“We can illustrate this point by a single example. Some readers of the Bible may think that, whenever the word ‘day’ occurs in the first chapters of Genesis, it must mean a period of twenty-four hours. Common people have come to understand it in that sense. Now, suppose that the question has been raised in some Baptist or Congregational ‘Sabbath-school.’ The teachers think a declaration from their pastor or bishop—if they please to call him so—to the effect that the word does not of necessity imply a period of time limited to twice twelve hours, would quiet the consciences of some of their pupils who have studied geology. Suppose the thing asked for is granted: are we, therefore, to conclude that the pastor has pretended to give a definition of the word ‘day,’ and to state exactly ‘what it does mean’? Shall we speak of him as having ‘grappled with’ the creation question, and yet ‘failed to tell a waiting’ Sabbath-school what the exact time indicated by that word ‘day’ was—whether ten thousand years, as some believe, or, as others think, ten million?”
“Alas! the House of Bishops have put forth a definition which is no definition! They pretend to define, and yet they do
not define! There is not a churchman, however ignorant of theology, who does not laugh in his sleeve at this pseudo-definition, which will have the effect, however, of making manifest either the ignorance or the insincerity of ‘Evangelicals,’ provided that they remain in the church. For, if the latter remain therein after this, it must be either because they cannot tell a definition from an evasion of a question, or because they are in search of some excuse for not carrying out those boisterous threats with which they have been for some time past making both day and night hideous to all peaceful churchmen.”
The respect here shown to these right reverend fathers in God is nearly as great as their honesty. Now, we insist that the new birth of water and the Holy Ghost implies a moral change of the most important kind, and that even the forgiveness of original sin cannot take place without such a change. We will take the words of the Episcopal Catechism, and leave it to any just mind if regeneration determines a moral change. There we are taught that the inward grace, inseparable from baptism, else it is no sacrament, is “a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness; for, being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace.” To be made the child of grace surely requires a moral change, which the bishops deny. They will, therefore, have to put out a new catechism or a new dictionary. As for the quibbles upon the sense of the word “determine,” as if the venerable prelates meant to sport with the common sense of their constituents, they are too paltry to deserve the notice of any respectable man. The plain fact is beyond dispute, that the supreme authority of the Protestant Episcopal Church has formally denied the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which is contained in the Catechism and Office for
Baptism. In this they have only spoken the real feeling and belief of the great majority of their religious communion since the time of its formation. Of this wonderful declaration, they say in their pastoral that “they have, with an extraordinary unanimity, set forth a definition touching their offices for the baptism of infants.” The declaration, they inform us, “was made in the loving hope that many consciences might thus be for ever freed from false impressions concerning the teaching of the church, as respects spiritual religion and personal piety.”
We have no right to expect any accurate use of terms in the language of those who, according to the testimony of many of their children, know nothing of canon law or theology; yet here we have a plain statement which admits of but one interpretation. The bishops at the next convention may retract it or deny it, and individuals among them may gravely say that they do not receive a doctrinal definition which they signed. Stranger things have happened. The two who did not sign it are, we are told, High Churchmen of the old, dry school, while the hopeful abettors of ritualism have gone down under this cloud, from whose darkness they can never clear themselves before an honest public.
We pass on to notice the further action of the reverend prelates in council, since to us ecclesiastics they are the only part of the convention who are properly judges in doctrine or discipline. Having denied regeneration in holy baptism, and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they have, with like unanimity, attacked and forbidden, as far as they may, private confession. Sometimes, they inform us, a soul is so burdened with its sinfulness as to desire “an authoritative assurance of
forgiveness.” This, however, in their view, is by no means necessary, nor is it “the duty of Christians, or essential to any high attainments in the religious life.” “Pardon,” according to them, “is granted to any child of God, on his repentance, accompanied by prayer, and reliance upon the promises of Christ, as well as on the use of the means of grace.” What means of grace are here intended does not appear. To make confession, therefore, “a thing customary, not exceptional, enforced, not free, is to rob Christ’s provision (what provision?) of its mercy, and to change it into an engine of oppression and a source of corruption. History demonstrates this, and the experience of families, and even of nations, shows that the worst practical evils are inseparable from this great abuse. To pervert the godly counsel and advice which may quiet a disturbed conscience into the arbitrary direction which supplants the conscience, is to do away with that sense of moral responsibility under which every man shall give account of himself to God.”
This is not the place to point out the gross ignorance and prejudice of the Episcopal bishops. They speak of what they know nothing, having never confessed their own sins, nor felt the need of any “authoritative assurance of pardon.” To assert a wholesale slander of one of the most sacred institutions of Christ, hallowed by the practice of three-fourths of all who call themselves Christians, which is really the great source of the little purity left in the world, is a fearful crime before heaven. We acquit them, therefore, in charity, of the intention to slander, and hold them culpably ignorant. All this is, however, beyond the scope of our present purpose. We have only to say that they have forbidden,
as far as their words go, the ordinary practice of confession, and that they deprecate it as “an engine of oppression and a source of corruption.” It remains now to be seen whether these counsels of the chief pastors of the Protestant Episcopal Church are to be followed by their children who think them to be successors of the apostles and fathers in God. Will the Right Rev. Dr. Potter, who once published, as we have been informed, a manual for the examination of conscience, to whom a prayer-book, with directions for confession, has been publicly dedicated, now interfere and put a stop to this great abuse? Will the handful of ritual priests in this city cease to sit in their pews or their libraries to hear and absolve penitents? To speak our honest opinion, the words of the bishops will have no influence whatever, and things will go on precisely as they did before. We only venture to wish, for the sake of propriety, that confessionals might be erected in all these churches, where at least the female penitents might be heard. We assure our friends that this advice comes from a good heart. If they cannot hear confessions in public, they would do well for themselves not to hear them at all.