Transcribed from the 1843 Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans [second
edition] by David Price.





                               SUBSCRIPTION
                               THE DISGRACE
                                    OF
                           THE ENGLISH CHURCH.


                                * * * * *

                                   ————

                                    BY
                        THE REV. C. N. WODEHOUSE,
                            CANON OF NORWICH.

                                   ————

                                * * * * *

                             SECOND EDITION.

                                * * * * *

                                 London:
                   LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS.
                        NORWICH: CHARLES MUSKETT.

                                  1843.




SUBSCRIPTION
THE DISGRACE OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH.


IN human affairs, when attention is powerfully attracted to some question
of absorbing interest, the effect frequently is as though one half only
of the subject were visible to the eyes of the understanding.  The mind
fixes on some peculiar point.  On that a partial light is exclusively
cast; till in time it is discovered that others, consigned for a while to
an unnatural obscurity, are in reality of greater moment.  They have
quietly grown in importance—like hardy trees unnoticed by the planter, as
not requiring his care—till they are suddenly developed in their true
character and vigour, to the astonishment of those who had overlooked
them; and demand, if it be not too late, the deepest attention and the
most active intelligence to control or direct them.

While Charles I. and Archbishop Laud were absorbed in maturing their
favoured plans for Church and State, opposite and deeply-rooted opinions,
whose force they never paused to appreciate till it was useless, were
ripening all around them; and their lives became a sacrifice to their
blindness.  While James II. was only intent upon enforcing the dictates
of his own one-eyed bigotry, the Revolution was already accomplished in
the hearts of his people; and William III., the instrument to realize
their wish, was almost at the gates of London.  While Mr. Canning was
delighting the electors of Liverpool with his eloquent, and to them
convincing, denunciations against the minutest change in the
parliamentary representation of this nation; while he was admonishing
them, with a wisdom then esteemed oracular, “_Spartam nactus es_, _hanc
adorna_,” a few brief years were to give us almost a new Sparta; new
electoral departments; new laws and forms of election; new
qualifications, and thus new constituents; and, more than all, new
influences upon electors and the representatives elected.

And thus, as it appears to the writer, will it come to pass with respect
to the subject now to be briefly considered.  While the minds of the most
able divines in our nation are bent to one point; are engrossed in
discussing the meaning of our Confession of Faith, the interpretation of
our Articles of Religion; they are imperceptibly nourishing the growth of
a conclusion more irresistible and more unmanageable than even all the
complicated questions now so eagerly debated; for _they are_, _by their
differences and divisions_, _demolishing the whole force of the solemn
assent required to that Confession_.  Amidst the present confusion of
tongues, the language of our Articles has still less than it ever had, a
definite meaning.  Subscription, instead of being the tie which is to
bind people to certain opinions or truths, is become a rope of sand.  So
uncertain is the trumpet’s sound, that it no longer, as of old, proclaims
the spirit of an united host, but turns every man’s sword against his
fellow: and Englishmen must soon awake to the conviction that
Subscription, according to the plain meaning of words, is blown to the
winds, and become the disgrace and not the safeguard of the English
Church.

2.  When the Saviour of mankind was about to leave this earth, He
consoled his dejected followers with the promise of a gift which should
even compensate for His loss, and exercise a special influence upon
Christians in all future ages of this world’s existence.  “If I go not
away the Comforter will not come.”  And He then announced one of the
purposes for which He should come.  “He shall guide you into all truth.”
Of all the qualities which can elevate the character and enlarge the
usefulness of man, truth is the most lovely and powerful.  If it be
asked, what is, in briefest terms, the occupation of the ministers of
Christ, it is, to exhibit truth to their people: and, in all their
teaching, this it is which will establish their influence over the human
heart, or at least that without which no wholesome influence can be
exerted, namely, that each is a lover of truth.

But how is truth to be conveyed from man to man?  Only through the medium
of language.  And what is language?  A set of signs, or sounds, or words,
which by general use and agreement mean certain things.  But all human
provisions are imperfect, and language is imperfect: and words may be
artfully put together so as to have one meaning with the speaker, and
another to the hearer; or written language may be twisted from its
primary sense, and forced to a use contrary to the intention of the
writer.  Yet truth is a real thing, and every honest man knows that it is
so; for whoever speaks that to another which he knows is not understood
in his own sense by the hearer; whoever twists written language from the
plain purpose of the writer; whoever, by a studied obscurity, veils his
real opinions in order to mislead others, is a liar.  Let no one be
offended by a plain term which Scripture sanctions.

He who is justly branded with the imputation of such a vice as falsehood,
is, in the common estimation of the best part of society, contemptible.
But if a minister of the Gospel, a divinely commissioned teacher of
truth, shall expose himself to such an imputation; if, in so solemn an
act as Subscription to Articles of Faith, or in the interpretation of
them, the plain meaning of words is evaded, or a sense put upon them
which in common discourse between man and man would be deemed
dishonourable and wicked, the character of that person as a teacher of
truth must be damaged, and his influence impaired.  He may indeed be
surrounded by a set of admirers captivated by his talents, and their
applauses may preserve his self-complacency, but the final verdict will
yet be against him.  It is possible that this error of the mind may arise
from self-delusion, and then the guilt is diminished, but an evil result
must still ensue; for as the root is, so will be the plant, and good
fruit cannot grow out of falsehood or dissimulation.  If we remove the
case from one individual to numbers, the general effect will of course be
proportionably worse, and the conclusion will be drawn that _many_ of the
appointed teachers of truth are not lovers of truth.

