The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1867-08-27 00:00:00

THE ANTI-RITUALISTIC MEETING AT
SALISBURY.
1111.0011 D LITT=

To the Editor.

Dear Sir,—l have to thank you for your courtesy in
admitting my former letter into your last week's paper;
and according to my promise therein expressed I now
trouble you with • few remuks upon the other topics of
Mr Willis ii letter.

It is not because be advances anything new or difficult
to answer, but because be bag touched neon those
points, witioh ore just au* outtruverimtl. Red heoaas. be
has written with that sort of assurance and positiveness
of assertion, which, though no evidence of wisdom, is
with many ill informed persons too often taken for
proof.
As briefly as possible, I will take up the two remain-
ing subj•cts of his letter," Absolution," and "Schism;"
arid while I endeavour "to contend earnestly for the
faith, once delivered to the saints," I trust that I shall
ever do so in • Chridiari spirit according to the Apostolic
rule, "In meekness instructing those that oppime them.
selves."

Upon the subject of "Absolution" Mr. W. writes not
very intelligibly, as follows,
"He eould have pat t:iem in remembrance, end also
have derived information for himself, who had just said,
' It was the Priest.' power that they objected to; be.
cause if the elergy had granis d to them the power of
granting absolution- of remitting and retaining sins at
pleasure—it followed as a logical neosasity that they
must have confoisiocaL' He could have ettprised • great
many in that Assembly-room; he could have rebuked
the three clergymen who denied this power ; end I should
think have been astonished at himself, if he had read
from the service for the Visitation of the Sick, the
absolution, as follows, be." (Copied verbatim from
Mr. W.'s letter, August 10, 1867.)
Does Mr. W. know what he writes about himself?
Does he really suppoee that the threeelergy men who sp,.ke
at that meeting had not well and solemnly consideted,
as well as discussed the whole subject of absolution,
and especially in tionnexion with the form of absolu-
tion contained in the service for the Visitation of the
Sick !

-WI la regard to "Absolution," or the forgiveness of
sin, we are, I suppose, all agreed, that to fotgive sin is
the prerogative of God alone—that "if we confess our
sins (to God that is), God is faithful and just to forgive
us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness"
—that this forgivenees is solely forth. merits of Christ.
whose "blood clesnseth from all sin"—that • sense of
this forgiveness is communicated to the soul by the Holy
Ghost through faith in Christ, and that the means
whereby this i. done is the word cf God—and that
"biting justified by (this) faith we have peace with God-
through our Lord Jesus Christ." But the question
now remain., Did our Lord "delegate" • "judicial"
power to forgive sins, to the "Priesthood" through the
Apostle*, and does our Church lead ua, its clergy, to lay
claim to this power?
.. . .

It would bei impossible in a short letter to do justiee
to so large a subject as that of Confession and Abs du.
lion, but I would refer those who wish to scquaint
themselves with it, to an admirable lecture (William
Macintosh, 24, Paternoster-row, publisher) delivered in
St. James's Hall, last March, by Dr. Miller, Vicar of
Greenwich, ard to two excellent articles in "The
Christian Adroeale for March and April of this year; a
periodical edited by the Rev. Edward Gas belt.
The whole subject is there treated in a lucid and
masterly manner. The following is an extract from the
commencement of the number for April:—
"We (in our last) showed what was the sense in
which the Primitive Church understood the words of
our 1,-rd in Matt. :U. 18, 19. ' Iwill give unto thee
the keys,' ge.. and John xx. 23, 'Whosoever sins ye
remit,' leo Whether, like Tertollian, they held that
the keys were given to St. Peter, personally ; or, like
et. Ampullae, that ho reeciwo4 them aa the repreeete-
tie,. of the whole Church—the Fathers never supposed
that they conferred the right of forgiving sins by virtue
of Absolution. It was as preachers of Gospel troth,
as the administrators of the holy sacraments, as the
men whose business it was to seek out sinners and bring
them to the Saviour, that the Apostles and their
successors remitted and retained .ins; net by any
personal or official powers but by the power of faith is
the merits of Jesus Christ. Thus Tertullian's proof,
that St. Peter did receive the keys, wu the fact that
he preached at Pentecost the first Christian sermon,
and thereby unlocked the Chureh's doors, and gathered
in 3,000 souls. Rut that which he was first to do, that
all Christian ministers do now; yea, all believing
people. And thus Augustine does not hesitate to say,
that " whosoever brings moral influences to bear upon
another, binds and looses." For whensoever the truth
as it is in Christ is laid before the conscience, men must
either accept or reject it ; they cannot occupy neutral
ground, but most either b- hardened against better
influences, or be softened and be brought nearer to that
Fountain by which alone sin can be washed sway."—
Christian Advoaite, pp. 81, 82, April. 1867.
These are mound words—no uncertain trumpet is blown
here; no undue or unseriptoral honour sought for man,
bat all the glory given to Him, to whom it is doe, to the
Lord Jesus Christ, and to his soul quickening Word.
Bat what does our Prayer Book teach us in regard.to
this subject?
'The first allusion to Abelution is in the commence-
ment of Morning and Evening Prayer, where our
Church claims authority for her ministers, not to forgive
sins themselves', but "to declare and pronounce (i.e.,
publish alood) to God's people being penitent, the abso-
lution and remission of their sins." This is clearly
nothing more than a ministerial Declaration, and tho
Power" "declaratory."
Next, the "Absolution" delivered by the Presbyter,
or Bishop, in the Communion Service, is evidently a
prayer, and the Absolution is what is termed " pre.
catory." .

