Part 5

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.

{21} My readers may wish to know who the ADELPHI are to whom I have more than once alluded. They are the authors of a pamphlet, entitled “Observations on a Petition, (the Petition of last Session), for the Revision of the Liturgy, &c. written by two brothers, a Clergyman and a Layman.”

These brothers, by the impetuosity of their onslaught, are said to be distinguished amongst the petitioners as the CASTOR and POLLUX of their little phalanx.

And as there are in their pamphlet some things which might render questionable the logical acumen of the one, and tend to cast a shadow of suspicion on the orthodoxy of the other—they have acquired credit for no indifferent tact in putting forth this SIAMESE sort of production, inasmuch as to any sentiment which might not be thought creditable to the divine; the barrister is ready with fraternal consideration to assert his claim,—“MEUS HIC sermo est,” and that which might not be highly esteemed for its soundness in the learned and honourable society of Lincoln’s Inn; the divine with reciprocal affection is at hand, to exclaim—“Adsum qui feci”—in short, the Barrister will be responsible for the divinity, and the Divine for the points of law.

Diligat et semper socius te sanguinis illo Quo pius affectu Castora frater amat.

{22a} p. 113.

{22b} p. 107.

{24a} Bishop of Norwich Pamph. p. 18.

{24b} Sparrow’s Collection, &c. p. 12.

{25a} Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 18.

{25b} Hart’s Eccl. Records, p. 2.

{26a} Burnet Pref. vol. i.

{26b} Sparrow’s Collection, &c. p. 1.

{27a} Bishop Jebb’s Pastoral Instructions, Disc. iii. p. 61.

{27b} History of his Own Times, vol. ii. p. 33.

{28a} John and W. W. Hull’s observations on the petition, p. 23.

{28b} p. 29.

{29} p. 17.

{31} Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 14.

{32} Rule of Conscience, b. iii. c. iv. r. 23.

{33} Bp. of Norwich Pamph. p. 29.

{34a} Barclay’s Apol. p. 27.

{34b} p. 67.

{34c} Petition with Expl. p. 47.

{34d} I have introduced the name of the Bishop of London, as it gives me an opportunity of doing fuller justice to his Lordship’s sentiments with respect to a REVISION OF THE LITURGY than I have yet seen done them in any of the publications in which his name has been introduced in connection with the subject.

His Lordship admits, that since the LITURGY is a human composition, it falls short of perfection, and is consequently “susceptible of improvement.” “I should be deficient in candour,” says his Lordship, “if I did not acknowledge that I think the LITURGY susceptible of improvement, it would be little short of a miracle were it otherwise, . . . and I heartily pray that the time may come when the question can be looked at with calmness and candour, and if the recent conduct of dissenters forbids us to look forward with any sanguine hope to an extensive comprehension of those who differ from us, that something may be done for the satisfaction of many who are sincere and zealous members of the Church.”—Such is the sum and substance of all that his Lordship has admitted that may seem to favour the views of the revisers, and here most of them have been satisfied to stop short in their quotations from his Lordship’s charge.

From a passage in the Bishop of Norwich’s pamphlet, I should be led to think that his Lordship had been content to take his quotation from his brother Bishop’s charge at second hand, for after quoting the above passages, his Lordship says, “I have only to add, that had the Right Rev. Prelate who expressed these his deliberate sentiments in 1834, manifested in his speech of 1840, a disposition to follow them out in their true spirit and legitimate results, the conscientious men who signed the Petition, might have entertained a just hope that he would have lent his powerful aid in supporting its prayer.” {35a}

I will take up his Lordship’s charge where the Bishop of Norwich and you have left it—

“BUT,” says his Lordship, “when I consider the circumstances in which we are now placed, and the advantage which would be taken from different quarters, of any door which might be opened to change, I am led to adopt the sentiment of a pious and sagacious man, {35b} uttered nearly forty years ago:—‘As to our liturgy, I am far from thinking it incapable of amendment; though when I consider the temper and spirit of the present times, I dare not wish that the improvement of it should be attempted, lest the remedy should be worse than the disease.’” {35c}

Had these his Lordship’s sentiments as “deliberately expressed” as any other part of his charge been more generally made known, I must think that the conscientious men who signed the Petition, could have expected nothing so little as his Lordship’s powerful aid in support of its prayer.

