credit



Transcribed from the 1863 Rivingtons edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org





                PROPOSED SURRENDER OF THE PRAYER-BOOK AND
                    ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.


                                 A LETTER
                                  TO THE
                          LORD BISHOP OF LONDON,
                                    ON
                        PROFESSOR STANLEY'S VIEWS
                                    OF
                 CLERICAL AND UNIVERSITY "SUBSCRIPTION."

                                * * * * *

                                    BY
                          WILLIAM J. IRONS, D.D.
     PREBENDARY OF ST.  PAUL'S, AND INCUMBENT OF BROMPTON, MIDDLESEX.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
                      THEODORE WRIGHT, 188, STRAND;
    RIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE; AND PARKERS, 377, STRAND, AND OXFORD.
                                  1863.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
              SAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET,
                              COVENT GARDEN.

                                * * * * *




A LETTER,
ETC.


                                            BROMPTON, _Whitsuntide_, 1863.

MY DEAR LORD,

IF twenty years ago, soon after a few of the clergy had asserted their
"claim to hold all Roman doctrine," {3} a proposal had been made to
abolish Subscription to the English Formularies, it would surely have
been thought to indicate very grave disloyalty to our Church.  And now,
when others have asserted the right to unfettered "free-thinking" within
her pale, and endeavoured to vindicate that right in our Courts of Law,
can we help being struck at the intrepidity of the demand to sweep away
at once the sober restraints of orthodoxy to which Churchmen have been so
long accustomed?

Your Lordship has been openly addressed, as we are all aware, in behalf
of this "Relaxation of Subscription;" but as our Bishop--so deeply
interested in the welfare of the whole Church--I venture to believe that
you will do justice to opposite views, and in offering them to your
attention, I rely on that broad-minded charity to various schools among
us, which has marked your Lordship's administration of this diocese.



Dr. Stanley's position. {4a}


The eloquent advocacy of Dr. STANLEY on the other side is, indeed, no
slight advantage to the cause of those who would now supersede the
Prayer-book by "modern thought."  In urging the surrender of all
Subscription to our Formularies, he can speak, in his position, with a
_prestige_ and power to which I can have no claim.  His testimony as to
the tone of mind now prevailing in Oxford, or among the younger clergy of
the last few years, it is not for me to impeach,--I must leave that to
the Bishop of Oxford; {4b} but certain of his deductions from very
limited facts, I may be permitted, I think, to call in question at once.
As one who, without belonging to any party, has had the happiness of much
friendship with all--as a Churchman, I may add, who has kept steadily to
the old Prayer-book from very early childhood till now--I have had large
opportunities for many years of knowing the heart and mind of my brethren
the clergy, ten thousand of whom not long since responded to an appeal
which I and others had been invited to make to them; and I confess that I
am amazed at Dr. STANLEY'S supposition that Subscription is regarded as a
"grievance" (p. 23), a "perjury" (p. 24), an "absurdity" (p. 20), or an
"imposition" (p. 7) by any considerable number among us.  Allowing for
some irritable minds here and there, the generality have seemed to me to
have the deepest appreciation of the "quietness and confidence" which
have been, in the main, secured for our Church by the present laws, which
simply bind the clergy to say that they _believe_ the Prayers which they
use, and the Articles which they adopt as their "standard."

Thus much I have felt compelled to say at the outset, because the
opposers of Subscription assume that their clients are so numerous that
to refuse their demands may be to endanger the Church herself.  True,
they generously disclaim all designs "to revolutionize the Church of
England" (p. 6 of _The Letter_).  This is well; but I am far more assured
by the belief that their power, as yet, is not so formidable as their
intentions.  And with this preface, I would pass to the subject-matter of
Dr. STANLEY'S _Letter_.




Scheme of Comprehension.


