says _Dr. Randolph_, “the best method we can think of to avoid diversities of opinion and establish consent touching true religion, has through the perverseness and corruption of mankind a contrary effect, surely not we, but these hypocrites, are to blame. But we cannot think it a good reason for throwing down all the fences of our vineyard, because some wild boars will sometimes break through them.” {42} It appears, however, that _you_ would only leave a few gaps in the fence, the thirty-nine Articles you would abolish at one fell swoop, and from the passing of your proposed BILL for the consolidating the laws of religious tests, or Subscriptions, &c. “you would have it enacted, that nothing be required but assent to the doctrines set forth in the three Creeds, as agreeable to scripture; assent to the truth of the scriptures themselves; and that they contain all things necessary to salvation.”

I perceive, however, that you would still have a “declaration of conformity to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is _now_ by law established.”—By _now_, I presume you are speaking of the Liturgy, as it shall be set forth _hereafter_, when every pebble of offence shall be taken away, and “every cause of uneasiness removed.” But _hic labor_, _hoc opus est_—take for instance the Athanasian Creed, you might be contented with the proposition of 1689 respecting it; but your brother petitioners the _Messrs. Hull_ exclaim, “let Subscription henceforward apply to a Prayer Book which _does not contain_ the Athanasian Creed.” {43a} Now, if this “_erroris expulsio_,” as it has been termed, was considered indispensable to the exclusion of the Arian “wolves,” even _after_ the imposition of the Nicene Creed,—are these wolves exterminated? Or is their nature so changed that they would harmlessly lie down with the lambs of our fold, were it not for those invidious fences that prevent their approach, nor seduce them from the fold, even were it fenceless? But, argue the _Messrs. Hull_, fences are of no use, for a wolf once upon a time got through one, meaning _Bishop Hoadley_. But they forget that like that treacherous one we read of in the nursery legend, the “Little Red Riding Hood,”—he disguised himself to effect his purpose. We have lately read of a chimney sweeper insinuating himself into her Majesty’s private apartments, but we have not heard in consequence of the abolition of the police force.

But let it be admitted that our Liturgy, “that admirable book, next to the bible, the treasure and glory and safeguard of our reformed Church,” {43b} is not faultless; still, who when he looks upon the heterogeneous mass of so called improvements that have been already suggested, would not exclaim—“Let us but have our Liturgy continued to us as it is, until the men are born who shall be able to mend it or make it better, and we desire no greater security against either altering this or introducing another.” {43c}

But as the subsidence of the _dissidia mutuasque suspiciones_, is a consummation more devoutly to be wished, than, I fear, _in these times_, to be looked for; I will in conclusion make a few observations in defence of the Subscription of the Clergy generally, to those _three points_ which you esteem so “indefensible;” but as my observations have already extended far beyond the limit I had contemplated, I must of necessity, be more brief than I could wish, or than justice to such subjects might seem to require—and first of the _Athanasian Creed_.

“Full of information,” as _Hooker_ observes, “concerning that faith which _Arianism_ did so mightily impugn, and which was both in the _east_ and _west_ Churches accepted as a treasure of inestimable price, by as many as had not given up even the very ghost of belief.” {44a}

But my Diocesan tells me, that “_literally_ understood this Creed makes no distinctions, no contingencies, but unconditionally and unequivocally asserts that all who receive it not, are doomed to irretrievable perdition.” {44b} God forbid! But if it be so, _literally_ the Saviour of mankind has pronounced the same uncontingent, undistinguishing, unequivocal doom, upon all who believe not the _gospel_. “_He_ that believeth not shall be damned, {44c} _whosoever_ believeth on him shall not _perish_, but have everlasting life,” {44d} the converse is, _whosoever_ believeth _not_ shall perish everlastingly; for “he that believeth not shall not see _life_, but the _wrath of God abideth on him_, {44e} they _all_ shall be damned, who believe not THE truth.” {44f}

But we cannot bring ourselves to think that it can consist with the goodness of Him “whose tender mercies are over all His works,” to doom to “irretrievable perdition,” _millions_ of His creatures for the non-performance of an _impossibility_. We consequently limit this awful sentence against those who “love unrighteousness,” and wilfully reject the _offer_ of salvation. The context forces us to this application of the anathema. But I am not asking in what sense we are to _understand_ the threat of scripture, but applying to it the same reasoning through which the Athanasian Creed is attacked; and I assert that _literally_ understood, the texts which I have quoted, as undistinguishingly doom to perdition _all_ who do not believe the gospel, as does the Athanasian Creed all who do not hold the Catholic Faith.