Again, there is • direction upon this subject in the
"Exhortation" to Communion to be read by the mini.-
ter, who gives warning of the celebration ; and • most
valuable and important clause it is. Aid I would to
God that the case of such troubled impudences were
multiplied a thousand fold, not for the glory of the
"Priesthood," but the comfort of sin-sick souls. Let
mtret=e beautiful words of our Prayer-book.
it is requisite, that no man should 001110 to
the Holy Communion but with • full trust in God's
mercy, and with a quiet conscience; therefore if there
be any one of you, who by this meth' cannot quiet his
own conscienee herein, but requireth further comfort or
counsel, let him come to me, or to some dimreet and
horned minister of God's Word, and open his grief, that
hy the ministry of God's holy Word, he may receive the
benefit of Absolution, together with ghostly counsel and
advice, to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of
all scruple and doubtfulness."
One might fancy that these words were copied from •
sermon of good old Latimer, who after denouncing the
Romish confessional, goes OQ to speak of right and true
eonfemion. His words are, " Those, which gad them-
selves grieved in conscience, might go to a learned man,
and there fetch of him comfort of the Word of God.
and so cone to a quiet coracienoe. which I. heti, and I
more to be regarded than all the riches of the world."
—Latimer's Sermons, p. 180, Parker Society's Edition.
Observe here two important points; first, that there
is 00 private and compulsory confession set up, as
requisite for all, but only the special case of one, who
is under deep distress on amount of his sins; and next,that
that is no judicial, or indicative, or absolute absolution,
but only ministerial, that "by the ministry of God's
holy Word" be may receive comfort to his soul. How
quite in meordanoe with Word of God, and in
agreement with the teaching of the primitive Church is
this exhortation
Now I maintain, that this is precisely the cam
supposed in the visitation of the dolt, which next comes
under our consideration, only with this difference, that
in this ease the minister than "move him" (the sick
man) to malts a special cordes•ion of his sins, if he feel
his conscience troubled with any weighty matter.
This is very important advice to ministers, who
might otherwise say peace when there is no peace
or adminster the Holy Communion to • sick person
utterly devoid of a living faith in Jesus Christ. Herein
lies a very important element of ministerial usefulness
in the diagnosis (or thorough knowledge as far as
possible) of the case of hi. patient, otherwise he may
"slay the goals that should not die, or save the souls
alive that should not live." Each. glib 19.
But observe again in thin ease, there is no "private
shrift in the ear," as old Tyndale calls it: the friends
of the sick man are not required to absent themselves;
nor are the words, so much objected to in their
"Indicative" form, 'I absolve thee," is., to be need
except the rick man (not • sound ram) humbly and
heartily desire it.
But are these precise words to to be used at afl, even,
in this especial ems? I think there are gram reasons for
aging they are not.
Let it be observed that this indiestive form, " I
absolve thee, h 0.," was unknown in the Church until
the 13th century after Christ, and when we consider
bow carefully our Reformers followed Holy Scripture
and the practice of the Primitive Church. they never
could have intended the me of this form to give any
countenance to "auricular confession," which they
abhorred or to that "judicial" absolution in the indica-
tive form, which was an innovation by medieval Rome,
and thisappearn, not only by
the
guarded
but for the
fweollhorneseereasiooblit wmhai.hy he gathered that they meant
no locee than was implied in the exhortation of the
Communion Service already considered above:-
1. Became our Church, aver appealing to Holy
Poifigtore sad primitive practical& neither of whist*
foototo any escort of the "indicative' form of abisoln•
tics, cannot sastradiet itself by intending this heel to be
trawl la the " Saler nem

I Nouse the original form in the Sarum Missal,
from whi,h is was taken, referred to re.admission to
communion, atitt it wiis most improbable that Our
Reformers would make it more Popish by applying it to
remimions of mina alone. _ .