The point of departure taken for the discussion is the REVOLUTION of
1688, and the attempt then made at what was called "Comprehension."  It
is even suggested that the "High Churchmen" of those days agreed that the
"very being of our Church was concerned" in abolishing "Subscription,"
and substituting for it a general declaration of conformity.  The several
attempts at "Comprehension" almost seem to be referred to as
substantially one, and are recommended to us as if originated by enlarged
and exemplary views of the Church's calling.  But, equivocations apart,
(which would be wholly unworthy here), will this be gravely maintained?
Did the "Comprehension Scheme" of 1674 receive no opposition from the
Church? or will not every one own that it was frustrated by the
resistance of the Bishops?  Would Dr. STANLEY really say that the Scheme
(not "Act") of 1689 was founded on a philosophy which would now command
assent?  I suppose that he must say it, or how could he refer to it as
our rebuke and pattern?  Yet it was, as he will not deny, a political
effort directed against the Roman Catholics; and the reluctance of the
clergy (even under all the pressure of the occasion) to fraternize with
Nonconformists, defeated the measure,--some of the principal
Commissioners who had to manage it, such as the Vice-Chancellor of
Oxford, the Prolocutor of Convocation, and the Bishop of Rochester,
openly withdrawing from it.  I really can hardly conceive of a more
unfortunate appeal to history.  To represent the clergy of all parties,
and especially "High Churchmen" (p. 33), as approving, on liberal
principles, of the proposed "Comprehension," and covertly to suggest that
"Subscription" was alien from the spirit of those enlightened days, is,
to speak gently of it, quite "unhistorical"--(if I may so apply a now
familiar term); nor can I forbear to point to the fact that even
Dissenters were required, by the Act of 1 William and Mary, cap. 18, to
"subscribe" a declaration that "the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament were given by Divine Inspiration."  The parallel breaks down at
every point.  Of course, if any one really thinks that England is now in
great danger (as in Sancroft's days) from the Popish encroachments of the
CROWN, such an one is free to argue as Dr. STANLEY does.  If any suppose
that a Papal reaction among the populace is the present peril (as it was
thought to be in Burnet's days), let them by all means fly to the
"remedial" measures of that era.  But for a philosophical historian to
quote, with admiration, Halifax or Nottingham, or refer to certain "High
Churchmen" with approval, can but cause a smile. {7}

It was a popular beginning of this subject, doubtless, to invoke the
memories of 1688 and the "Toleration Act," in order to recommend to
English people this proposal to destroy "Subscription;" yet it was
dangerous.  For to have pursued the subject fairly from this point would
hardly have assisted the views of the abolitionists.  The course of
history would very soon have brought them to the great _Arian_ conspiracy
of 1772, the next noticeable effort to set aside the Articles of the
Church.  This, however, is altogether avoided, as if it were unknown to
Dr. STANLEY; and he quickly goes back to the Reformation, and even to the
times of the Primitive Church, to find arguments against "Subscription"
in the abstract, (as well as against our special Anglican form of
it,)--and, must I not say, to get out of the way of WHISTON, and the
"Feathers' Tavern"?  Let us, then, be generous, and forgive the allusions
to 1688, and forget all that followed, and endeavour to examine on its
merits the substance of the "_Letter_."



"Relaxation" a preliminary movement.


The object, my Lord, of the rising movement against "Subscription," here
appears to be of a purely _preliminary_ character.  It is expressly
cleared of all connexion with special grievances.  "Revisions" are to
stand over.  These are understood to be reserved for future treatment (p.
4).  Meanwhile, it is not against the "Articles" only that the feeling is
to be stirred, but "Subscription" to the whole Prayer-book, and even to
the Bible (p. 51), is gently deprecated.  Indeed, it seems to be
maintained that our present "Subscription" to the Articles does not
include, as we had supposed, Subscription to the Bible at all.  The
objection, however, is scarcely raised in that form.  It is to
"Subscribing" _per se_ that the repugnance is felt, as though there were
a morbid dread of "putting the hand to paper,"--such as we sometimes find
in the uneducated classes.  And now it is not so much "do not sign
_these_ forms," as "do not sign _any_ thing;" and Dr. Whately, and
Archdeacon Denison, and the friends of Mr. Gorham, Dr. Rowland Williams,
and Mr. Bristowe Wilson, and Mr. Heath are, as I understand, urged for
once to agree to "relax all subscriptions," that they may so be set at
more liberty to fight their mutual battles without hindrance.  Thus it
is, wonderfully, to be claimed for members of a Christian Church, that
they should be positively pledged to nothing!




Revision of Prayer-book.


Lord EBURY'S measure in the House of Lords did not go this length,
because he had "Revision" more definitely in view; but his arguments
against one form of Subscription are equally valid against all, so that
its entire abrogation is, on his principles, only a question of time.
There is, however, substantial agreement.