But if we are to ascertain the sense of scripture by comparing it with scripture, the text with the context, why are we to be debarred from ascertaining the sense and meaning of our Church formularies, by the application of the same canon of interpretation? Why are so invidious objections to be conjured up and bruited abroad against our Church, by tying us down to the _letter_ of her forms, to the utter disregard of their meaning, and the spirit in which they have been imposed? I cannot express my own view of these monitory clauses, better than in the language of a contemporary divine, “their connection and relative force is this: whosoever desires to be saved it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith, and if he who has this faith keep it not, for he cannot keep it except he has first had it or held it, he cannot be saved, but without doubt shall perish everlastingly. The warning, therefore, is directed to him only who keeps not the faith which he has been taught, which has been put into his hands, which he has had hold of.” {45}

But my Diocesan affirms, and although it is your own opinion also, I take the liberty of canvassing it in his Lordship’s statement, feeling that the sentiments of the Spiritual Head of the Church in this Diocese, must carry with them even greater weight than your own. His Lordship says, “granting (though the Creed makes no such concession) that five hundred millions and upwards of Pagans and Heathens, out of eight hundred millions inhabitants of our globe, are not meant to be included in this sweeping anathema, it should be remembered that the whole Greek Church, professed Christians as they are, must of necessity be included, as its members after mature consideration are at variance with other Churches respecting the procession of the Holy Ghost.” {46a} As a point of _doctrine_ I am much disposed to question the “mature consideration,” I should rather impute the schism to the imperious and unbending dispositions of the respective parties, the _Patriarch_ versus the _Pontiff_. But be that as it may,—I would exonerate our Church from the odium of gratuitously condemning to irretrievable perdition, those who in _her own opinion_ substantially differ nothing from her in this respect, but do keep undefiled the Catholic Faith.

“They do not,” says _Archbishop Bramhall_, “add the word _filioque_ to the Creed, and yet they acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, which is the very same thing in sense.” {46b} And again—“_Peter Lombard_, _Thomas à Jesu_, _Cardinal Tolet_, and many others, do make the question about the procession of the Holy Ghost to be verbal only, without reality, and that the Grecian expressions of _Spiritus Filii_ and _per __Filium_, do signify as much as our _Filioque_.” {47a} _Bishop Pearson_, _Bishop Beveridge_, _Dr. Waterland_, and many others of our own divines are of the same opinion.

In explication of the doctrine of the Personality of the Holy Ghost, the Athanasian Creed says—“the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,” the Greek Church holds that which as _Bishop Pearson_ says, plainly contains this truth, that the Spirit is _of_ God the Father, and _of_ God the Son. The Creed says, “neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding,” and beyond a _procession_, distinguishing Him from the Father and the Son, but whether this procession be_ temporal_, _eternal_, or both—whether from the Father _and_ the Son, or from the Father only, the Creed _determines_ nothing—and the distinguishing property ascribed by the Greek Church to the Holy Ghost, is a _procession_, _Εκπορενσις_. {47b} “The Greek Church,” says _Dr. Bennet_, “does unanimously maintain the _temporal_ procession of the Holy Ghost, from _both_ the Father and the Son. And since this Creed may be understood in that sense, therefore in the use of it we do _necessarily_ declare no more than what the Greek Church does as cordially profess and contend for as ourselves.”

