Part 2

I now proceed to adduce evidence of a counter-tendency, arising from a personal knowledge of facts, and an intimate acquaintance with the opinions of individual clergy.

In 1838 I preached at Yarmouth before the Lord Bishop of Norwich, yourself, and a numerous body of the Clergy residing in the two adjoining Deaneries, a Sermon, in which I delivered the following sentences, _viz._—

“By God’s providence, my Reverend Brethren, we have been ordained ministers ‘of that pure and reformed part of Christ’s church established in this kingdom,’ which, from the deepest conviction, we believe to be ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone;’ and in obedience to her authority, and in conformity with her Articles and Liturgy, we have pledged ourselves to discharge the functions of our ministry.

“I have been ordained to ‘administer the doctrine and sacraments and discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this church and realm hath received the same.’ And, until I am convinced that she is in error—that her Articles or her Liturgy contain ‘things which are neither read in scripture, nor may be proved thereby,’ as a minister of the Church of England, I may not indulge in speculations of my own imagination, or perform her offices in ways and modes of my own devising, but I must labor for the edification and salvation of the souls entrusted to my care, according to the laws, the regulations, and the spirit of the Church of England, which is the Church of Christ. When I can no longer do so conscientiously, it will then become me no longer to appropriate her emoluments.

“But revering and loving her doctrine, and approving her discipline, I can well repose myself under her guidance and administration. These, my Reverend Brethren, I may venture to hope, are equally the sentiments of us all.”

Whatever might be the individual opinion entertained of the obligations under which, on that occasion, I apprehended myself and all ministers of the Gospel to be, or of the sentiments which I expressed in regard to those obligations,—the Sermon, containing this acknowledgment of our ministerial engagements, and this expression of corresponding sentiments, was requested by the assemblage then present, without a dissentient voice, to be printed; and I think the charitable inference is, that each individual sanctioned with his approbation the sentiments delivered in that discourse.

If this construction upon their unanimous act be correct, the accidental publication of this Sermon will go far to exonerate the parties then present from the imputation of disingenuous Subscription, which, I must needs think, in your general remarks, you have endeavoured to attach to them.

But so far as it concerns my neighbours, I have yet something more certain than a fair and presumptive inference to advance. My personal intimacy with many of the Clergy around me, enables me to add my belief that these sentiments _are_ theirs, equally as mine. And if this be true of the Clergy in one district taken indiscriminately, why should they not be the opinions of the Clergy of other deaneries and other dioceses? Until you can give me positive proof to the contrary, I shall charitably presume that they are so; and leave you to reconcile with fact the following extraordinary, and to me unaccountable, assertion:—

“Subscription, instead of being the tie which is to bind people to certain opinions or truths, is become a rope of sand. So uncertain is the trumpet’s sound, that it no longer, as of old, proclaims the spirit of an united host, but turns every man’s sword against his fellow: and Englishmen must soon awake to the conviction that Subscription, according to the plain meaning of the words, is blown to the winds, and become the disgrace and not the safeguard of the English Church.”

Under ordinary circumstances it would seem sufficient to have made a general statement in regard to Subscription, but as you have particularised three several points to which you take exception in the matter of Subscription, it might appear uncandid to pass them over without more especial comment.

These points will be best given in your own words:—

“I still maintain—

“That the condemnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, in their literal sense, are an un-christian appendage to a document of extraordinary merit, yet such that a true Christian may innocently differ from some propositions set forth in it.

“That a Bishop is not authorized by the Gospel to address a candidate for Ordination in the literal sense of the words, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins thou dost remit, they are remitted, and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.’

“That a Christian minister is not authorized by the Gospel to address any one in the literal sense of the words, ‘I absolve thee from all thy sins.’”

I am not sure that I understand your precise meaning in the expression, the “literal sense;” but I will not shrink from stating distinctly the sense in which I subscribed, and, so far as I have been able to ascertain, other Clergymen subscribe to these points.

Scripture itself is not always interpreted in a strictly “literal sense.”—Witness a great part of the sixth chapter of St. John. But in the interpretation of a particular passage, regard must be had to all the circumstances and considerations connected with it. The same observation, I apprehend, applies in ascertaining the meaning of the Articles and Liturgy.