It is most important that this should be understood, and that no false
issue be raised: and this is why I speak of the present proposal as one
for the Surrender of the Prayer-book.  Dr. STANLEY would ask nothing so
small as _altering_ Articles or Liturgy; a far simpler way he would show
us.  Revision would be mere 'nibbling' while Subscription remained.  An
Act of the Legislature might just "prohibit," he says, (p. 32) all
"Subscription."--Are men, then, so eager for it, that prohibition must be
resorted to?  He would not even leave it open to any one to sign; for
thus he triumphantly proceeds:--"_Not a word_ of the Articles need be
touched.  They would still be left as the exposition of the Faith of the
_Church of England in the eighteenth century_!--as the _standard_ of its
faith at the present day.  _Not a word_ of the Liturgy need be touched.
There are, no doubt, changes which would be acceptable to many, but THEY
MUST BE EFFECTED BY OTHER MEANS," (p. 33.)--Surely, said the wise man,
"in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird."  To tell us
beforehand that we are to be coaxed into a general movement to get rid of
Subscription, and, that being done, we must reckon on the subsequent
change of the Prayer-book "by OTHER MEANS," seems so very like an insult
to the understanding of men of all parties who believe anything, that I
can only explain it by calling to mind the proverbial blindness of genius
when hotly hastening to its own object, and forgetting how it looks to
all around.

But it may be said that I am overlooking that the Articles and
Prayer-book, though not "signed" or "subscribed," might still remain--at
least, for a time--as what is called the "standard" of our doctrine.  Let
us inquire, then, what this means; for, unless we look it steadily in the
face, we shall be deluding ourselves again by an ambiguous word.  It is
suggested by the passage quoted from Burnet (p. 7), and in the argument
of Dr. STANLEY, that we English are generally governed in other matters
by Acts of Parliament,--and why not in religion?  We are not expected to
"subscribe" the law of the land, but simply to acquiesce, and submit to
it.  It is not binding on the conscience, but only on external obedience.
A man may stand up and read a Statute to others--and then argue against
it.  While it exists as law, he must be judged and ruled by it; but he is
free to dislike it, and may labour to change it.  This is the parallel
suggested, or if it be not, I have no idea of what is intended; and I
must say, that when thus nakedly looked at, it is the most unveiled
Erastianism avowed in our times, if we except Mr. BRISTOWE WILSON'S in
his Essay.  It is what we might expect of Burnet, but scarcely of Dr.
STANLEY, to make the Prayer-book "a legal standard," but not a matter of
belief: it simply astonishes us.  When a great statesman of the last age
told us that our religion was but a "schedule of an Act of Parliament,"
we could at least reply that "ex animo" Subscription makes it _our own_;
but to ask us now to take away even this, seems almost to sever all
connexion between the Church of England and the moral agency of her
Ministers.  The Act of 1662, and its "schedule," the Prayer-book, might
be our "standard" till the next session, and might claim as much
reverence as any other old Act of Parliament,--but no more.  Put the
whole proposal, then, of Dr. STANLEY, and of Mr. WILSON, and others into
plain English, and it is this--(and I ask to be corrected if I
misinterpret it)--"_Let the clergy in future sign_ NOTHING, _but let them
consent to adopt and use what the_ PARLIAMENT _may from time to time
authorise_."

The object, then, being thus simplified, we need not here pause to
estimate the excellences or defects of any of the formularies which we
all alike have thought to be good enough to _sign_.  With more than
judicial fairness, Dr. STANLEY admits that the whole Thirty-nine Articles
are "incomparably superior" to the "Nine Articles of the Evangelical
Alliance" (p. 11), or any that would be drawn up by "the dominant
factions" of our Church, _or Commonwealth_.  But this kind of criticism
may well be postponed till the prior question is disposed of--whether we
should "sign" _any_ thing?  When the Articles and Prayer-book come to be
hereafter discussed, these details may have interest with some, as parts
of the literature of the "_Eighteenth Century_;" but at present might it
not be disrespectful merely to glance at them in a sketchy way, to give
pungency and interest to a somewhat barren subject?  I do not say that
the highly rhetorical sentences in which praise and blame are judiciously
administered by Dr. STANLEY to Article 1, 5, 9, or 34, contribute nothing
to the effectiveness of the pamphlet with the "general reader;" but it is
obvious that with the argument, strictly speaking, they have nothing to
do.



Dr. Stanley's Three Arguments.


