to a Catholic friend. In such a case, at least where the practice has
been voluntarily and earnestly adopted, we feel that God is calling
that soul to his church; that he has awakened in it a sense of need, a
craving for the grace and aid which, generally speaking, are only to be
found in the sacraments. We can hardly doubt that, if that soul is true
to grace, it will ere long be in the one true fold; but the position is
one of peculiar difficulty, and the temptations which beset it are of
no common kind. Minds of a weak order naturally yield to anything that
bears the semblance of lawful authority; the conscientious fear to go
against those whom they believe to be wiser and better than themselves;
a peace of mind often follows the confession of an Anglican. Perhaps it
is the natural result of having made an effort and got over what is
supposed to be a painful duty; perhaps it is a grace given by God in
consideration of an act of contrition. How is the poor soul to discern
this peace from the effect of sacramental grace? So the very goodness
of God is turned into a reason for delay and for resting satisfied.
Hitherto we have looked on the subject of confession in the Anglican
communion chiefly from the side of the penitent; the case of the clergy
who hear confessions is widely different and is beset with many
difficulties. Generally speaking, the only question arising in the mind
of the penitent would be: Can I get my sins forgiven by going to
confession? Of course the reality of the absolution turns primarily on
the validity of orders; strange to say, a vast number of the laity of
the Church of England are contented to take the validity of the orders
of their ministers as an unquestioned fact. The clergy naturally are
most positive in the assertion that their orders are valid; as the
nature and the necessity of jurisdiction are alike unknown to the
ordinary Anglican mind, the matter seems pretty clear. The laity in the
Anglican body are not in any very definite manner bound by the
Prayer-book or by any of the authorized documents of that body; there
is nothing anomalous in the idea of Anglican lay people, especially
women, going to confession without even asking themselves whether the
practice is in accordance with the mind of the communion to which they
belong. Moreover, High-Church Anglicans are avowedly bent on improving
their church; their church is not their guide or their mother, but
rather an institution which has so far fulfilled its purpose but
imperfectly, and which, by a judicious process of reformation, they
hope to assimilate to an ideal existing in their own minds. Many
conscientious Anglicans would therefore deem any objection founded on
the evident want of encouragement of their views by their church as
quite irrelevant. The Church of England does not forbid such and such a
practice, they would say; we are convinced that it is in accordance
with the teaching of antiquity, that it is useful, and therefore we
encourage it.
The clergy, however, are bound not only to follow the voice of
individual conscience, but to keep certain solemn promises by which
they have voluntarily bound themselves. Even if a clergyman be fully
convinced that he possesses the tremendous power of the keys, it does
not necessarily follow that he should feel at liberty to exercise it at
all times or in all places. We do not go at all into the question of
Anglican orders, except to remark in passing that it seems strange that
the majority of the clergy should give themselves so little trouble on
the subject; they know that, to say the least, grave doubts as to their
position are entertained by Christendom in general, and yet it is very
seldom that any one of them takes the same trouble to investigate his
orders that a reasonable man would take in regard to his title-deeds,
if a doubt were thrown on them. We believe that the feeling which we
once heard expressed by a clergyman said to be High Church is not very
uncommon; being told by a friend that there were serious reasons for
doubting Anglican orders, and consequently Anglican sacraments, he made
no attempt to defend them, but simply remarked: “I don’t suppose that
God would let us suffer for such a trifle.” To make the position of the
Anglican clergy clear to our readers, we must begin by citing from “The
Form and Manner of making Priests” the solemn words which a Protestant
bishop, “laying his hands upon the head of every one that receiveth the
order of priesthood,” pronounces over him:
“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. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and
whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a
faithful dispenser of the word of God, and of his holy
sacraments: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost. Amen.”
By the thirty-sixth canon of the Church of England, published and
confirmed in 1865, it is required that the following Declaration and
subscription should be made by such as are to be ordained ministers:
“I, A. B., do solemnly make the following declaration: I assent
to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and to the Book of
Common Prayer, and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and
Deacons; I believe the doctrine of the United Church of England
and Ireland, as therein set forth, to be agreeable to the word
of God; and in public prayer and administration of the
sacraments, I will use the form in the said book prescribed,
and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful
authority.”
An Anglican clergyman, again, pledges himself at his ordination to
minister the doctrine and sacraments and the discipline of Christ as
our Lord hath commanded, _and as this church and realm hath received_
the same. The subject of confession is mentioned three times in the
Book of Common Prayer, which, as our readers may perhaps be aware, is
the only authorized formulary of devotion possessed by the Church of
England. There is no separate ritual for the clergy; the Common Prayer
is the one comprehensive whole and is in the hands of everybody.