“Though the distinction,” says the same writer, “was so well known to all our Reformers in this nation, yet their prudence and moderation would not suffer them to take notice of it in any public and authentic manner. They would not recede from _Rome_ any further than was necessary, upon the account of the _Roman_ corruptions, and therefore they did not reject the _filioque_ from the _Nicene_ Creed or the Creed of _St. Athanasius_, nor did they declare themselves against the _Greek_ Church by adding any such term, as must necessarily determine in what sense they understood the _procession_.” {48a} _Literally_ taken, therefore, the Greek Church is _not of necessity_ included in this sweeping anathema, and as his Lordship states it, “excluded from the merits of the Redeemer’s death hereafter,” any more than five hundred millions of Heathens are condemned to irretrievable perdition by the _literal_ acceptation of Mark xvi. 16.

To affirm the necessity of the Catholic Faith to salvation, is simply to say what our Lord himself says, in the above text. To affirm that he who _having had_ the Catholic Faith _rejects_ it, is to say no more than is said, Heb. vi. 4, Luke ix. 62, Matt x. 13, and 2 Peter ii. 21, with many other like places.

It would appear then from page 51 of your pamphlet, that we differ nothing in our application of these clauses; the only difference between us is, that taking this view of it, I can _unreservedly_ make my Subscription, and conscientiously hold with our eighth Article, that this Creed “_ought thoroughly to be received and believed_.” But if in my conscience I believed that such an application of them was untenable, I confess I could not so easily lay aside my scruples, as it would appear you were ready to do, provided you could obtain the “sanction of the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury,” an opinion which being not _ex cathedra_, but private and personal, his Grace would not permit you to consider as “of greater value than that of any other _individual_, who may possess in an equal degree the qualifications of a competent judge in such a matter.” {48b}

But you ask “whether when we read Mark xvi. 16, we can find in that awful threat against those who do not receive the GOSPEL, a sanction for the even more appalling threat contained in the Creed.” {49a} In what sense it is more appalling you have left us to discover. But by this observation, you would seem to aim at some distinction between not receiving the _Gospel_ and rejecting the “very essentials of Christianity.”

“The Creed,” you say, “consists of a series of propositions deduced by fallible man.” This of necessity would be the case, since _the truth_ was by the wisdom of God committed to the keeping of fallible man, and with it, the command to “take heed to THE doctrine.” But the question is are they correct deductions from the _infallible_ word of God? You admit that they are, all “must admire,” you say, “the extraordinary subtlety and acuteness with which _erroneous theories_ are rejected, and _the correct deductions from scripture_ are maintained,” {49b} and again “the matters treated of in this Creed are of such _fundamental_ importance and so including the _very essentials of Christianity_.” {49c} If so, if the deductions be _scriptural_, the spirit of the clauses cannot be otherwise, for “_he_ that believeth not shall be damned,” and I presume that by believing you would contend for the necessity of a _sound_ faith—“the truth as it is in Jesus.”

“You are not,” you say, “so feverishly sensitive as many good men of our Church as to Trinitarian definitions, esteeming a lively ‘faith working by love,’ the grand desideratum of the gospel,” {49d} and so no doubt in a right sense it is. But _South_ draws a distinction between a lively and a _living_ faith, “our faith must not only be _living_ but _lively_ too.” Admitting this distinction, how far behind you does the Unitarian (or rather _Humanitarian_, if sects would but assume their most appropriate designation), fall in the profession of a like faith? He holds after a fashion, St. Paul’s “word of faith,” Rom. x. 9, and in works of kindness to his fellow creatures and _morality_, falls nothing behind the most orthodox Trinitarian. In this sense his faith is lively, and _artlessness_ and _simplicity_ are the boasted characteristics of his Creed. He “confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus”—but then it is that he “was a man constituted in all respects like other men, subject to the same infirmities, the same _ignorance_, _prejudices_, and _frailties_, that he suffered death, not to appease the wrath of God, not as a _satisfaction_ to divine justice, not to exhibit the evil of sin, nor in _any sense whatever to make atonement to God_ for it; for this doctrine, _in every sense_, and according to every explanation they explode as _irrational_, _unscriptural_, and _derogatory from the divine perfections_, but as a _martyr to the truth_, and _as a necessary preliminary to his resurrection_.” {50} They confess Jesus with the mouth, but they deny the _gospel of Jesus Christ our Redeemer_. And is this believing to the saving of the soul? is this a “confession unto salvation?” Is this THE doctrine? But the rulers of Christ’s Church are to charge some that they teach _no other_ doctrine, than the doctrine which is according to godliness, and great is the _mystery_ of godliness. They are to rebuke sharply that men be _sound_ in the faith. We must in short teach the truth _as it is in Jesus_,—THE faith and not A faith; and woe to us if from any mistaken notions of Christian charity, of that charity which “rejoiceth in the truth,” we hesitate to declare that to reject “the very essentials of Christianity,” is a “drawing back unto perdition.” At the same time when in the fulfilment of our bounden duty, our positive obligations, we declare the threat of scripture, for we declare no more, we might hope at all events from those whose every sentiment would seem to breathe of Christian benevolence, to have credit for declaring it in the spirit of that charity which “_hopeth all things_.”

