 | Old churches, ministers and families of Virginia. |  |
THE MEMORIAL AND COMMISSION OF BISHOPS.
At the last General Convention, a memorial from sundry presbyters,
of all shades of opinion and from various parts of our land,
on the subject of bettering the condition and extending the operations
of the Church, was sent into the House of Bishops, which,
together with the action thereon, has excited so much attention
and called forth so much discussion that it deserves some notice in
connection with the topics referred to in this article. As some of
my brother-Bishops have, in addresses to their Conventions, declared
their sentiments in relation to it, and Conventions also have
had it under consideration, I shall be excused for a brief expression
of my own views, especially as they have been misunderstood. Most
suddenly and unexpectedly was this document introduced into the
House of Bishops. I had never heard of it until it was read to the
House. There were passages in it which seemed either unintelligible,
sought to be promoted by it. I asked for a second reading of it,
but my difficulties were not removed. I asked for an explanation
of the difficult passages, but none could be given. I suggested a
reference of the paper to its authors and signers for explanation or
modification, as I foresaw and predicted that such would be called
for, and the Bishops expected to give an account of themselves if
they accepted it and complied with its prayer. Not seeing my
way clear in favour of the motion, after speaking freely concerning
it, sometimes playfully, sometimes seriously, I united with a
few others in voting against its being submitted to a commission.
That I was not wrong in my apprehension as to the construction
which might be put on some very undefined and latitudinarian expressions
in the memorial, has been proved by the views since
presented in an exposition of the same by the chief mover of it.
Notwithstanding all the excellent things in that exposition, I have
no hesitation in saying, as to its main feature, that, had such been
the understanding of the plan, the Bishops would not have committed
themselves to the consideration of the memorial without some
modification of its language. Although voting against it, and
wondering much at some things said in its behalf, I have never
questioned the sincerity and purity of the motives of those presenting
it or of those encouraging it, and have ever taken pains to
declare my belief that no evil, and some good, would result from the
movement. In proof of my favourable disposition toward it, when
the questions of the commission, addressed to all the Bishops and
clergy, came out, I made a response and offered some suggestions.
I did not dream that the communication would ever see the light;
but, inasmuch as some of my brethren in the Episcopacy have presented
their views to the public, I here subjoin my own brief and
imperfect one. I may also add, that the favourable notice of
the memorial and commission by the last Virginia Convention met
my entire approbation,—having been previously consulted on the
subject.
"To the Bishops appointed to consider the Memorial of the Rev. Dr.
Muhlenberg and others.
I have received your circular asking communications
on the important subject submitted to your consideration, and offer
the following suggestions as coming within the terms of your commission:—
"1st. It has ever appeared to me that the Church does not make the
most profitable use of the Psalms. One-half of our congregations—perhaps
a much larger part—have only one service on the Sabbath, and therefore
edifying, while the other half, being read according to the days of the
month on which the Sabbath falls, are read unequally. Would it not be
better to have the whole of them (with the exception of such as are not
so suitable for Christian worship) arranged in selections, according to the
different topics of prayer, praise, penitence, &c., and according to the seasons
and days which the Church celebrates, making some fifty or sixty in
number, and leaving it to the minister to choose out of them as he may
think best, except when they belong to a particular day or season? Would
not that be better than the present plan, or than that of Bishops White,
Hobart, and others,—namely, letting the minister select for himself one or
more psalms at pleasure? Might not also some of the longer and less
important lessons be abridged, as was proposed by the above-mentioned
Bishops?
"2d. It has always appeared to me that the service on Communion-days
was too long. Inasmuch as the prayers in the Communion-service contain
nearly all that is in the Litany, and are therefore a repetition, I suggest
that the Litany be omitted. I would substitute for it, and for the prayer
for all conditions of men in the morning service, the prayer for the whole
state of Christ's Church militant, and use it in the morning service in
place of the prayer for all conditions of men. This prayer for the Church
militant comes to us from primitive times, and was called the short or
shorter Litany. This arrangement would supersede the necessity of one
of the changes of posture in the Communion-service, which are thought by
many to be too numerous.