In the exhortation which is appointed to be read on the Sunday
immediately preceding the celebration of the Holy Communion, and which,
by the way, a great many regular church-goers seldom or never have
heard read, the concluding paragraph runs as follows:
“And because it is requisite that no man should come to the
holy communion, but with a full trust in God’s mercy, and with
a quiet conscience; therefore if there be any of you, who by
this means, (_i.e._, by self-examination and private
repentance,) cannot quiet his own conscience herein but
requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to
some other discreet and learned minister of God’s word, and
open his grief; that by the ministry of God’s holy word he may
receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly
counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience and
avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.”
The next occasion on which we find confession in the pages of the
Prayer-book is the Visitation of the Sick. A rubric lays down the
“priest’s” duty in these words:
“Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special
confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with
any weighty matter. After which confession the priest shall
absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this
sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to his church
to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in him, of
his great mercy forgive thee thine offences; and, by his
authority committed to me, I absolve thee from all thy sins, in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Amen.”
Lastly, in the twenty-fifth of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion,
which are subscribed by all the clergy, we read:
“There are two sacraments, ordained of Christ our Lord in the
Gospel—that is to say, baptism and the Supper of the Lord.
Those five commonly called sacraments—that is to say,
confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme
unction—are not to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel,
being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the
apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures;
but yet have not like nature of sacraments with baptism and the
Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or
ceremony ordained of God.”
As the Church of England has but one authorized book of devotion, she
has but one book of instruction; her Homilies are declared, in the
thirty-fifth of the Thirty-nine Articles, “to contain a godly and
wholesome doctrine and necessary for these times,” and it is directed
that they should “be read in churches by the minister diligently and
distinctly, that they may be understanded of the people.”
The Homilies are not read in churches; in fact we believe it would be
safe to assert that they are hardly ever read anywhere, and we might
almost suppose them to be obsolete, were it not that every candidate
for orders signs the statement that they are “necessary for these
times.” The second part of the Homily on Repentance says:
“And where they (the Roman teachers) do allege this saying of
our Saviour Jesus Christ unto the leper, to prove auricular
confession to stand on God’s word, ‘Go thy way, and show
thyself unto the priest,’ do they not see that the leper was
cleansed from his leprosy, before he was by Christ sent unto
the priest for to show himself unto him? By the same reason we
must be cleansed from our spiritual leprosy—I mean our sins
must be forgiven us—before that we come to confession. What
need we, then, to tell forth our sins into the ear of the
priest, sith that they may be already taken away? Therefore
holy Ambrose, in his second sermon upon the 119th Psalm, doth
say full well: _Go show thyself unto the priest_. Who is the
true priest, but he which is the priest for ever after the
order of Melchisedech? Whereby this holy Father doth understand
that, both the priesthood and the law being changed, we ought
to acknowledge none other priest for deliverance from our sins
but our Saviour Jesus Christ, who, being our sovereign bishop,
doth with the sacrifice of his body and blood, offered once for
ever upon the altar of the cross, most effectually cleanse the
spiritual leprosy and wash away the sins of all those that with
true confession of the same do flee unto him. It is most
evident and plain, that this auricular confession hath not the
warrant of God’s word, else it had not been lawful for
Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, upon a just occasion to
have put it down.
* * * * *
“Let us with fear and trembling, and with a true contrite
heart, use that kind of confession which God doth command in
his Word, and then doubtless, as he is faithful and righteous,
he will forgive us our sins and make us clean from all
wickedness. I do not say but that, if any do find themselves
troubled in conscience, they may repair to their learned curate
or pastor, or to some other godly learned man, and show the
trouble and doubt of their conscience to them, that they may
receive at their hand the comfortable salve of God’s word; but
it is against the true Christian liberty, that any man should
be bound to the numbering of his sins, as it hath been used
heretofore in the time of blindness and ignorance.”
Such are the scanty devotional and dogmatical utterances of the Church
of England on the subject of confession. The only other instruction
given to her clergy in regard to their duties as confessors is to be
found in the one hundred and thirteenth canon, which treats of the
presentment of notorious offenders to the ordinaries. Parsons and
vicars, or in their absence their curates, may themselves present to
their ordinaries
“All such crimes as they have in charge or otherwise, as by
them (being the persons that should have the chief care for the
suppressing of sin and impiety in their parishes) shall be
thought to require due reformation. Provided always, that if
any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the minister, for
the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual
consolation and ease of mind from him; we do not any way bind
the said minister by this our Constitution, but do straitly
charge and admonish him, that he do not at any time reveal and
make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so
committed to his trust and secrecy (except they be such crimes
as, by the laws of this realm, his own life may be called into
question for concealing the same), under pain of irregularity.”