Of the _form of absolution_ in the Service for Visiting the Sick, you say, “no small harm is done to our reputation by sanctioning that which in plain honest language cannot be defended.” {51a}

The Roman Catholic will tell you that you cannot in plain honest language defend any construction of the words “this _is my body_,” but their own. You put, however, a different construction upon them, and with no harm done to your reputation.

The Bishop of Norwich says of this form, “I have heard many Clergymen express the pain they felt in uttering it, shrinking, as conscientious minds ever must, from the assumption of a power of so awful a character, while others from equally conscientious motives, abstain altogether from pronouncing it.” {51b}

I hope I do not misapprehend his Lordship; but the impression of his opinion left on my mind by this passage, is, that no _conscientious mind_ can comply with our ordination vows but with _pain_ to itself. With what pain and reluctance then must his Lordship cause these solemn vows to be administered, and trusting that they are _conscientiously_ made, how from _conscientious_ motives a man can abstain from the observance of them, I confess I cannot clearly see. Nor, can I think it quite just to the great body of his Clergy to take a _weak_ conscience as the standard by which to measure the integrity of, perhaps, a better informed one.

But if his Lordship _so_ construes our formularies, as implying an assumption on the part of the _Minister_, of a power, the arrogating of which can fall nothing short of blasphemy, namely, that “unless we as Ministers of the Church, ‘do forgive’ and ‘absolve,’ the sins of a dying man must descend with him to the grave, with all their fearful pressure; and _that if we choose to retain them_, _he cannot escape their consequences_,” {52a}—in other words, assuming a power like the false Prophets of old, “to slay the souls that should not die, and save the souls alive that should not live,” {52b}—if such be his Lordship’s view of our forms, a man need not be gifted with an over-sensitive conscience to shudder at the arrogance, the use of them must involve.

Yet in such a sense, his Lordship would seem to say, that our Church’s absolution was viewed and “believed by many of our earliest Reformers.” Let us then try the Service in question, not by its _iotas_, but by its obvious sense and meaning. Let it be made its own interpreter, and we must at once be convinced that such was not the spirit in which it was imposed by our Reformers, that they contemplated no such construction of its words, as that of implying a power, of “loosing of the debt of eternal death,”—or as _Bishop Burnet_ says, to “_pardon_ with relation to God.”