We may take, however, a less extreme case, and suppose only, that amongst
the teachers of truth a great difference of opinion has arisen as to some
of the doctrines of which they are called upon to treat, as to the
Confession of Faith which they have to maintain, and as to the terms of
the Subscription by which they declare their assent to it.  Then the
conclusion will be—_when this difference is brought in glaring colours
before the public eye_—either, that the Confession itself, or the form of
assent, is so obscurely worded that it cannot be understood; or that they
are intolerable to the conscience of many subscribers, and so must be
somehow evaded; or lastly, that words, to which a definite meaning has
been assigned in past ages, have now lost that meaning; and that the
learned, the pious, the teachers of the nation, are incapable of
discovering and fixing the sense which they are now to bear.

Let it be fairly considered how far the present state of things in this
nation agrees with any of the cases above supposed: and if it does so
agree, then it is maintained that, on the principle of a sacred love for
truth, Subscription is become the disgrace of the English Church.

3.  It cannot be argued, in mitigation of the supposed evil results, that
the present controversy on this subject is confined to certain classes of
society, the studious, the well-educated, the members of our Church.
Half our newspapers are teeming with it; some of our periodicals are
almost confined to it; all, it is believed, are occasionally employed in
its discussion.  It is finding its way into almost every class of
society.  The commercial travellers’ room, we are told, has engaged in
it, and much might many a sophistical controversialist learn from that
numerous, acute, and ubiquitous body of men, who know more of the real
opinions of the great mass of the people than any other class that can be
named.

When our Lord remarked, “The harvest is plenteous,” He pointed to the
multitude of _un_converted souls; and surely England is not without its
full proportion of such, towards whom the most anxious thoughts and
zealous exertions of the Christian minister are naturally to be directed.
The intelligent Christian, the well-affected churchman, may be ready to
make every charitable allowance for the imperfections of our
Church—though charity is not the virtue of these days—but the criminal,
the profligate, the sceptic, over whom it is most desirable, yet most
difficult, to obtain an influence for their good, are proverbially the
most acute in discerning the defects of their appointed teachers, in
noting any inconsistency between the lesson and the instructor.
Suspicion is the very atmosphere they breathe; and to rejoice in
iniquity, especially where there is a profession of religion, is, alas!
too natural and agreeable to them.  In whatever degree then the teacher
of truth shall expose himself to the imputation of a want of veracity
amongst the irreligious, deplorable is it to contemplate the decline of a
wholesome influence which must ensue.  The writer has himself witnessed a
lamentable instance of this result in one of the most accomplished men of
late times, now no more, whom he wishes it were allowable to name.  Could
some of our controversialists look into a conclave of youthful
profligates, led on, it may be, by some ingenious sceptic, they would
blush to hear the comments on their own writings; the bitter and
triumphant questions—What is it which these our discordant and subtle
instructors really believe?  Do they believe anything?  They subscribe,
and reap the profit.  Let them tell us what this Subscription and these
Articles of Faith really mean, and then it will be time enough for us to
consider about attending to their instruction.

Add to this the obvious reasoning of the dissenting part of our
population.  The best amongst them cannot but see some justification of
their own separation from a Church whose teachers are proclaiming
throughout the land, from an hundred pens, the discordance of their
sentiments as to their own Confession of Faith: not mere shades of
difference reconcileable with a general agreement in its object, but a
division for instance on, to them certainly, a leading question.  Was the
Reformation a good or an evil?  The more worldly amongst them of course
hail with delight what they will designate as the quibbles and evasions
of men apparently eager to escape the trammels of a subscription solemnly
made, which during three centuries has occasioned troubles, and
persecution, and separation, and exclusion in the Christian fold, and is
yet further than ever from establishing its professed purpose—“Consent
touching true religion.”

A still larger class, amidst the din of controversy, pick up a few
popular reports which help to confirm their indifference to religion
itself, and their preconceived notions as to Subscription.  These people,
they carelessly conclude, live by it: they wish to receive the tithes,
and they must sign the Articles: now at least we know from some of
themselves how much they believe them.

If these views are correct, and these apprehensions well founded, may the
earnest request of one who has long pondered over these things in sadness
arrest the attention of those who are capable of providing a remedy!  Let
not his appeal, in behalf of a Church in which he sees the elements of
usefulness unparalleled, to the great body of its ministers and members
whom he deeply respects, and in the cause of eternal truth, be deemed an
unfriendly voice.  Let him not be considered an enemy because with
faithfulness, yet with humility, he entreats his countrymen to consider
how far Subscription is become the disgrace of the English Church.

4.  Although the present state of things as to Subscription is so
notorious that it cannot be denied, yet it may be well to confirm what
has been advanced by a few particulars.  The Thirty-nine Articles are our
Confession of Faith, though they are hardly entitled to that appellation,
being drawn up rather to meet a special emergency in the history of
Christianity than to present a _complete_ compendium of catholic truths.
Several points left untouched by them, or very briefly noticed, require
at this time to be strongly inculcated.  They are, however, our only
Confession of Faith, ever to be valued and revered; and it is required
that every clergyman should declare, and subscribe, ex animo, that he
believes them to be agreeable to Scripture.  A similar declaration is
required with respect to the Book of Common Prayer.