3. Because in the last edition of the Prayer-book in
Edward Vl.'s reign, in 15.52, ea in the present
book, the word " sort" is substituted for "form' in the
Rubrio immediately preceding, showing the intention
of the ootnpliers to be, not that the "ipsissima vs rba"
(the very wortlg) must be used, but that rather the
mode indicated in the exhortation of the Communion
Service (already oomm.nted on) 'look b. adopted.
4.Beeaue in thiiseeond book of Ed wsrd VI. all allusion
to...private confessions is erased and omitted.

Becauae in. this prayer immediately following,
which " I. the original alemlution given to dying
penitents for more than 'BOO years in the Western
Church" (Palmer, it. 226). the minister prays for the
, sick man, after be is supposed (according to the
Ritualistic view) to have been previously and judicially
absolved, as still " earnestly desiring pardon and for. a prayer utterly inoon-istent with the
supposition of previous and absolute pardon.
And we are further confirmed in this view by Canon
67, which exempts "licensed preachers" (and such are
all incumbent. and curates in the Church of England)
from the obligation to use this servioe at all, showing
that, in the mind of the divine. of 1603, who drew up
those Canons, this particular "form" was not regarded
as essential to the &hill man's comfort, provided the
spirit and intention of the service were adhered to.
Space will not allow quotations from the Rdormation
Fathers, and our Homily on Repentance, or I would
subjoin them ; but as Mr. W. seem. fond of the Ante-
Marian Reformers, I will give an extract from the writ-
ings of the famous William Tyndale, whose grand work
and chief fault in the eyes of the Papists were his
printing and publiahing the Bible in English, for which
heinous crime he wan burnt at the stake.
In his treatise, "The Obedience of a Christian man"
30,31, "on Confession," he thus writes :—"Shrift in
the ear" (atiriculsr confession) is verily a work of Satan,
and that the falsest that ever was wrought, and 'het
bath most devoured the faith. It began among the
Greeks, kø . . But we, Anteobriat'a (i.e., the
Pope's) possession, the more knavery we see grown
thereby daily, the more we eatablish it. A Christian
Mte is a spiritual thing, and has God's Word in his
heart, and God's Spirit to certify him of all things. He
I. not bound to come to any ear: and as for the reasons
which they (the Papists) make, they are all bat persua-
sion. of man's wisdom. First, as pertaining to the
'keys' and manner of 'binding and loosing,' is enough
above rehearsed and in other places.. Thou mayst deo
see, how the Apostles need them in the Act,: and in
Peel's optatloa, how at the preashlog of faith the Spisll
came, and certified their hearts, that they were justified
through believing the promises"

Saai was the sound scriptural exposition of the
meaning of the power of the keys, held by our
Reformers, and agreeing with the views of the primitive
Fathers, Tartullion and Augustine, as shewn above.
Tyndale was martyred in the reign of Henry
in the year 1535, far enough before our Elizabethan
Reformers, of whose Calvinistic views Mr. W. appears
to have sorb • dread. Let me hope that before Mr. W.
again commits himself to endorse the doctrines of the
pretilarian Reformers. he will read their writings, end
be will find, as Dean Goode has @hewn, that there Is no
difference in doctrine between Jewel and the Elizabethan
Reformers, and Crenmer and his martyred brethren.
I think, then, that one thing is quite clear from what
has been above said, and it is this, that those who are
at present playing at Popery, and setting up • "private
confessional," are utterly at variance with the Church
of England, and that they do so at their peril; for
clearly they have no warrant from our church. One
word upon the subject of "schism." Who does not
long for union, even "the unity of the Spirit in the
bond of peace r "'Ti, like the precious ointment
poured on Aaron." and "as the dew of Hermon." But
how is this natty to be obtained? Is it by an iron
uniformity, cramping np men's consciences in fetters of
human tradition, or by • wise and humble submission
to God's Holy Word? The Primitive Christians
"continued atedfastly in the Arnica' doctrine, and (in)
fellowship" (Acts ii. 42); and there can be no fellow.
ship or communion of the Spirit, apart from the true
doctrine of the Apostles. Rome may boast of its unity,
but it is uniformity in error : "My soul, come not thou
into their secret." Time was in the 4th century, during
the temporary triumph of Arius, that Atbanuius
appeared to stand as the solo representative of the Truth ;
)et, like Elijsh, he was not alone.
. . . . . .