Now whoever subscribes to the Athanasian Creed, subscribes to it in conjunction with the Thirty-nine Articles: and the 6th Article states that “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an Article of Faith.” By the standard of Scripture, then, we are bound to try every clause of the Athanasian Creed, and every other subject of Subscription, before we embrace it as an article of faith. And thus, the condemnatory clauses of that Creed are to be understood and received in perfect agreement with the Scripture. And to satisfy ourselves of their true sense we must have recourse to the Source of Truth. Then, are these clauses of _universal_ or of _limited_ application? Our Saviour’s words are—“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” {22a} And to ascertain the extent of the condemnation herein denounced against unbelievers, we must compare the passage with others evidently to be taken in conjunction with it. First, the words of our Saviour—“That servant who knew his Lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to His will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, neither did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.” {22b} Secondly, the declaration of St. Paul—“Now we know, that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law.” {22c} Hence we learn that our Saviour’s words in St. Mark are to be understood with this limitation, _viz._ “he that” hath the means and opportunities of believing the Gospel, and “believeth not shall be damned.” At the same time, to show that “there is no respect of persons with God,” whether Jew or Gentile, St. Paul expressly declares with reference to those who sin without revelation, “As many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law.” {22d}

Hence we are bound, I think, to receive the condemnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed in the same sense and with the same limitation as our Saviour’s words in St. Mark. They are declaratory of God’s revelation respecting those who have the means and opportunities of believing the saving truths of the Gospel, and yet do not believe. “This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men have chosen darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” {23}

(2) Now, in regard to the Absolution in the Visitation of the Sick, the same rule of interpretation is to be applied. If the words, “I absolve thee from all thy sins,” were taken to convey to a fellow-creature an absolute pardon of sins committed against God as unreservedly as we may forgive his offences committed against ourselves, this construction would appear to invest us with an authority which every priest is sensible that he does not possess. “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” Whatever therefore be the signification of the words in this Absolution, we are certain they must be so understood as to harmonize with Scripture, which declares the forgiveness or remission of sins to be conditional. Faith and repentance are the conditions, and baptism the outward mean, whereby the forgiveness of sins is formally and legally made over to the worthy recipient. Acts II. 38, and VIII. 37. In accordance with these conditions, the Absolution in both the Daily and the Communion Service is framed; and in both places the priest pronounces pardon and absolution “to those who truly repent and unfeignedly believe,” agreeably to the Covenant of Baptism. And the authority on which he professes to do this, is—that “God hath given power and commandment to his ministers to _declare_ and _pronounce_ to his people, being penitent, the Absolution and Remission of their Sins.” Hence, in these two cases, the office of the priest is clearly _ministerial_. If now we would reconcile the words in the other Absolution with the plain intention of Scripture, we have only to apply to the Liturgy the Apostolic Canon, which we ever adopt in the interpretation of Scripture—“Comparing things spiritual with spiritual,” and compare the latter Absolution with the two former, and we have no difficulty in convincing ourselves that the words, “I absolve thee from all thy sins,” (whenever it may be a point of duty to use them, _viz._ “if the sick person humbly and heartily desire it,” and having “made an especial confession of his sins,”) are pronounced _ministerially_ and _conditionally_.

Take lastly the case in the Ordination of Priests. This consists of two parts:—

(1) “Receive the Holy Ghost, for the office and work of a Priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.”

(2) “Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained.”

(1) The authority on which a Bishop addresses these words to a Candidate for Ordination is derived through the Apostolical Succession. They are the words in which our blessed Lord thought good to invest his Apostles with their ministerial authority; and there is strong ground for believing, that the first Bishops received from the Apostles, upon whom Christ built his church, the like authority in the same form of words, and so handed it down to their successors. Some formula for Ordination there must be, as of baptism; and though the one is a sacrament and the other is not, my faith teaches me, that “where two or three are met together in God’s name,” in any Godly work, “there is He in the midst of them.” I would therefore humbly and piously hope, that in such a holy work as the Ordination of weak and frail men for the great and responsible office of the ministry, He will vouchsafe to be present with His church; and after care duly taken by the Bishop to “lay hands suddenly on no man,” the solemn vows sincerely taken upon himself by the candidate, the earnest prayers of the congregation, the pious invocation of the Holy Ghost “to inspire the souls” and “visit the hearts” of those engaged in the sacred investiture—upon a candidate so truly called, and so dedicated to the ministry, I would devoutly trust that God would be pleased to pour down a portion of the sanctifying Spirit, by the laying on of hands.