It is not the writer’s object to point public scorn against individuals,
neither is it any satisfaction to him to notice at all the supposed
defects of other men: rather is it a source of real sorrow to him to
observe how censure has been cast to and fro, with an unsparing hand, by
Christian writers and ministers of his own day and church.  He speaks
simply for the sake of truth, and in that attempt unwillingly adduces
only what is necessary to his purpose.  He speaks also in very general
terms, considering it sufficient only to allude to opinions which
unnumbered publications have rendered familiar.  While the terms of our
Subscription are strong and decided, several sections of the English
clergy embrace a different view with respect to it.

If there be any conclusion which the history of England irresistibly
conveys to readers of honest minds, it is this, that our Reformers in
forty-two Articles, and afterwards in thirty-nine, intended to put forth
a strong and unequivocal protest against the errors and corruptions of
Romanism.  Much would it have startled them to be told that the time
would arrive when English clergymen would subscribe to these Articles,
and then proceed to contend that they are not to be estimated as a
protest against the anti-Protestant proceedings of the Council of Trent.
They were accustomed, no doubt, to insincere subscription from men still
Romanists at heart; but the deed was secret, it shunned the light; it
was, with a very few exceptions, practised without open defence.

It is not intended to affirm that an interminable war is to be carried on
by us against the Romish church: rather it is our duty to desire, without
compromise, union with all Christendom.  Subscription alone is now in
view; and while that remains as it is, and English words retain their
meaning, and an English history of facts can be found, and any clear
apprehension of the meaning of truth remains with us, the perversion of
our Form of Subscription, and the misrepresentation of our Articles,
attempted by any who argue that they were not intended to condemn
Romanism, whether as held before or after the Council of Trent, ought to
excite, in every honest mind, an indignation which it is a virtue to
feel, and a duty to express.  If it be questioned where such views have
been advanced, it is sufficient to refer to Tract No. 90, now before the
writer of these pages, though other instances might be cited from authors
who have subscribed the Articles.

If we turn to another section of the English clergy, that most opposed to
the views of the tractarians, however they command our respect from their
piety, and zeal, and hearty attachment to Scriptural truth and sound
doctrine; yet some of them cannot be esteemed clear of all blame on the
question now considered.  The writer can here speak from personal
knowledge.  In their views as to baptismal regeneration, certainly
opposed to the strict language of our formularies; in their dislike of
other parts of our services, and sometimes in the disuse or change of
certain terms, is to be found a proof that to them Subscription is not
altogether satisfactory; and the often-avowed concession, that the
excellence of our system of doctrine and worship, _as a whole_,
reconciles their minds to some imperfections, is enough to show that, in
subscribing, some violence is done to simple truth.  They argue, and
justly, that no human work can literally demand an unqualified
approbation, but our Subscription does require it.  Such arguments, then,
cannot be altogether satisfactory to him who uses them, or to many to
whom they may be offered; and truth, it cannot be denied, is to some
extent dishonoured and damaged in their use.

In that section again of subscribers who embrace Calvinistic doctrines,
though the writer considers that some of the Articles are more
unequivocally favourable to them than their opponents, yet it cannot be
forgotten how frequently and decidedly it has been declared, ex cathedrâ,
that theirs are not the doctrines of the Church of England.

Another large section of the English clergy may be now comprised under
the name of old-fashioned high-churchmen; and of that title, it is
believed, they will not themselves complain.  Many of them would gladly
_extract_ the honey from the tractarian school, without sufficiently
considering how poisonous the plant whose growth they are to some extent
fostering.  They insist often on an exact compliance with Rubrics, and
must forgive me for saying that few amongst them have fulfilled these in
their own practice.  Till very lately, it would indeed be difficult to
find many clergymen, or one bishop, within the last fifty years, who have
strictly observed the Rubrics—still less the Canons.  Some of them speak
also of a literal subscription; but here again the writer can of his own
knowledge state, that numbers claim and use a considerable latitude in
subscribing, and are satisfied with asserting their _general_ attachment
to the Formularies of the Church.  Of their Arminian views as to
doctrine, it is hardly necessary to call to mind how much they are
opposed to others amongst their brethren, and, in the writer’s judgment,
to the Articles themselves.

In another section may be comprised those who desire improvement in many
things relating to the spiritual affairs of our Church.  Some have openly
expressed this desire; a far larger number cherish it in silence.  They
who have spoken out have strongly stated their conviction, that a Church,
without the means of even entering upon deliberation as to one general
improvement in its spiritual concerns, is in a false and unscriptural
position.  With respect to the Forms of Subscription and the
interpretation of the Articles, some have formally requested a change, or
rather an authoritative solution of the many doubts and uncertainties
which now embarrass the question.

Thus while we perceive the variety of opinion prevailing amongst these
several sections—a variety which, were it not impeded by subscription,
would find a harmless or beneficial vent in a free inquiry after
Scriptural truth—we see also that from some amongst them all, more or
less, Subscription is requiring that which, in the ordinary affairs of
life, high-minded men would abstain from; namely, the necessity for
qualifying the plain and straight-forward use of language.  Is this a
condition favourable to the reputation of teachers of truth; and is it
too strong a conclusion, at least from some parts of the above account,
to affirm, that Subscription is the disgrace of the English Church?