"3d. The service on ordination-occasions is felt by Bishops, clergy, and
people to be oppressive and injurious. The service peculiar to the ordination
is most solemn and impressive, and its effect should not be weakened
by the addition of so much of that which is used every Sabbath. I would
suggest the omission of the Litany and Commandments on that occasion.
"4th. I would suggest that the same method which our forefathers
adopted, in relation to a clause in the Apostles' Creed and to the form of
ordination, be applied to the declaration of regeneration and being born
of the Spirit after baptism. In the Creed we are allowed to omit the
words, `He descended into hell,' or use some others. In the ordination
of ministers two forms are allowed, according to the option of the Bishop.
Why not the same privilege of omission granted to the minister in baptizing,
or the use of another prayer which might be prepared? I am persuaded
that nothing would contribute more to peace among ourselves, and
to the removing of prejudice from the minds of those who belong to other
denominations and the community at large, than such an arrangement. It
would be in entire accordance with what now seems to be generally admitted,—namely,
that a considerable latitude of opinion as to the meaning
of certain expressions in the baptismal service is allowed. If it be allowed,
why enforce on all the use of the words which, by their sound, seem to
convey a meaning which is repudiated by so many? I have long known
that a painful difficulty is felt in the use of these passages, not by one
portion of our ministers and people, but by a number who differ from such
on other points. I believe that public baptism would be much more common
but for the reluctance to use these expressions before so many who do
not understand or approve them. Many parents, I believe, are prejudiced
against the baptism of their children and put it off on account of these
words and their supposed meaning. I believe that nothing stands more
their ministers as are worth having, than the required use of these words
in our baptismal service. A slight alteration in the preface to our Confirmation-service,
or rather another preface, to be used at the pleasure of
the Bishop, would also be desirable.
"As I fear my brethren will be wearied with many and lengthy communications,
I omit other suggestions of less importance, (in relation to
the service,) and sincerely commend them to the direction of the Great
Head of the Church.
It will be perceived that in the above nothing like a complete
scheme was attempted. That was not even thought of. I only
offered a few unconnected suggestions for those who were appointed
to draw up some regular plan for the consideration of the Church.
As to the substance of them, they are less in amount than the
changes proposed by the Bishops in 1826, and therefore, as an
individual, I may shelter myself behind them from any charge of
presumption or desire of change. I voted for those proposed by
the Bishops and House of Delegates in 1826, believing it to be
better to settle by law any thing which might be regarded as a serious
departure from the order of our service, rather than leave it
to individual discretion, though always maintaining that, as to
smaller matters, there must ever be room left for the exercise of a
sound discretion, and that even as to greater ones occasions must
arise justifying a departure from them, on the principle that God
loves mercy more than sacrifice, and that laws were made for men
and not men for laws. I believe that some wholesome change may
be made in the arrangements of the services, which, so far from
interfering with their original use and design, will be conformable
with the same. I trust that in a wise and conservative spirit such
arrangements will be made. It was not for the purpose of encouraging
an unlimited license in the use of the service that I opposed
the Commission, nor do I believe that it is for such a purpose that
some still contend against it, as has been sometimes intimated. I
believe that there is now a disposition on the part of many who
have hitherto been most strenuous for rubrical exactness and
lengthened services to make more changes and relaxations than I
ever practised, countenanced, or now desire. The omission of the
ante-Communion service, except on Communion-days, was in truth
almost all that distinguished some who were deemed irregular from
the most strictly rubrical according to their understanding of rubrics.
