Part 4

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}