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?