As far as we can gather, the belief of the Church of England on the
subject of confession may be summed up in the following propositions:
1. Penance is not a sacrament, but
2. Her ministers have the power of forgiving sins.
3. This power is exercised after confession made by the penitent.
4. But such confession is not to be made, save in case of serious
illness or of great disquiet of mind.
5. The absolution of the priest is not the ordinary means by which sins
are forgiven.
6. The penitent is to be the judge in his own case. If he feels very
much in want of confession, he may have it; if not, he is to do without
it. His own feeling is the only rule in the matter.
We think our readers will admit that the above statements are in no way
an unfair summary of the teaching of the Church of England as
represented by her formularies. Certainly they give no warrant for the
assertion now made by the High-Church party that confession is the
ordinary remedy for post-baptismal sin, or to the practice of frequent
and regular confession which is now so widely advocated and followed.
Confession is evidently, according to the teaching of Anglicanism, what
it has been well called by an Anglican, a “luxury.” How, it may be
asked, can men who are pledged to teach and maintain the doctrines of
the Church of England act in direct opposition to the instructions
which she has given them? We do not maintain that those instructions
have the appearance of being all the expression of the same
convictions. There is an apparent discrepancy existing amongst them;
they are not consistent with each other. But the one broad fact is
plain as daylight: they do not countenance the present action of
extreme Anglicans. Lookers-on constantly ask, Are these men sincere?
Why do they not “go over to Rome”? Are they not traitors in the
Anglican camp? To these questions we can only reply: We judge not; each
individual must stand or fall to his own master; but we cannot hesitate
in saying that ritualism as a system is dishonest, and that the
position occupied by its adherents is the most untenable that any man
can undertake to defend.
If we seek for the reason why men whom we are ready to believe upright
and honorable act in a manner which is apparently absolutely
incompatible with their solemn engagements, it may perhaps be
discovered by a consideration of one of the chief characteristics of
the Church of England.
St. Paul speaks of the church of Christ as “the pillar and ground of
the truth.” The Church of England is essentially a compromise. Some of
her dignitaries even look on this as her glory: the High-Churchman can
find his belief in the Real Presence supported by her catechism, but
the Low-Churchman has the black rubric, which is equally strong in
favor of his opinion; her prayers are for the most part preserved from
the days of Catholic piety, and her Articles bear the impress of
foreign heresy; she prays against “false doctrine, heresy, and schism,”
and devotes one of her Articles to the assertion that all churches have
erred. Her clergy are required to accept anomalies and inconsistencies;
and we cannot but do them the justice to say that they accept them with
great equanimity. Every one has something to get over: the
High-Churchman could wish some things altered, and the Low-Churchman
would be glad to see others omitted; the result seems to be that every
one subscribes with a kind of laxity which, if it does not imply a want
of honesty, at least betrays an absence of accuracy and of definite
conviction. Subscription to articles and formularies seems to sit very
lightly on the Anglican conscience; it is a mere means to an end.
But the Anglican clergyman not only pledges himself to the doctrines of
the Prayer-book and Articles; he also promises obedience to his bishop.
Here is something apparently definite. In the voice of a living bishop
there can hardly be the same scope for diversity as the pages of the
Prayer-book afford. Generally speaking, the Anglican bishops condemn
the practice of confession; if they were really rulers in their
communion there can be no doubt that the High-Church party would long
since have been extinct. As a fact, the Anglican does not obey his
bishop; at this very moment one of the leading High-Church clergy of
London has definitely and deliberately refused to obey his bishop by
removing from his church a crucifix and a picture of Our Lady, which he
believes tend to promote devotion among his flock.