For if so, why remind the sick person, that “after this life there is an account to be given to the righteous Judge, by whom all must be judged without respect of persons.” {53a} Does the form objected to imply any such arrogant assumption on the part of the Minister? On the contrary, is not the commencement of it _precatory_? to the effect that _Christ_, not the _Priest_, “would of his great mercy _forgive_ the penitent his offences.” Does the Priest pronounce the absolution in his own name? On the contrary, he pronounces it in the name of Him who sent him to declare the forgiveness of sins. Does he declare it on any other than the _gospel terms_? He declares it only to those who “truly repent and believe in Christ.” But can he see the heart? How then can it be supposed that he should himself believe, or what danger is incurred of deceiving the dying person into the fond hope, that he shall, in virtue of the Priest’s absolution, be clear when he is judged hereafter? Or if for a moment, the dying person had so deceived himself, must not the delusion be dissipated, on hearing the Minister _after_ he had pronounced his _absolution_, put up to the throne of mercy that earnest and affecting petition, in behalf of him “who most _earnestly desireth_ pardon and forgiveness”—but to what purpose, if he believed that he had but the moment before forgiven him? what can be more utterly at variance than this prayer, with the imputed arrogance of the form of absolution? “The truth is, that in the Priest’s absolution, there is the true power and virtue of forgiveness which will most certainly take effect—_nisi ponitur obex_—as in Baptism.” {53b}

“But who,” you ask, “shall venture to put these words into the mouth of fallible men, and authorize them _in any sense_ to apply them.” {54a}

“You believe us,” you say, “to be in the fullest sense ambassadors of Christ, charged with a message of reconciliation.” {54b} But say that you were delivering this message at the bed of a dying person, and he replied to it, yes sir, so I read in my bible. How would you lead him to believe that your ambassadorial declaration of his forgiveness, was likely to be of more avail to him, than his reading the message for himself? “Sin,” says _Hooker_, “is not helped unless it be _assured_ of pardon.” {54c} But what assurance can you give the penitent, beyond that he can read for himself, unless you have _authority_ to declare his pardon in virtue of your official character? If it be not so, the distribution of the bible may be considered as having in a great measure superseded the further necessity of a _Christian Ministry_, and rendered our Saviour’s institutions of none effect.

“But why,” you ask, “_assume_ to execute our commission in terms which under any construction are presumptuous.” Under their _proper construction_ I would submit that they argue no assumption or presumption whatsoever.

Let us say that you had recently been sent out as “an ambassador in the fullest sense,” to Canada, in pardoning the rebels in accordance with your instructions, and a compliance on their parts with the terms, should you have deemed it a distinction involving any important difference, implicating you in an act of presumption, or derogating any thing from the prerogative of your sovereign,—had you said, _I_ remit you your outlawry, and absolve you from all your offences.

But I should much question, supposing the rebels had by some means possessed themselves of your instructions, and having ascertained from them the terms on which pardon was offered to them, whether they would have considered reading this document to each other, the same thing as having the gracious message of pardon delivered to them on _authority_. The former is the principle of sectarism. But if you believe that there is any virtue in your office, if you believe that you are empowered to declare the message of reconciliation with more effect than a layman, define your position with regard to your heavenly Master, assert your delegated authority, that of being in the “fullest sense an ambassador of Christ;” prove that it means something, or give up your claim to an empty title. If there is nothing analogous in the office, why assume to be an ambassador? or why should the Apostles have led us to infer a delegated power, by declaring themselves to be ambassadors, ministers of the gospel, and stewards of the mysteries of God?

But for a weak and fallible man to assume a power in any sense, to remit or retain the sins of another, how shall we divest such a notion of presumption, or reconcile it with the enlightened and enquiring spirit of the nineteenth century?

We are baptized, as I have always understood, for _the remission of sins_. Say then, that a person desired baptism at your hands, but that on examination you thought you had found him wanting in the necessary qualifications, that he had not faith. Would you baptize him? But if part of the grace of Baptism be the _remission of sins past_, by withholding from him the sacramental means whereby they are remitted, do you not _retain_ them? And under such circumstances, would not the virtue of your commission—the “power of the keys,” be brought home to you? And considering the life-giving effect of Baptism, if you are tempted to measure God’s ways by our ways, must it not strike you as the very height of presumption, to say as you do—_I baptize thee_? But as the remission of sins is a result of Baptism, and as we have not according to the old puritanical objection, any “scripture warrant” for the words with which we administer that mystery, would it argue greater presumption to say in words that _mean no more_, “_I absolve_ thee of all thy past offences?” The Greek Church seems to have viewed the matter in this light, for as we learn from _Bingham_, they perform the rite in the _optative form_. “_Baptizetur servus Christi in nomine Patris_, _&c._—let the servant of Christ be baptized, &c.” {56}