To these sentiments his Lordship appended a note supporting his own views by the authority of Archbishop Secker and of Dr. Balguy. From that note you have quoted the well deserved terms of praise in which his Lordship speaks of, “the candid and christian spirit which breathes throughout your preface,” to your reprint of Dean Prideaux, in which praise all who have read the work will readily join. But as it illustrates his Lordship’s views, we may as well give the remainder of the note. The quotation from Archbishop Secker is as follows:—

“Et hæc eadem velim sibi in memoriam revocent, qui Liturgiam item recenseri reformarique flagitant. Ornatior quidem, accuratior, plenior, brevior, et POTEST EA FIERI ET DEBET; sed modesta tractatione, sed tranquillis hominum animis; non temerariis, qualia vidimus et videmus, ausis, non inter media dissidia mutuasque suspiciones.”

“Some of the faults imputed to our public service are,” as Dr. Balguy says, “of such a nature as to admit of no alteration. In these instances we must renounce our faith before we can consent to reform our worship; to reform it, I mean, in the only way which can stop the complaints of its adversaries.”—Discourses, vol. 1, p. 103. {36c}

Not having arrived at your conclusion—“That the Bishop of London, who came forward as the principal opponent of the Petition, is an unfit guide for public opinion on such a subject.” {36d} I have thought it but just that the public should know what his Lordship’s sentiments on the subject of a Revision of the LITURGY really are.

{35a} Bp. of Norwich’s Pamp. p. 45.

{35b} Rev. John Newton, Apologia, p. 9.

{35c} Bishop of London’s Charge, 1834.

{36a} Hor. Epist. II. i. 45.

{36b} Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 5.

{36c} Bishop of London’s Charge, Appendix N.

{36d} p. 3.

{37} Nares Bamp. Lect. p. 466, note 3.

{38} Articles, &c. in the Primary Visitation of Edward, Bishop of Norwich, 1838.

{39a} p. 18.

{39b} p. 92.

{39c} Hull, 15.

{40} p. 14.

{42} Visitation Charge, 1771.

{43a} Hull, p. 19.

{43b} Bishop of London’s Charge, 1834, p. 40.

{43c} South’s Serm. vol. ii. Epist. Ded. to Univ. of Oxford.

{44a} Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 42.

{44b} Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 28.

{44c} Mark xvi. 14.

{44d} John iii. 15.

{44e} John ix. 26.

{44f} 2 Thess. xi. 12.

{45} Vogan’s Bampton Lect. p. 375.

{46a} Bishop of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 28.

{46b} Just Vind. of the Church of England, Disc. iii.

{47a} Schism Guarded, iv. Sect. x.

{47b} See Pearson on the Creed, Art. 8, note.

{48a} Paraphrase on Com. Prayer, Append. Numb. 3, p. 292, second edition.

{48b} p. 54.

{49a} Pet. with Expl. 27.

{49b} Petition, &c. p. 25.

{49c} p. 24.

{49d} p. 23.

{50} Belsham’s Calm Inquiry, pp. 291, 292.

{51a} Petition, &c. p. 31.

{51b} Bishop of Norwich’s Pamphlet, p. 34.

{52a} Bp. of Norwich’s Pamph. p. 33.

{52b} Ezek. xiii. 19.

{53a} Service for Visiting the Sick.

{53b} MS. Note by Bishop Overall.

{54a} Petition, &c. p. 31.

{54b} p. 33.

{54c} Eccl. Pol. B. vi.

{56} Antiquities, vol. viii. Append. p. 239.

{57a} Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 77.

{57b} Div. Inst. of Off. Min. pp. 225, 226.

{59a} p. 51.

{59b} Div. Inst. of Off. Min. Sect. vii.

{59c} Petition, &c. p. 37.

{60a} Acts vi. 6.

{60b} 1 Tim. i. 6.

{60c} Petition, &c. p. 38.

{61a} Antiquities, b. ii. c. xi. sec. 9.

{61b} Petition, &c. p. 42

{62a} Eccl. Pol. b. V. s. 77.

{62b} p. 58.

{62c} p. 105.