5.  It may be well to look at the result of such a state of things under
another view.  The differences above mentioned are now rendered notorious
by innumerable publications.  The laxity as to truth, that is with
respect to the Articles, which they display, will be learnt and adopted.
It will be justified by the example of clergymen who are indeed at one
time censured by persons high in ecclesiastical station, yet by others in
the same station applauded or defended, and never authoritatively
censured or restrained.  In another age a new set of opinions may arise
equally differing from the literal sense of our Articles and Formularies.
And who, with the precedent of these days before him, could proceed with
confidence against the authors and abettors?  The errors of a Socinian or
an Arian may be of a more deadly character; but neither the one nor the
other, in affixing his own interpretation to the Articles, or in
subscribing with such doctrinal views, would depart a jot further from
the true meaning of words than the author and the defenders of Tract No.
90.  If that tract has driven one reader to such a conclusion, a
conclusion which he states with pain and sorrow, it may encourage
hundreds to the same; and, ere long, an Arian or Socinian subscription
may be as common as in times past perhaps they were, with this lamentable
aggravation, that in an age of better religious feeling, “men of piety
and talent,” so publicly designated by Bishops of the Church, have taught
the way to justify the deed.

6.  The manner in which the present controversy is conducted greatly
aggravates its evils.  It is not only that differences exist and are
eagerly discussed before the public as the judge of clerical orthodoxy,
but that, owing to its character, the discussion assumes a peculiarly
offensive form.  It is not merely an inquiry after truth in which some
warmth and zeal might be excused, but clergymen are imputing to clergymen
dishonourable conduct: dishonourable on this ground, that a person
holding the opinions impugned cannot be an honest subscriber, ought not
to remain a minister of our Church.  On all sides this discreditable
course has been pursued, and it would be easy to furnish the proofs.  The
writer is bound frankly to own that what he condemns in others may be now
charged upon himself; but never would he have entered upon these remarks
except in the humble yet anxious hope that he may induce others to
attempt a remedy for the evil.

Imagine such a state of things in any other profession.  Imagine the
Officers of the Army and Navy for years together accusing one another of
dishonourably retaining their commissions.  It is no answer to say that
the remedy with them would be bloodshed, and that this alone restrains
their pens; for this is not the fact.  The accused would demand inquiry
and trial, and the scandal would cease.  The Clergy enjoy the unenviable
singularity of continuing to accuse one another, of dishonourable
conduct; of acting upon mercenary motives; of a desire to make their
convictions somehow square with their Subscription, that thus they may
retain their position or emoluments as ministers of the Church.  The
controversy is disgraced throughout by an irritating reproach against
character, which is neither becoming to the station of clergymen, or the
manners of gentlemen; and degrades a profession which ought to be the
last to exhibit such an example.  It seems to be perpetually saying, such
is the sense of our Confession of Faith; I have proved it, but you are
subscribing in a different, in a false sense.  Thus it is that
Subscription, in its present state, has rendered what ought to be an
inquiry after Scriptural truth, a perpetual and disgraceful taunt upon
the honesty of the parties engaged.  Character is damaged, or at least
assailed, and no satisfactory result, no remedy ensues.

7.  The circumstance last mentioned deserves consideration as another
cause which, under present circumstances, helps to render our
Subscription a disgrace to the English Church.  Differences as to its
meaning abound on all sides.  Even they who uphold and would enforce a
strictly literal subscription are obliged to allow of _some_ latitude.
Yet what is to be the extent of this no one can say; and in the midst of
all this confusion, no one attempts a remedy.

Let us turn again to the Army and Navy, and suppose their Officers
discussing publicly for several years the meaning of some of the Articles
of War; deluging the country with printed statements of their
differences; banded into parties, each following the notions of some
favoured leaders; attacking not only the sense but the honour of their
opponents; professing unbounded respect for their generals, and at one
moment pronouncing them almost infallible; yet the next, if they should
offer an adverse opinion, combating it in no measured terms.  Suppose all
this, if possible, going on for years without a remedy, without a decided
attempt to devise one.  Once, perhaps, it was the case; and it was at
last remedied, so far as he might, by the strong arm of Cromwell: but no
remedy of any kind is now attempted amongst the clergy.

The Articles of War for the Army are susceptible of an annual revision,
which is to be sanctioned by the Crown, and embodied in the annual Mutiny
Act, and confirmed by Parliament.  Those for the Navy have existed since
the time of George II., but they are modified so as to meet existing
views and circumstances, by “The Instructions and Regulations for Her
Majesty’s Service at Sea,” which are altered whenever deemed advisable;
and by other expedients well known to the profession.  In every other
profession, trade, or calling, and in every legal document relating to
them, from a Royal Charter to a poor boy’s indentures, we have a judge or
authority competent to interpret and decide when a doubt arises.  But
Christians in England are either too timid or too indifferent, for wisdom
it cannot be termed, to attempt an authoritative settlement of the
discreditable differences and difficulties arising out of the various
interpretations of their own Confession of Faith.

In assuming that this is not the path of wisdom, we have high authority.
In May 1840, thirty-six clergymen, who saw the evil in its true light,
and it is now immeasurably increased, signed a Petition to the House of
Lords requesting attention to the subject.  It was presented by His Grace
the Archbishop of Dublin to a full house.  Twenty-two Bishops were
present.  His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury concurred in the
propriety and necessity of some interpreting power.  So also did the
Bishops of London, and Lincoln, and Norwich, and upon this point there
was no dissenting voice.

8.  The present state of Subscription is also discreditable to the
English Church when we consider the position in which it leaves the
Bishops.  Whoever wishes well to the institutions of his country, and
desires to promote the peaceful happiness of the people, will watchfully
cherish respect for all who are in authority.  The Christian is taught to
consider them as ministers of God to us for good; and the clergy are
bound, not only by this universal sanction but also by their Ordination
vows, to reverence the Bishops of the Church: and any circumstance which
occasions a breach in this duty ought to be to them a cause for regret.