The Relaxation of Subscription appears, as far as I can gather, to be
urged by three arguments,--the first founded the _origin_ of the
"Subscriptions" among us after the Reformation; the second, on the
alleged absence of "Subscription" in the Primitive Church; and the third
on the practical evils of the present state of "Subscription" in the
Church and in the Universities.  If I examine each of these, I shall not,
I think, have omitted any point hitherto prominently alleged in this
controversy.

I.  "The Church of England, as such, recognises absolutely no
Subscriptions."  Such is Dr. STANLEY'S proposition (p. 38).  The tests of
membership are "incorporated in the Services to the exclusion, as it
would seem, of all besides."  It is added (p. 39)--"These other
obligations were, in fact, _not contemplated_ at the time of the first
compilation of the Prayer-book and Articles, and have grown up as a mere
excrescence through the pressure of political and ecclesiastical parties.
The Articles were not subscribed (by anything like general usage) till
the 12th year of Elizabeth; they were then, after much hesitation and
opposition, ordered to be subscribed for a special purpose," &c.


The Reformation.


Is it possible to suppose that Dr. STANLEY means this for a fair
representation of the spirit and design of the Church of England, from
the beginning of the Reformation to the 12th year of Elizabeth?  He
writes as though the Articles were all really to be signed, and the
Prayer-book all settled, and that the Church during all that time
deliberately intended to leave her members such freedom of opinion as he
and others would now restore.  If he does not mean this, his argument
falls to the ground.  But what are the facts of the case?

Elizabeth ascended the throne at the close of the year 1558.  Every
position of trust throughout the country was then held by Roman
Catholics.  The bishops and the clergy were generally devoted to Rome.
The Convocation met, in two months, and drew up Articles presented to
Parliament, which are described as "flat against Reformation, and
_subscribed_ by most of the University."  Even Cambridge is said to have
given her approval.  At such a crisis, it was evident that some years
must elapse before any such Revision of Edward VI.'s Articles could be
hoped for, as would obtain general consent.  But to represent this pause
as a kind of freedom from "Subscription" enjoyed in earlier and more
liberal times, to say that "the Church," at least, was ignorant of this
device, when "Subscription" to certain "Articles" was the first step
which the Convocation and the Universities naturally took, immediately
Elizabeth came to the throne, surprises me beyond what I like to express.
The "general reader" is entirely at the mercy of so eloquent a writer as
Dr. STANLEY, and it is not too much to ask that he use his power with a
little generosity; or if he will not, it becomes imperative that his
representations be translated into a humbler style, that the world may
judge how they look.  The facts of the case are, in truth, opposed to all
that Dr. STANLEY'S argument requires.  Instead of the twenty years and
more, which preceded Elizabeth's 12th year, being years in which the
Church of the Reformation adopted laxity as its principle, the whole of
the period, from the beginning of the reign of Edward to the year 1571
(with the exception of the brief interval of Mary's government), was
occupied in a careful effort on the part of the Reformers to tie down
both clergy and laity by the strictest body of ecclesiastical law,
perhaps, ever attempted to be enacted in the Christian world.


The Reformatio Legum.


I refer, of course, to the "Reformatio Legum."  The Archbishop of
Canterbury, the subsequently-elect Archbishop of York, and certain
suffragans; great Reformers, such as Peter Martyr and Rowland Taylour;
known scholars, such as Sir John Cheke and Dr. Haddon, were engaged in
this business, which was looked to as the crowning act of the Reformation
of Religion.  Archbishop Parker took up the work which Cranmer had begun,
and even pressed it on the reluctant Queen as far as he dared.


Subscription demanded in 1553.


The connexion of the _Reformatio Legum_ with the Articles of our Church,
and the light which they throw on each other, I need not point out to any
who are acquainted with the history of our Church at that time.  The
Forty-two Articles, from which our Thirty-nine were, ten years
afterwards, derived, were first published in 1553.  In the November of
the preceding year, Cranmer proposed that the bishops should have them at
once _subscribed_ throughout their dioceses.  The death of King Edward
prevented this from being accomplished.  They were revised and subscribed
by Convocation in 1563, in the name of the whole clergy of England.  The
early chapters of the _Reformatio Legum_ contain the doctrine of the
Articles, and were, no doubt, intended to be an authorized exposition of
them.  How strict a system was meant to be inaugurated by the Reformers
may be judged by even a superficial perusal of that Book.  Heresy and
blasphemy were to be punishable by death.  Adultery was to be visited
with imprisonment and even banishment.  Impenitent persons were to be
"handed over to the civil power."  All this was the sort of Discipline
which was waiting to be put in force as soon as the Reformers could
persuade the nation to bear it;--and yet this is the supposed time when
Subscription was alien from the mind of the Reformed Church!