(2) With regard to the second part of this formula—“whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted,” &c. It is generally admitted that one meaning of these words applies to Ecclesiastical Censures, in reference to the members of any Church who may have committed scandalous offences and incorrigible misdemeanours. {25} And comparing them with Matthew XVIII. 16, 17, 18, it seems almost impossible but to conclude that, in one sense, they relate to those matters. If this were the only signification, there would be no perplexity. But the words most probably have another reference—a reference to sins, as they are committed against God. And herein I apprehend lies the difficulty. To arrive at a satisfactory solution of this, we have only to consider (supposing the Priest to be endued with authority to remit and retain sins in a spiritual sense) the occasion on which he is called upon to exercise that function. Clearly, in pronouncing the Absolution, wherein he declares remission of sins to those who truly repent and unfeignedly believe. And although, in the Absolution, he declares not the counterpart of the sentence, yet he has equally authority to pronounce, that the sins of those who do not repent and believe, will be retained by God.

It has, I conceive, been demonstrated that the Clergy, with comparatively few exceptions, do not subscribe otherwise than _ex animo_, and by consequence disproved that they are the disgrace of the English Church, in that respect, at least, or, as you invert the proposition, that “Subscription is the Disgrace of the English Church;” it therefore might seem superfluous to discuss the _Corollary_, which falls to the ground as a consequence. But as there is reason to doubt whether you intend the alteration of Subscription, strictly as a Corollary dependent on the previous problem, or as itself a distinct proposition, offering a substantial improvement in the Constitution of our Church, it may be worth while to investigate the matter further.

You propose then, next, “the repeal of the present form of Subscription;” and instead thereof, “Subscription to the three Creeds, and an engagement to conform to the Liturgy:” and you add, that “assent to the doctrines of the Creeds would be almost Catholic.”—Would it? Could _you_ subscribe to the three Creeds, or engage to conform to the Liturgy, without some modification or limitation? You declare that you still cannot accept, in the “literal sense,” either the Condemnatory Clauses of the Athanasian Creed, or the Absolution in “the Visitation of the Sick,” or the formula in “the Ordering of Priests;” and in your former publication, entitled “_What is the Meaning of Subscription_?” you stated that “you were not contented to take them otherwise than in a ‘literal sense,’ without a declaration from Authority that they are not strictly to be so taken; and you went so far as to offer to resign your preferment, if called upon so to do by the Archbishop of Canterbury, unless in the meantime you obtained relief in that respect.” {27} Supposing therefore the changes made; in this dilemma, how would your case be affected by them, one way or the other, without an authorised interpretation also, which should be satisfactory to you? But supposing further, that you obtained everything which would satisfy yourself and some thirty-five others who united with you in 1840 in a Petition to the House of Lords, how could the Arian and the Socinian subscribe to the Athanasian Creed with a safer conscience then, than now? Could those who deny Baptismal Regeneration repeat, “I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins,” in the Nicene Creed? Would the “Three Denominations” feel quite easy in repeating “I believe in One Catholic and Apostolic Church,” in the Nicene Creed, and cordially unite with our Church in maintaining the present Three Orders of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons? Would the Romanists be contented to reduce their tenets within the Confessions of the three Creeds, and confine their Services to our Ritual? It is really difficult to think you serious, when you say, that “assent to the doctrines of the Creeds would be almost Catholic.” But we will proceed; for the subject deserves grave consideration.

To maintain that your proposed alterations would insure anything like “Catholic assent,” promote union among Christians, and advance the growth of vital religion, is to contradict _Catholic_ experience, derived from undoubted history. Do we not read of schisms in the Corinthian Church, even in the days of their Apostle, when the Confession of Faith must have been in the simplest form? And do we not find him sharply rebuking the Corinthian converts—“I hear there be divisions among you, and I partly believe it?” {28} Has not St. John left on record the extraordinary caution which he thought necessary, to guard the disciples against the errors of Gnosticism, which, in his time, were infesting the Church? Again, the history of the three Creeds is but an account of the rise and progress of the Gnostic, the Sabellian, the Arian, and the Socinian heresies, which successively sprung up, the former without, the three latter within the Church, and of the means devised and adopted to counteract them. Moreover, it is capable of proof, that every singular Article in the three Creeds, has application to some error at the time prevailing. {29} The history of the thirty-nine Articles is too well known to require more than the mention of them. They were drawn up designedly and expressly to exclude from the Reformed Church of England all those who still might adhere to the Romish faith.

Thus, then, we see, that when the Confession of faith was in the simplest form, the Church of Christ was not free from schism; and that Creeds and Articles of Faith were invariably the _effects_, and not the _causes_, of heresies.