There is a popular error that a clergyman, when in doubt upon any
question of Christian faith or practice, has only to apply to his Bishop,
and that he has authority to settle the question.  Some recent writers
have helped perhaps to foster this notion by their ill-considered
professions of entire deference to episcopal authority.  No circumstance
has contributed so largely to expose the very limited extent of it as the
controversies of the present day.  A Bishop, in fact, has scarcely any
discretionary power amongst the greater part of the clergy as to
questions of doctrine.  He can refuse ordination to a candidate, or a
license to a curate, subject, however, to an appeal.  If he should refuse
institution to a benefice, the civil courts would demand the reason.  He
may institute a suit for heresy; and this must be proved by a reference
to the Scriptures and four general councils, not to the Articles or Book
of Prayer.  Yet of late great deference to episcopal authority has been
expressed, and the Charges of Bishops have been anxiously looked for.
The manner in which they have been received by some exposes the
hollowness of the deference professed, the absence of the power supposed,
and the true reason for the anxiety to receive them.  They are estimated
as the works of partizans in a controversy, not of judges in a cause.
They are extolled by those to whose opinions they lean; they are
criticized without reserve, and sometimes with very little respect, by
any who are dissatisfied with them.  The truth is shown in all its
nakedness, that Bishops have no more _power_ on such questions than other
men, and less influence perhaps than some other writers.

Yet the Bishops of the Church appear to stand somewhat in the same
position as our judges.  But how differently are the _dicta_ of the
latter received!  Their decisions indeed are open to argument from their
inferiors in the same profession, but before a superior court, and not by
calling on the public to be the judge of written controversy between the
parties.  Their decisions may be reversed by a superior court, but in a
solemn, respectful, and orderly manner, without being rudely assailed;
and the ultimate appeal being to the House of Lords, or the Privy
Council, no judge, who properly feels the liability to error in the
wisest, can sustain a shock to his feelings or character if such superior
tribunals should differ from his own judgment.  Very different, as we
have remarked, is the fate of an Episcopal Charge in these days; and,
until the cause is removed, there is no prospect of remedying a state of
things so discreditable to the Church: the probability is that it will be
worse.

The Bishops, in fact, are endeavouring to settle that which they have not
the power to settle—the meaning of Subscription, the interpretation of
the Articles, the true doctrine of the Church.  And whoever in a public
station attempts to exercise a greater power than his office assigns,
exposes a weak point, perhaps before unnoticed, and instead of gaining
new authority, may lose a part of that long-established and deferential
respect, which is the most valuable part of all authority.  A country
magistrate is discreetly silent when a case is brought before him which
the law does not empower him to decide, and abstains from lowering his
authority by an interference which may be disputed.

It is altogether unsound in theory, and utterly fruitless in practice, to
expect that points relating to doctrine can be settled by Episcopal
Charges dropping one by one from the press, and unconnected with each
other.  The interpretation of a Confession of Faith or of the terms of
Subscription belongs to the Church in some way represented and convened.
An Episcopal Charge is pastoral advice.  When there is in the Church a
proper authority to legislate or interpret, that advice will be received
with respect and thankfulness, and contribute much in directing the minds
of men to a right decision, which is its proper office.  But when it
usurps the province of a judge or legislator, or from circumstances is
improperly brought to stand in their place, it will only provoke the
opposition we now witness, and ultimately lose a part of that just
deference which it ought ever to receive.  The recollection that there is
no Convocation or other Ecclesiastical Body competent to settle the
perplexing questions recently agitated, may have induced the Bishops
charitably to venture upon a forlorn hope.  Their Charges, however, are
powerless in the attempt; and however thankful numbers are to receive
their pastoral advice, yet when we observe the boundless liberty of
reply, and the entire want of authority to enforce their conclusions,
respect for the episcopal office almost suggests the wish that in these
days they were not published.

Supposing, however, the case were otherwise; suppose a real and unbounded
deference to the least word of a Bishop to prevail amongst the clergy and
people; suppose that they had each authority in controversies of faith;
what, unfortunately, should we reap in the present state of things but
increased perplexity?  The judges—so to term them—are divided in opinion;
and, though this in the parallel case of legal judges is stripped of
injury by an appeal to a superior court, the Church possesses no such
appeal.  In the meanwhile, two-thirds of our Bishops, perhaps, are ranged
on one side in the present controversy, and have spoken strongly.  The
remainder have spoken with a leaning more or less strong in the opposite
direction, or are as yet silent.  As to _deciding_, then, the true and
proper interpretation of our Articles and Subscription, nothing has been
gained by Episcopal Charges.  Only the unpleasing truth has been openly
displayed, that they may be treated like the pamphlet of any anonymous
partizan.  Thus the present state of the question as to Subscription
operates in overthrowing respect to the office and authority of our
Bishops, and this it cannot do without being discreditable to the Church.

9.  They who have studied even cursorily the history of ecclesiastical
affairs in England since the Reformation, may trace in Subscription
another circumstance discreditable, if not disgraceful, to the English
Church, and one which present times bring before our view.  The most
earnest and devoted section of the clergy, whatever their peculiar views
in past or present times, have been frequently branded by the imputation
of departing from the literal sense of the Articles, and of the
Subscription required to them and the Book of Common Prayer.  They have
been censured also as disaffected to the Church, sometimes to its
doctrines, sometimes to its rites and ceremonies.  The next step has been
to speak of them as unfit to remain in the ministry, and to desire their
exclusion.