frightful Muse of schism is the attempt to introduce
into the Church dogmas not to be found in God's word.
This Popery has done. and No has been the chief ring-
leader in schism. St. Peel told the Epliesian Presbyters
" after his departure Frievons wolves would enter in
among them, not sparmg the flock, he., (Acts xx., 22.
See also I Tim., i., 1; 2 1.-10). And be
warns us (l Cor., xi. 10), "there must be also heresies
aniong you, that they which are approved may be made
manifest." Many years ago I heard • remark made
' by • wise and learned min, a senior wrangler, and now
• bishop of our Church, in allusion to the mmtitopish
errors then coining in like a flood : "The Lord has two
ways of purifying His Church, by persecution, and by
false doctrine; if it he our lot to be exposed to the
latter, let us be thankful that we are ntt called upon to
suffer the extremities of the former."
Who, then, are the Schismatics. Those who are
striving to introduce unscriptural and Popish dogmas
Into the Church, contrary to the formularies, and the
recorded opinions of those who compiled our Prayer
Book; or those who, cleaving to thl Bible, and
nothing but the Bible, as the Church bids them (Art.
el.), and interpreting the Pray tr Book by the one key,
which unlocks all its apparent difficulties, feel perfectly
satisfied with their position, well assured that the
Reformers arson their side? This was acknowledged
by Mr. Mmlccil (formerly chaplain to the Bishop of
Exeter) in regard to the Elizabethan divines ; and to
smart. Is Mr. Williams implies, that ()rammer, Ridley,
Latimer, Hooper, Bradford, Phillpot, and others, whom
works we have in the Parker Society Edition, and who
where burnt to death in they's reign, differed in any
one essential doctrine from them, is to ignore their
writings. Mt. hfmkell was constrained to acknowledge
that he had been deceived by reading garbled extracts,
or "(edemas," and geeing that he could not honestly
carry out his Romanizing views in our Church, he west
over to Rome!

Sir, I am old enough to remember reading, in one of
the publications of the first Tractarians, 30 years ago,
words to this elect: "We must try to break down this
horror of Popery, which preirsils among our country-
men." "We mutt nnprotestantiza she masses." "Thu
must be done by &westernising them to Romish terms,
name., end customs, ac for as pouible, by the intro-
duction of ' A liars," Crucifixes. 'Candlesticks on the
Altar," Processions of Priests," &c. This unpro-
testantiring protest has been carried out with singular
tenacity, in 'monism* with theu suggestion., PO that
we now see Popish doctrine and ritual set up in our
midst, and services conducted in some Churches in this
land in such a bare-faced manner that it would be difficult
fore viiiitor to say whether be is Inc Popish or Anglican
Church. Are we then to hold our tongues? Let publip
opinion decide. . _ . .

'Mr. Williams, in his letter. makes a great Boarish of
trumpets about the "Holy Cstbolic Church," self be,
and not the gentlemen who spoke, alone knew, what it
means. Does Mr Williams really know what that
article of the Creed means? Does he agree with Bishop
Ridley, who says, that "the Catholic (larch" is Christ's
"myrtles! Body r (p. Ire Parker Society). If Mr.
Williams will read the Collect for All Saints' Day, he
wi11... what Ridley means by this "mystical Body."
"0 Almighty God, who has knit together thine 'Elect'
In one communion and fellowship, in the 'mystical
Body,' of thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord." Ridley
then held that "the Holy Catholic Church is the
'Bride' of Christ, the Church of the saved." Does Mr.
Williams like Ridley now'
But let me beg any of my readers, who wish to know
more of this matter, to read with attention the first
section of the third book of our "Judicious" Hooker's
Rooleriastiaal Polity, where they will see this 'shies
fully expounded in his masterly way.
Sir. I have done, having gone through the various
points of Mr. Williams's letter. Sines commencing
these letters, I am glad to see that the Bishop of London,
in his answer to one of his clergy, the Rey. Mr.
Cookealey, haa expressed his opinion that the views set
forth on the Eucharist by the twenty clergy (in their
letter to the Archbishop, signed by Archdeacon Denison,
Ac.), are erroneous. Thank God that another of our
bishops has epoken out in favour of God's truth.
_

I an. obliged to you for giving me so much imam in
your crowded columns. I should not have put myself
forward in this matter, but for the rrqu.st of one of
the gentlemen attacked by Mr. Williams, whose
arduous duties prevented his entering upon the subject
in the manner it deserved. My only desire, as God
knows, is that the troth of God, which was established in
this highly favoured land at the price of so much precioui
blood, may still be preserved to on; and I solemnly
lank theme who favour ritualiatio views, whether the
o'ose approximation of their tenet. on the subject of the
Eucharist, tbe Priesthood, Absolution, and the Con-
fessional, would have justified a separation from Remo
in the aixteenth century; or if it would have carried
them through that fiery ordeal, which our Reformers
endured In their protest against those doctrines, which
our modern Ritualists regard with so favourable an eye!
May I be allowed to call attention to two typo-
graphical errors in my letter inserted in your paper of
last week? They affect the entire sense of the
- - -

. _
In the ninth paragraph of the first column, the
word /mad ought to be in plow of head, meaning, ''ls
the Rail Presence in the bend of the priest, or in the
heart of the recipient?"
Again, in line five of the fourth psragraph from the
end of my letter, there should have been s oomma, not
a full stop, after God.

I aim, dr, very faithfully yours,
R. 11. CHATFIELD.
Woodford Vicarage, Salisbury, August 19, 1867.