But besides a retrospective glance at the past, it may not be altogether foreign from the consideration, to take a speculative view of the future results which would probably ensue, upon the Subscription being reduced to the three Creeds. It is often the best mode of trying a proposition, to suppose the thing done, and to follow it out into its obvious consequences. Suppose, then, Subscription reduced to the three Creeds. The first question which suggests itself is—How would this affect our two Universities, from which the nation has long derived “a supply of persons duly qualified to serve God, both in Church and State?” If this circumstance should open the door of admission to those eminent schools of education so wide, as almost to insure the resort of students essentially differing from the principles and doctrines of the Church of England as now constituted, and thus render probable a material change in the nature and mode of religious instruction there communicated—I think the conclusion would be inevitable, that the fabric of the Church of England, as at present founded on the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, would be greatly endangered; and consequently, that your proposition must be rejected as a rash and hazardous experiment.

Now, although the Romanists would not join your Communion in the altered form, it is certain that the Subscription to the three Creeds would present no obstacle to their entrance into the Universities, seeing that they _do_ subscribe to them already, and _something more_. Then it is more than probable, that the mass of the dissenters would find the means of introduction and admission into those seats of learning—not even excepting the chairs of the Professors of Divinity. And thus the Orthodox youth of the Church of England would no longer enjoy the privilege of being educated exclusively and securely in their own principles and in their own Universities—a privilege, nay, a prerogative, asserted and exercised by nonconformists of different denominations, in their Academies founded for the tuition of youths of their own communion, in their own principles of religion, and in agreement with their own peculiar views; but they would soon have to encounter, in this new state of things, the conflict of discordant opinions, at all times unfavorable to the growth of true religion, but especially so in the ardent and restless period of youth.

In the year 1834, when the admission of persons into the Universities, without regard to their religious opinions, was urged with unprecedented zeal, Dr. Turton, now dean of Westminster, then Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, published some “Thoughts” on the subject, which were so convincing to my mind of the utter impracticability of that measure, that I must be permitted briefly to refer to them. To shew what would be the probable result of such a concession, he traced the operations of an Establishment, which had been tried on a plan very similar, on a scale sufficiently large, and for a time sufficiently long, through its various stages during sixty years, to its ultimate results. This Establishment was the well-known Academy which Dr. Doddridge instituted at Northampton, and which his successor removed to Daventry. The leading facts relating to this Institution, are, that its founder was a learned, talented, and in the main, orthodox divine, but a zealous non-conformist—that its “constitution was perfectly Catholic,” in other words, that students of any sect in religion were admissible—that the instruction was required to be taught according to the principles laid down in the Assembly’s Catechism—and that, after declining thirty-eight years under three successive tutors, after Dr. Doddridge, “holding the balance” (according to Mr. Robert Hall, a non-conformist,) “betwixt contending systems, without betraying the slightest emotion of antipathy to error, or predilection for truth,” it finally sank into Modern Unitarianism, under Mr. Belsham in 1789.

Upon an impartial view of the case, Dr. Turton attributes all the evil resulting from the system, to “laxness in the terms of Admission,” in the first instance, which afterwards led to a faulty mode of teaching Theology. And justly he remarks, “we have seen the effects of great diversity of belief at Daventry, and we may rely upon it that those effects were not accidental; they were such as will always be produced by the same cause.”

Here, then, we have an experiment before us, of a religious establishment, on a sufficiently large scale, commencing under an able, learned, and, in the main, Orthodox Divine, upon “_Catholic principles_,” and terminating within sixty years in the most disastrous consequences. The circumstances of the Academy at Daventry, and of the two Universities, under the new state of things, would obviously be so nearly similar, that the result which was produced in the former case, might with certainty be expected in the two latter. If a similar trial should be made by relaxing the present test, and thus enabling men of almost all shades of opinion to enter at our Universities, infidelity would, in like manner, be the result. And when the time shall arrive, that the youth who are destined to supply the Ministry of the Church, and to fill the Offices of State, shall no longer be grounded and built up in the principles of “that pure and reformed part of Christ’s Church, established in this kingdom,” but shall be taught some system of belief, composed and modified out of all the various and discordant elements of religion then existing in those ancient and peaceful Institutions of “sound learning and religious education,” the evil consequences will be such as it requires no ordinary nerves to contemplate.

Surely then the Church of England will pause ere she incline to adopt your proposition, and exchange a certain good for a certain evil.