No candid man can doubt the piety, the ability, the zeal in their
Master’s service, of the puritanical divines.  Yet many of them were
excluded at the Restoration, and thus the Church lost a large body of
Christian men, and itself laid the foundation of a considerable portion
of our present non-conformity.  At the end of the seventeenth century,
the eminent divines who attempted to repair by healing counsels the
damage thus occasioned were branded as latitudinarians, and denounced as
disaffected to the Church.  In the last century no attempt was made to
turn into a more regular channel the zeal of Wesley and Whitfield, and
their associates.  They were excluded as unsound in doctrine and
dangerous to true religion.  With difficulty for a long time did the
evangelical clergy, who sprung from them, maintain their position as a
proscribed race, condemned as disaffected to the Church.

Suppose in all these cases that the charge of objecting to some parts of
the Articles and Liturgy, and to the Subscription required, were true;
yet to what does it amount?  With these assumed errors, did not these
persons believe the Bible and love it?  Did they not believe all the main
Articles of the Christian Faith, as taught by the Church?  Was it not the
earnestness of their belief which made them what they were?  Were they
not the very men, who, by their faith and energy, were calculated to
accomplish the object of the ministry, namely, to win souls to the
Redeemer’s kingdom, and to form a peculiar people zealous of good works?
What then was the ground of exclusion or objection?  Subscription—assent
to the Thirty-nine Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, according to
the strict and exact terms imposed by the Church.  There was not an
objection, nor even indifference, to the smallest portion of the Word of
God; but in some non-essential points they wished for alteration or
liberty.  Subscription caused the difficulty.

Whatever opinion may be now entertained of the tractarian party, the
praise of zeal, ability and piety cannot be denied to the leaders of it;
yet they are censured as disaffected to the Church, and their exclusion
not obscurely suggested.  For some of their opinions the writer can be no
advocate.  He believes them to have fallen into errors equally lamentable
and dangerous if persisted in: yet were the choice given him between such
instructors and others who pass uncondemned in ruinous indolence and
indifference, he would not hesitate in giving his preference to the
former.  Nor, when he remembers the want of earnest men, and the
ever-varying forms of human opinion, can he hesitate in desiring their
continuance as ministers in our Church.

    “We are not only uncertain of finding out truths, in matters
    disputable, but we are certain that the best and ablest doctors of
    Christendom have been actually deceived in matters of great
    concernment; which thing is evident in all those instances of persons
    from whose doctrines all sorts of Christians, respectively, take
    liberty to dissent.  The errors of Papias, Irenæus, Lactantius,
    Justin Martyr, in the millenary opinion; of St. Cyprian, Firmilian,
    the Asian and African fathers in the question of re-baptization; St.
    Austin in his decretory and uncharitable sentence against the
    unbaptized children of Christian parents; the Roman or the Greek
    doctors in the question of the procession of the Holy Ghost, and in
    the matter of images, are examples beyond exception.  The errors that
    attach to the minds of men are numberless.  Now if these great
    personages had been persecuted or destroyed for their opinions, who
    should have answered the invaluable loss the Church should have
    sustained in missing so excellent, so exemplary, and so great
    lights?”

    “Since those opinions were open and manifest to the world, that the
    Church did not condemn them, it was either because those opinions
    were by the Church not thought to be errors, or if they were, yet she
    thought fit to tolerate the error and the erring person.  And if she
    would do so still, it would, in most cases, be better than now it
    is.”—_Bishop Jeremy Taylor_.

In our own case, what would be gained by the exclusion of the persons
just referred to?  The past may teach us that this will not silence men
earnest in their convictions, or promote the unity we desire.  But, if
their opinions are to be tolerated within the ministry of our Church,
then, in common justice, and for the credit of that Church, the stigma
ought to be removed which now attaches to them as insincere subscribers.
It is this which makes the present controversy so bitter and
disingenuous.  Remove the irritation occasioned by this perpetual taunt,
and is there not ground to hope that it would settle down into an
unfettered inquiry after Scriptural truth, and that the result would be a
more universal deference to the Word of God?  Such is the trust which the
writer cannot but entertain.

To wait charitably in patience and hope on the one hand; and on the other
to concede all that can be conceded without compromise of truth, for
union and unity, are Christian duties; but it is not the dictate of
wisdom or charity to repel hastily from the ministry, zeal and piety
which cannot be spared, and which the providence of God may eventually
overrule and direct to the great good of the people.  And if Subscription
involves us in the danger of repeatedly excluding the most zealous
portion of our clergy, it is a disgrace to the Church which continues to
enforce it.

10.  About two years ago the writer ventured to name a remedy for the
evils and inconveniences arising out of the embarrassed state of the
Subscription now required.  His proposal was, that a clergyman should
subscribe to the Three Creeds, instead of the Articles and Liturgy,
retaining the other tests or pledges now in use.  Within the last twelve
months he has had the satisfaction of observing, that, on an occasion of
great interest to Christians in this and other nations, a plan very
closely resembling this, as he understands it, has been adopted under the
sanction of the highest ecclesiastical authority.  On the appointment of
an English Bishop for Jerusalem, which was effected, as is well known, in
conjunction with His Majesty the King of Prussia, it was determined to
make such regulations that the subjects of that King, employed either as
missionaries or ministers of congregations in Palestine, might receive
the full benefit of episcopal sanction and superintendence.  This was
effected in the manner described by the following Letters, which appeared
in the Prussian _State Gazette_ of July 12th, 1842.