But say, that you had mistaken the thoughts of the heart of the would be convert, would not “the tremendous responsibility” of which his Lordship speaks be neutralized as it respected both the convert and yourself, by the comforting consideration that there is an after appeal to One that judgeth righteously, at whose tribunal the act or sentence of His official on earth will be reversed, if pronounced in error, but everlastingly confirmed if otherwise? Is absolution therefore a matter of indifference? Why then was the Christian ministry ordained, and its authority sealed by the assurance of its divine Founder,—“he that despiseth you despiseth me, and he that despiseth me despiseth Him that sent me?”

Your third objection lies against the words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” as they are used in our Ordination Service.

The old cavil, as it is mentioned by _Hooker_, was “The Holy Ghost we cannot give, and therefore we foolishly bid men receive it.” {57a}

Your objection to the use of these words would seem to be, that in their literal sense they imply a power of commanding his gifts. But surely there is a wide distinction between the _dispenser_ of a spiritual gift, and the _giver_ of it. “God,” says _Jeremy Taylor_, “is the fountain of the power, man conveys it by an external rite . . . God is the consecrator, man is the minister; the separation is _mysterious_ and wonderful, the power great and secret.” {57b}

Now, if a Bishop really believes that the _Imposition of Hands_ is a divinely instituted rite, the means ordained by inspiration of Christ, and used by his Apostles, whereby the gift of the Holy Ghost is conveyed and received, for the ministration of the mysteries of the gospel dispensation:—if he believe that he is a minister of the Spirit, an apostolically appointed steward of these mysteries, I can see nothing “foolish,” nothing presumptuous in his saying at the very moment that he believes that he is _dispensing_ the gift—“Receive ye the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto you by the Imposition of our Hands.” It would, at least, tend to show that he had _faith_ in the efficacy of his ministration. But to imitate the significant act of our Saviour and his Apostles, ever performed by them with a specific object, and ever resulting in a _blessing_, in the communication of some _spiritual gift_, to have recourse to the sign, with _no faith_ in the thing signified, esteeming it but a barren ceremony,—would seem to me to be but little short of an “indefensible” mockery of an external rite, hallowed to spiritual purposes by the authority of inspiration.

If you can believe in the _mystery_ of the sacraments, if you can believe that “the bread which we break, the cup of blessing which we bless,” do, by the prayer and solemn invocation of the Priest, become, in some inexplicable and mysterious manner, the “Communion of the body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper:” if, in _this faith_, you hesitate not to give the consecrated elements to the communicants, manifesting the signification of the rite, by the words, the “body and blood of Christ, take, eat—drink:”—I can see but little reason why you should stumble, at the not more mysterious communication of the spiritual gift for the office ministerial, by the Imposition of Hands. They are mysteries; but the whole gospel dispensation is a mystery:—we must become as “little children” or we cannot receive them—for no sooner do we grow _wise_ enough to ask “how these things can be,” than we are certain to reject them as “foolishness.” Some boldly, like the Socinian, as requiring a “prostration of intellect,” too humiliating to be submitted to—others hiding from themselves their want of faith, under the garb of humility, under which garb, I wish, that frequently something more of rationalism may not lurk, than its wearer would either willingly suspect or acknowledge.

But you request the Archbishop of Canterbury, “that it may be allowed by his Grace’s authority or sanctioned by his opinion, that in this form, all that relates to the gift of the Spirit” (the _ministration_ of it rather, since the Bishop is not the fountain of the power—not the _giver_), “may be considered precatory.” {59a}—_Precatory_!—“the great mysteries of our religion are _all_ by way of solemn prayer.” “The form of words,” says _Jeremy Taylor_, “doth not alter the case, for _Ego benedico_, and _Deus benedicat_ is the same, and was _no more_, when God commanded the Priest in express terms to _bless the people_.” {59b}

But what is there in the words, “receive ye the Holy Ghost,” to prevent your taking them in the sense which would seem “to suit your own views?”