I am, however, willing for other arrangements more in accordance
to the suggestion in my letter as to the omission of certain parts
of our baptismal service after the rite is performed, I do not know
that any others have made the same to the Committee, but I know
full well that there are many, and they not of one party only, who
feel the desirableness of it. It ought to be much less objectionable
than that of Bishop Hobart, which was agreed to by the whole
House of Bishops and by a large majority of the other House in
the year 1826. That proposed to repudiate all high views of baptismal
regeneration, as doing injustice and injury to the Church,
and to establish the lowest theory—namely, a mere change of state
and conditional title to salvation—as the doctrine of the Church.
This only proposes to omit the use of certain parts following after
the baptism, and not at all essential to its completeness, and about
whose meaning there ever have been disputes in the Church, from
the times of the fathers to the present moment, and will be perhaps
to the end of the world. It leaves every one to form his own
opinion as to the efficiency of the rite, drawing it of course from
Scripture,—the only authoritative source, if, indeed, he believes
that Scripture speaks on the subject,—or else to be content to remain
in ignorance and only perform the duties enjoined by the
ordinance. It only forbears to define and to render thanks for
something of which we can have no certain knowledge. It will
leave the service a purely devotional and scriptural one, to which
none can object, which will not perplex or distress the consciences
of either parents, sponsors, congregation, or minister, and will relieve
the Church from much misunderstanding and censure on the
part of many who hear it. I am well aware that in some of the
confessions of other Reformed Churches there may be found expressions
of the same kind, which of course are liable to a similar
objection; but there is this difference, that in their case the expressions
are locked up in books that are seldom seen. They are
not used in the public administration of baptism; not put in the
form of positive thanksgivings for a spiritual regeneration certainly
received at a given moment and through a certain act, and are
therefore not the occasion of such unhappy disputation. It is the
great shame and reproach of Christendom that so much strife and
bitterness have ever been about those things which lie beyond the
reach and above the range of the human mind, and that the clergy
especially should be the most curious and anxious to be wise above
what is written and should puzzle their poor people with such
questions. The disputes about the Divine decrees and the effects
are of this kind. How numerous and how contradictory and extravagant
the theories as to the latter! How intolerant the feelings
and speeches and conduct of some toward those who differ from
them! Is it not time that these should cease? Could there be a
better way of beginning it than by cutting off the continually-recurring
occasions of bringing it before the minds and consciences
of men? The Church has adopted this plan in relation to a clause
in the Apostles' Creed and in the service for the ordination of
priests, and has left some other things optional with the minister.
Might not the same method be adopted with happy effect in relation
to the interminable dispute about baptismal regeneration? None
of the various expositions would then be either affirmed or condemned
in the service. I am persuaded that though there always
might be differences,—great differences, requiring to be discussed,
false doctrines concerning it requiring to be exposed,—yet the
omission of any thing like defining or seeming to render thanks
for an effect certainly produced would greatly diminish controversy
and be a solemn testimony on the part of the Church against the
attempt to be wise above what is written. I confess I shall have
little confidence in the existence or strength of a spirit of compromise
in the Church for the sake of unity and peace, if there be not
a willingness merely to omit a few words, about whose meaning
there are such various opinions, and which no one can hold to be
essential to the ordinance. To be baptized with water in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is commanded and required.
That the word should accompany it, and prayer be offered up for
God's blessing, is manifestly proper; but that we should undertake
to define the effect produced, and render thanks for it, is nowhere
enjoined. The addition is the work of man, and has been a great
unhappiness to the Church. Should any be disposed to think or
say that some of us are desirous to dispose of some words in the
service which interfere with our views of regeneration, I can most
conscientiously say that such is not my case. As I understand the
service, and believe it ought to be understood, after having examined
all that has been written on the subject, it expresses my own
convictions on the subject of baptism; but there are peculiarities
and difficulties in the mode of presenting the subject, and in the
terms used, which require continual explanations and defences, that
perplex and injure the cause. It is therefore maintained that the
omission of these words, which are the causes of almost all the controversy,
would promote the peace and welfare of the Church; which
performance of baptism. It is complete without them.
| Old churches, ministers and families of Virginia. | |