                         THE BISHOPRIC OF JERUSALEM.

                                                          BERLIN, JULY 11.

    His Majesty has been pleased to address to the minister of
    Ecclesiastical Affairs the following orders in respect to the
    relations of the Bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland
    in Jerusalem with the German congregation of the evangelical religion
    in Palestine:—

    “I send you herewith a letter from his Grace the Archbishop of
    Canterbury, Primate of England, which contains the definite proposals
    respecting the relations of the Bishop of the United Church of
    England and Ireland in Jerusalem with the German congregations of the
    evangelical religion in Palestine, which are inclined to place
    themselves under the jurisdiction of the latter.  You will see from
    this letter that the Prelate secures to the congregations of the
    German Protestant faith in Palestine the protection and pastoral care
    of the English Bishop at Jerusalem, without any other conditions than
    such as the exercise of the protection itself requires.  The
    publication of these proposals will be the best means to dispel the
    misunderstanding of some well-meaning persons, and to render the
    misrepresentations and calumnies of the evil-minded of no effect.
    Though there are at present no German Protestant congregations in
    Palestine, but the formation is still to be looked for under the
    influence of favourable circumstances, yet young divines of the
    German Protestant Church, whom the increasing interest in the labours
    of the missions for the conversion of the Jews induces to go to
    Palestine, will certainly think it desirable to avail themselves of
    the offers contained in the letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury,
    to obtain a greater freedom of action and a more successful result of
    their labours, by accepting the protection and care of the Bishop of
    the United Church of England and Ireland.  I am very ready to
    support, in a suitable manner, young divines of this kind, when they
    have been examined and found duly qualified, and especially proved
    themselves to be thoroughly grounded in the doctrines of the
    Protestant faith, according to the Augsburg Confession, and I invite
    you to point out to me any such persons.

                                                       “FREDERICK WILLIAM.

“To the Minister of State, Eichhorn.”

                                   ———

                                                   Lambeth, June 18, 1842.

    “Sire,—As it seems to me to be desirable that your Majesty should be
    thoroughly acquainted with the relations in which the German
    congregations in Palestine will stand with respect to the Bishop of
    the United Church of England and Ireland in Jerusalem, I take the
    liberty most respectfully to submit the following proposals, which I
    hope will be agreeable to your Majesty:—

    “The Bishop will consider it as his duty to take under his pastoral
    care and protection all the congregations of the German Protestant
    faith which are within the limits of his diocese, and are inclined to
    place themselves under his jurisdiction, and will afford them all the
    support in his power.  The German Liturgy, which has been carefully
    examined by me, which is taken from the liturgies received in the
    churches of your Majesty’s dominions, will be used in the celebration
    of divine service by the clergymen who are appointed, on the
    following principle:—Young divines, candidates for the pastoral
    office in the German Church, who have obtained your Majesty’s Royal
    permission to this end, will exhibit to the Bishop a certificate from
    some authority appointed by your Majesty, in which their good conduct
    as well as their qualification for the pastoral office is in every
    respect attested.  The Bishop will, of course, take care, in the case
    of every candidate so presented to him, to convince himself of his
    qualifications for the especial duties of his office, of the purity
    of his faith, and of his desire to receive ordination from the hands
    of the Bishop.  As soon as the Bishop has fully satisfied himself on
    these points, he will ordain the candidate on his subscribing the
    three Creeds, the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, and, on
    his taking the oath of obedience to the Bishop and his successor,
    will give him permission to exercise the functions of his office.

    “With respect to the confirmation of young persons of such
    congregations in Palestine, the Clergyman of the congregation will
    prepare them for that purpose in the usual manner, will subject them
    to the requisite examination, and receive from them, in the presence
    of the congregation, the profession of their faith.  They will then
    be presented to the Bishop, who will confirm them according to the
    form of the Liturgy of the United Church of England and Ireland.

                       “With the most profound respect,

                                             “I have the honour to remain,
                                                                     Sire,

             “Your Majesty’s most sincere and humble Servant,

                                                           “W. CANTERBURY.

    “To his Majesty Frederick William IV.,
                      King of Prussia.”

It is of course impossible to suppose that such a step was taken without
much deliberation: and here we see, first, that an English Bishop,
regularly consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Bishops
at Lambeth, is authorised to confer Holy Orders, requiring from the
persons ordained Subscription to the Three Creeds only.

When it is remembered how long the Christian Church has been divided and
rent, and how the Protestant part of it is again subdivided into numerous
sections, sometimes in the same nation, any approach towards the
establishment of a sound and primitive catholic test, which may enable a
larger number of Christians to enjoy communion with one another, ought to
be viewed with thankfulness.  More especially ought it to be so viewed by
ourselves, if there be a hope that the example can be adopted as the
means of promoting peace amongst the ministers and members of the _same
Church_—namely, our own—now so unhappily disunited; and if the great
Truths in which they _agree_ could be thus prominently exhibited to the
world.  And, if the rule laid down with reference to our Christian
brethren of the Prussian Church be sound and judicious; if it has been
wisely and charitably selected as calculated to unite many who have
hitherto been separated in communion, though not materially in doctrine;
why should it not be applied to secure similar advantages amongst
Englishmen, and to heal some of the wounds which are daily inflicted on
the peace of the Church by its own ministers and members?

