“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.
Before I conclude, I have a few words to add in reference to the
publication of your pamphlet:—and first I would observe, that if you have
failed in the proof of your proposition—if your allegations in the main
stand contradicted by facts—if there is every reason to believe that the
Clergy, although varying somewhat in matters unimportant, do, with
comparatively few exceptions, subscribe _ex animo_ to the Articles and
Liturgy—I then leave with you to determine, however you may “believe
yourself engaged in the cause of truth,” in what manner your pamphlet is
calculated to ascertain and promote it within the Church of England.
Whatever may be your determination on this head, the judgment of the
Clergy of this diocese, at least, is condemnatory of the course which you
have taken. They feel that, for a period of years, from time to time, by
your publications, you have vexed the Church in general, and this diocese
in particular, troubled Israel, and given occasion to the enemies of the
Church to exult. In this very pamphlet have you not described to us, in
clear terms, what must be the value of a clergyman’s ministry among his
flock, when his character for integrity—his honesty in his ordination
vow—is suspected? Have you not put into the mouths of “some youthful
profligates, led on by an ingenious sceptic,” questions relating to the
Clergy, highly defamatory of their character as ministers of Christ, and
injurious to the best interests of religion? Do you not suppose that
your pamphlet has been perused by many who will rejoice in turning it to
the worst of purposes—the purposes of infidelity—against the Clergy
collectively, yourself individually, and the religion of Christ
generally? Do you suppose that this publication has not been discussed
in many dissenting assemblies of this diocese, and exultingly responded
to—“Ah! so would we have it, so would we have it?” Too much reason have
the Clergy to say, in sorrow and in sadness—“It is not an open enemy that
has done us this dishonor;” it is a brother—one of our own order—a
dignitary of our own Church, who is partaking of the same bread—
This, you may say, is hard language.—“But is there not a cause?” When I
turn to the sentence, “While we thus perceive the variety of opinion
prevailing amongst these several sections, we see also that from _all_ of
them, more or less, Subscription is requiring that which, in the ordinary
affairs of life, high-minded men would abstain from, _viz._ the necessity
for qualifying the plain and straight-forward use of language;” and when
I find you finally concluding, “In this state of things, I can hardly
imagine any diversity of opinion, with respect to the Thirty-nine
Articles, which calls for the resignation of a Clergyman; indeed it
appears to me, that it would be simply absurd in any one to resort to
such a step, unless under a decided wish for communion with some other
church or body of christians”—I own that I am still startled at this bold
expression of opinion: and I confess that, after much reflection, I have
been at a loss to couch in softer terms, my sense of this grave
imputation, and of this deliberate avowal, thus placed on record.
I have now finished a task in which I engaged with reluctance. I trust
that I have fairly and temperately gone through the discussion of the
subject; and I can aver that I have carefully endeavored not to
misunderstand or misrepresent any thing which you have written. I hope,
also, that I have given an impartial consideration to whatever you have
advanced in support of your case: unfeignedly have I labored to
investigate the subject in all its bearings, and arrive at an unbiassed
result. How far I have succeeded in my object, others will judge. This,
however, I will affirm, that, in the discharge of a public duty to which
I have been unavoidably called, I have been actuated by no motive of
private consideration, and especially by no unfriendly feeling towards
yourself. And in conclusion I will add that, if anything which I may
have advanced in explanation or in support of the present Subscription to
our Articles or Formularies, should happily have placed the matter in a
different and more satisfactory point of view, so as to clear up your
present doubt and perplexity, I should feel more gratification and
delight than I am able to express. And I hope, by the blessing of that
God whose providence over-rules all things for good, this feeble effort
may not be without its use.
I have the honor to be, SIR,
Your sincere and faithful Servant,
CHARLES GREEN.
BURGH CASTLE,
8_th_ _July_, 1843.
* * * * *
~~~~~~~~~