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.