For the reasons which lead conscientious men to disobey the ordinary
whose godly admonitions they have engaged with a glad mind and will to
follow, and to whose godly judgments they have promised with God’s help
to submit, we must again look to the peculiar theories of the Church of
England. It is hardly necessary to say that the Church of England does
not in any way or under any circumstances claim infallibility; nay,
more, she goes out of her way to deny its very existence. One of her
Articles asserts that the churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Rome have erred in matters of faith, and another follows up this
assertion by the kindred statement that general councils may err, and
sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God. She indeed
daily professes her belief in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church, but she does not inform her children where and how the voice of
that church is to be heard. She constantly asserts the authority of
Holy Scripture, but she recognizes no authority competent to interpret
Scripture in a decisive manner. Under the influence of such teaching it
is not surprising that there should exist in the Church of England two
theories regarding authority in matters of faith. One is that there is
no authority save Holy Scripture. Everything must be proved by
Scripture; and as there is no one necessarily better entitled than
another to explain Scripture, this virtually amounts to a recognition
of the right and duty of private judgment to its fullest extent. The
other theory is based on belief in the One Catholic Church. It admits
that our Lord appointed his church to teach men all truth; it believes
that the voice of the church in primitive times was the voice of God;
it doubts not that at a former period the church was guided by the
Spirit of God, but it holds that supernatural guidance to be in
abeyance; it recognizes no _living_ voice of the church; it looks
forward with a vague hope to the reunion of Catholics, Greeks, and
Anglicans, and the possibility in such a case of a general council
being held, whose decisions would bind all Christendom. In the meantime
the church is dumb, if not dead, and all that can be done is to turn
with a reverent mind to the study of antiquity, to an examination of
what has been handed down from the days of pure and undoubted faith.
This last is the theory of the High-Church party in general. To their
mind a bishop is a necessity; he is required for the conferring of
orders and for giving confirmation; he is not the centre of sacrificial
power in his diocese, nor the source of jurisdiction; he is not a
teacher in any other sense beyond that in which they are themselves
teachers; their obedience to him is not an obedience to one whom our
Lord has set over his flock with a special charge to feed his sheep as
well as his lambs; it is an obedience rendered to one who is officially
a superior—an obedience which has no direct reference to God, and which
is constantly evaded (it may be in perfect good faith) on the principle
that “we ought to obey God rather than man.”
Another cause which has probably much to do with the apparent
inconsistencies of the High-Church Anglican clergy is the fact that
they are in a great many cases absorbed and overwhelmed by an amount of
active work which leaves little leisure for the serious examination of
their position. It is admitted on all sides that the last century was a
period of spiritual apathy and deadness as far as the Church of England
was concerned. The movement of the past forty years has not been merely
in the direction of Catholic doctrine, but it has also led to a renewal
of zeal, to energy and self-sacrifice, which we cannot but appreciate.
The poor, the young, the ignorant, and the fallen are cared for with a
charity whose root is, we trust, to be found in the increased knowledge
of the life and of the love of our Lord. But even works of mercy have
their snares; a man who is toiling night and day among the outcast and
the poor of great cities, who sees the results of his labor in the
reformed life of many a wanderer, and who also sees pressing on him
needs which he can never fully satisfy, must be sorely tempted to turn
a deaf ear to all such questionings as would stay his course. He hears
people’s confessions, and he sees them turn to God and lead better
lives; naturally he concludes that all is right, and he resents any
interference with a practice which is apparently so salutary.
We have now given a short and, we hope, a fair idea of confession as it
exists at present in the Anglican communion. We must add, for the
information of those who have not had the opportunity of watching the
progress of events in England, that the practice of confession was
unknown, or almost unknown, in the Anglican communion until about
five-and-thirty years ago. It was one of the first fruits of that
turning back to the old Catholic paths which by God’s blessing has led
so many souls into the Church. The movement still goes on; it has
passed through different phases, and year by year it brings one after
another to the very threshold of their true home; they enter in and are
at rest, and find the reality of all that they had hitherto sought and
longed for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL THE SOMBRE.[161]
AN EPISODE IN THE POLISH INSURRECTION, 1863–1864.
It is a trite remark that every age has produced its heroes, its
saints, and its martyrs; but there are few amongst us who have
sufficient discernment to recognize them when they cross our path in
life. “Should we know a saint if we met him?” asks Father Faber. And so
if we were to meet the heroine of this tale, quietly working in her own
village or busy with the _ouvroir_ for young girls she has just
established in her province in France, we should be far indeed from
guessing that we saw with our own eyes a woman who had equalled, if not
surpassed, Joan of Arc in heroism, devotion, and courage, and who had
done deeds which would be incredible, if not attested by a multitude of
living witnesses.
She was born in one of the departments of France unhappily annexed
during the war of 1870–71. Having lost her mother in infancy, she was
brought up by her father, an old officer under Louis XVIII. and Charles
X., who educated her entirely as a boy. At twelve years of age she was
a complete mistress
of the art of fencing, riding, shooting, and other manly
accomplishments. Then, fearing lest she should be altogether unfitted
for the society of those of her own sex, her father suddenly determined
to send her to a convent, where her extraordinary cleverness soon
enabled her to conquer all difficulties, and she made the most rapid
progress in every branch of study. A vein of earnest Catholic piety ran
through her whole character, coupled with an equally earnest devotion
to her country and her king.