You take, I doubt not the form, in which the bread and wine in the sacrament are administered in a precatory sense.—“The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body,” &c.—but in the absence of any auxiliary verb, you must imply the precatory sense—you might mentally substitute _shall_ or _will_, for _may_, for anything that there is in the form itself to prevent you.

But you object also to the words as being an innovation, and contend that the use of them was unknown in the purer ages of Christianity. This, however, you must permit me to say, you have signally failed in your attempt to prove. The authorities you adduce, are those of _Morinus_ and _Bishop Burnet_. On these authorities “you hope to make it appear beyond all doubt that no such form of ordination was ever thought of, nor any resembling it for eleven centuries after the publication of Christianity.” {59c} “Prayer and the Imposition of Hands, were the only rites we find practised by the Apostles,” says the Bishop. But they were two distinct rites: “when they _had_ prayed, they laid their hands on them.” {60a} But they have left us no form of prayer used by them upon the occasion—how then do we know what form they used? And are we to suppose that the _Imposition of Hands_ was given in silence, unaccompanied by any words to indicate its signification to the person ordained, or to the faithful who were present? But nothing is left on record. How then can you undertake to say that they used not, as they most probably would, the very form of the primitive commission? Christ was designated for his ministry by the visible descent of the Holy Ghost, and by an efflux of the Spirit: He, having received the gift without measure, in like manner designated his Apostles for theirs—“_As_ my Father hath sent me, even _so_ send I you”—Receive ye the Holy Ghost. And there can be no doubt, that the Apostles in ordaining others, would declare both by word and deed: “_As_ Christ hath sent us, _so_ send we you.” “Stir up the gift of God that is in you by the putting on of my hands.” {60b}

But _Morinus_ is to set this question at rest. “His authority must, you suppose, be considered conclusive on this point.” {60c} But to what does it amount? His collected MS. forms of Ordination take you back to about the middle of the eighth century; and these you adduce as conclusive evidence of the practice of the _primitive_ Church. Now admitting, as in candour we must, that his earliest authority is a proof of still earlier usage,—still, as to any evidence of the _practice_ of the _primitive_ Church, he leaves you with a yawning and somewhat unmanageable _hiatus_ upon your hands.

Could no written summary of the Christian faith, or any traces of such summary be discovered, anterior to the date of that of Nice; you would hardly argue that for the three preceding centuries the Church had always used the _Nicene Creed_:—the inference would be that no human explication of the “word of faith,” had been found necessary:—and in like manner, the absence of any proof to the contrary, affords a strong presumption, that the _primitive_ Church had adhered to the use of the words of the _primitive_ commission. At all events, before you undertake to inform us what form was _not_ used in the ordinations of the primitive Church; it is incumbent on you to show what form it _did_ use.—“But,” says _Bingham_, whom you quote thus far,—“the solemnity in giving superior orders, was always performed by the Imposition of Hands and prayer.” This has never been disputed, but he also observes—“It is not to be imagined that one and the same form was used in all Churches, for every Bishop having liberty to frame his own Liturgy, as there were different Liturgies in different Churches, so it is reasonable to suppose the Primates or Metropolitans had different forms of consecration, though there are now no remains of them in being, to give us any further information.” {61a}

Throwing you in two centuries and a half beyond your earliest authority, I dare not attempt with _Bishop Burnet_ and yourself to jump the remaining hiatus, with any hope of reaching your conclusion,—“that if we ask of the antient time what is best, and of the latter time what is fittest, some alteration of the form of ordination is both proper and expedient.” {61b}

Our compilers thought it both “best and fittest” to adhere to the words of the primitive commission, nor attempt to define the mystery, or enquire “how can these things be:”—and they would probably have replied to the modern cavils in the spirit of _Hooker’s_ observation—“Seeing therefore that the same power is now given, why should the same form of words expressing it, be thought foolish?” {62a}

To this form of words the Clergy do _literally_ and _ex animo_ subscribe, and notwithstanding your objections, I trust without impeachment either of their _truth_ or _honesty_.

