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.