Temporary restriction of the Clergy.
Subscription in 1564.


But during this interval of twelve years, while the bishops were doing
their best to bring the clergy and people to Uniformity, and preparing
them for the "Discipline" which was openly clamoured for, we find that
immediately after the Articles were published, "advertisements" came out
by authority further to restrain the liberty of the preachers.  In 1564,
the clergy, who had by their proctors subscribed the Articles in
Convocation, were required "to protest and _subscribe_" that they would
not preach at all without special license from the bishop, but "only read
that which is appointed by public authority:" and further, that they
would "observe, keep, and maintain, all the rites, ceremonies, good
usages and order" set forth by the Act of Uniformity.  Here then was
"Subscription" to the whole Prayer-book as it then stood.  And, indeed,
even three years before, the "readers" in Churches were obliged, by
"Subscriptions" to certain injunctions, to execute their office within
prescribed and narrow limits.  The state of things doubtless was still
felt on all hands to be but provisional.  The great Roman Catholic party
waited, without separating formally.  The Puritans were stirring
themselves in the cause of "Discipline:" it was hoped by both parties
that some change might, from the lapse of a few years, better their
position.  The latter reckoned on the more aged of the old Popish Clergy
dying out; the former were encouraged by a fanatical prophecy to expect
the death of the Queen herself in the twelfth year of her reign; but
after that time the Puritan and Popish parties became openly defined,
while the Church had as yet no such "Discipline" as could hold her
members together at all, except by the Court of Commissioners.  It was to
restrain both parties, then, that recourse was once more had to
"Subscription."

Can there be need, my Lord, to pursue any further an inquiry into so well
known a piece of history as this?  I should not have said so much, had
not the Ecclesiastical History Professor declared that Subscriptions and
Declarations of Faith were "not in fact _contemplated_ at the time of the
first compilation of the Prayer Book and Articles;" that Subscription is
"superfluous," "needless," "capricious," "extrinsic," and "accidental,"
(pp. 38, 39), "and that the Church of England, as such, recognises
absolutely no Subscriptions!"  I submit to your Lordship, that the Church
of England "at the time of the first compilation of the Articles and
Prayer Book," encouraged no freedom whatever to diverge from the one or
the other--demanded Subscription (by Cranmer) in 1553--_obtained_ it from
all the bishops and representatives of the clergy in Convocation in
1563--and laboured to restrain both Papists and Puritans within more and
more rigid limits year by year, till by the thirteenth of Elizabeth
"Subscription" was universally enforced, as the only practical substitute
for that Ecclesiastical Discipline which was refused.

I have purposely abstained from here noticing minor inaccuracies which
singularly abound in the learned Professor's letter, and have kept to the
main point.  His position is that since the twelfth year of Elizabeth, a
stern and gradual growth of Subscription has superseded the liberal
system of the earlier years in which the tolerant Church "knew
_absolutely nothing_ of Subscription!"  Without this, again I say, his
argument comes utterly to an end.  It will be useless to weigh syllables,
and retreat upon the _ipsissima verba_ of the Letter.  The broad
representation means this, or it is _nihil ad rem_.  And the whole
history of the period is again, directly the reverse of the
representation given by Dr. STANLEY. {18}



The Primitive Church.


II.  I pass, then, to the next point--the alleged absence of Subscription
in the primitive age.  Not content with the reference to the history of
our own Church, Dr. STANLEY says:--"I will not confine myself to these
isolated instances, but examine the history of Subscription from the
first.  For the first three centuries the Church was _entirely without
it_." "The first Subscription to a series of dogmatical propositions as
such was that enforced by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea.  It was
the natural, but rude, expedient of a half-educated soldier to enforce
unanimity in the Church as he had by the sword enforced it in the
empire." (p. 35).  Again, I am painfully compelled to meet the statements
of Dr. STANLEY with a direct negative.  The case is _not_ as he states
it.  A "rude soldier," in those days--(when comparatively few people
_wrote_ at all)--would not, I think, have been likely to invent this
"expedient:" but, in fact, he _did not_ invent it.


Council against Paulus Samosatemus.