In a note to your Sermon published in 1838, speaking of “controversial publications by Clergymen in defence of our Church,” you observe, “the occupation is in most cases neither happy nor improving.”

Ought not such a consideration to have withheld you from challenging your brother to take so questionable a course as you consider its defence, by publishing such opinions of the Subscription required and made by the Clergy, as must, if correct, involve them in the suspicion of being either ignorant of its meaning, indifferent to its obligations, or insincere in their acceptance of them?—warning them at one time against the unhappy occupation of self-defence, and leading your readers at another, to draw an inference to their prejudice, from their silence; for you say with reference to “your objections, no attempt at a refutation of them has appeared, so far as you know, from any quarter,” {62b} and further, that our Diocesan’s pamphlet, in “defence” of his speech on Subscription, so strongly corroborative of your own objections “remains unanswered.” {62c}

I must, therefore, request of you to share any blame that may attach to us, in consequence of the courses, _offensive_ and _defensive_, which we have respectively taken in this matter.

I am fully conscious of the very questionable position in which it places me, as one of his subordinate Clergy, with respect to my Diocesan. And I trust I feel it with as becoming a sense of the doubtfulness of its propriety, as you must your own with its reference to our venerable and universally respected Metropolitan.

But when his Lordship is informed of the alacrity with which our opponents have availed themselves of his published opinions, to cast them “unbated and envenomed” against the bulwarks of our Zion, I feel assured that the well known liberality of his Lordship’s sentiments, will dispose him to make for me every allowance.

I could have wished that the silence the Clergy have hitherto preserved, and which has been construed to their disadvantage, had been broken by some one better qualified than I am to do justice to the subjects I have presumed to handle; by some one, whose name would have carried with it, far more weight than I have the vanity to imagine can attach to my own. Indeed, I have sometimes hesitated whether to affix it to this Letter, but as you have shrunk from no responsibility by withholding your own, from your published objections to our Subscription, I have felt it due to you not to shelter myself under the irresponsibility of an anonymous address. In penning which, if I do not deceive myself, I may hope to stand acquitted of having been influenced by any unfriendly feeling. If in any part of it my style may seem to border upon anything savouring of discourtesy—let me hope it may be considered by you as _seeming_ only. And should I have misapprehended your sentiments and done you thereby any injustice—

Let my disclaiming of a purposed evil
Free me so far in your most generous thoughts,
That I have shot mine arrow o’er the house
And hurt my brother.—

In which light, as a Clergyman of the Church of England, I hope long to have the opportunity to consider you, believing as I do, that your scruples, though the creations of a _conscientious_ mind, are more imaginary than substantial—and with this persuasion and in that hope, I beg to subscribe myself,

Very faithfully yours,

CHAS. CAMPBELL.

* * * * *

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GOWING, PRINTER, SWAFFHAM.

FOOTNOTES.

{1} Mr. Wodehouse’s Letter to the Bp. of Llandaff, p. 69.

{2a} Cure of Church Div. Direct. 48, Pt. 3.

{2b} Mr. Wodehouse, p. 50.

{3a} p. 4.

{3b} p. 35.

{3c} p. 4.

{3d} p. 35.

{5a} p. 67.

{5b} p. 26.

{6a} Petition with explanations, p. 31, published 1832.

{6b} p. 81.

{7a} p. 30.

{7b} p. 43.

{8} p. 54.

{9a} Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 63.

{9b} p. 45.

{11} Article 1.

{13} p. 41.

{14a} Petition of 1833.

{14b} Ordination Sermon, 1838.

{15a} Heber’s Life of Jeremy Taylor, p. cv.

{15b} p. 82.

{15c} p. 81.

{15d} p. 84.

{16} p. 4.

{19} Epist. Ded. to Sermon on the opening of Parliament.