Let not such a proposal be hastily rejected from an unexamined
apprehension that the doctrines of the Reformation are to be surrendered.
Let it at least be calmly and candidly considered.  The remarks hitherto
offered may be disputed as incorrect; but no one can possibly deny that
the state of the English Church is unsatisfactory, perhaps unsafe.  The
writer can in all sincerity declare himself, in the fullest sense of the
word, a Protestant: yet he may, very consistently, with such a
declaration, desire to see Protestants Catholics, and, in fulfilment of
the pledge given at ordination, “to maintain and set forwards, as much as
in him lieth, quietness, and peace, and love, among all Christian
people.”  These are what the Universal Church now requires for her
prosperity and success.

While the above-named catholic test was adopted to meet the peculiar
situation and duties of the new Bishop in Jerusalem, we see that it was
at the same time provided that candidates for ordination, subjects of the
King of Prussia, should be examined generally as to their qualifications
for the ministry; and also as to their being thoroughly grounded in the
Augsburg Confession, the foundation of our Articles; and further, that a
certificate of their having satisfactorily passed such an examination
should be laid before the Bishop of Jerusalem, who will also take care to
convince himself of their fitness to receive ordination at his hands.

If we were to transfer this whole precedent, as the writer understands
it, to our own Church, the change it would make would be simply this,
namely, that it would be left to the Bishops, each exercising the
discretionary power now vested in him, to judge, upon examination, of the
doctrinal views of a candidate, instead of requiring him to subscribe to
the Thirty-nine Articles.  And if we draw this out into practice, the
loss as to security for any particular doctrines would be none.  Each
Bishop would of course exercise the discretionary power as he now does,
and the same candidates would be admitted; but the evils now attending
upon Subscription would be remedied, or immeasurably diminished.

A candidate would be examined as to his general qualifications, and also
by questions on the Thirty-nine Articles, according to the judgment of
each Bishop, and might be received or rejected, as is now the case.
Whatever point in the Articles might appear to each Bishop to require
particular attention, would be made a subject of examination, as is now
the case.  Any question relative to doctrinal views, deemed necessary,
might be put, and the Bishop would have the actual view of the candidate
in his own words; and, if his word will not bind a man, will his
signature?  If a candidate, for instance, professed that he considered
the Reformation injurious or imperfect, the Bishop might reject him, or
not; and if he did not profess this, but afterwards came to that opinion,
the case would only be as it is sometimes now.  Possibly Bishops might
differ as to their mode of conducting such examination; and in one
diocese a candidate might be received who might fear being rejected in
another; for so it has been, and may be again; and thus persons of
various shades of opinion are admitted to the ministry, probably to the
benefit of the Church.

After examination, and previous to ordination, each candidate would
subscribe to the Three Creeds, {33} and engage to conform to the Liturgy.
At his ordination, as a priest, he would promise before the congregation
to study the Word of God, to teach nothing contrary to it, and to fulfil
the duties of the ministry according to the solemn and comprehensive
pledges of our Ordination Service, to which the writer requests a
particular attention in connection with this subject.  There is here no
want of security so far as pledges can give it; and every advantage
_really secured_ on the present plan would be retained.  The present
Subscription does not produce consent touching true religion, whereas an
assent to the doctrine of the Creeds would be almost catholic.  The
present Subscription does not secure attachment to the doctrines of the
Reformation.  What advantage then does it realize which would be lost on
the plan proposed?  They who love the Reformation and revere our
Articles, would love and revere them still.  It is not Subscription which
draws forth their attachment, but conviction—the conviction that they are
founded on the Word of God, coupled with a thankful recollection of the
men and the times which gave them to us.

Let it not be forgotten that, whatever power the laws now give for
restraining or punishing those who impugn the Articles or Liturgy, would
remain untouched.  And in all cases where the law does speak, it ought to
be the test of wrong doing.  So long as it was not called forth, the just
presumption would be that no such offence had been committed; and
controversy, which must always exist while truth is loved, would be
carried on without the discreditable concomitants detailed above.

The precedent adopted then, on the appointment of a Bishop for Jerusalem,
suggests an unobjectionable improvement; {34} and it carries with it this
further recommendation that it would bring the law and the practice
together, which is always considered sound legislation when the practice
has become so established that the law is virtually repealed.  Instances
of this kind are well known.  The repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts
was little more than a formal abrogation of a law no longer in force; and
the repeal of the present form of Subscription would, in like manner,
only legally confirm that latitude of interpretation with respect to it
which already prevails. {35}

11.  If, however, the above-named precedent be rejected, there are yet
unquestionable grounds for desiring that something should be done in the
present state of things.  It is asked, not in a hostile or unreasonable
spirit, but seriously, soberly, and earnestly—for the peace of the
Church; for the credit of its ministers and members; and for the sake of
truth itself—that we may be told in what sense Subscription may be, or
ought to be, made.  It has been of late advanced as an argument against
those who would set up various human authorities as arbiters of truth,
that the Church has already declared the truth by her interpretation of
Scripture, that she has given us that interpretation in our Thirty-nine
Articles, and bound it upon us by Subscription.  We answer simply, that
the interpretation itself is disputed, that the sense of it cannot be
fixed.  We want, therefore, a new decision.

It has been argued again that Subscription preserves truth within the
Church.  We simply ask, _what_ truth? and affirm that the constant use of
our Liturgy preserves pure doctrine more effectually, and always will.
It has been advanced also, somewhat inconsiderately, but by high
authority, as an argument against alteration, that any change might make
matters worse, by making Subscription more strict.  We answer that, if it
requires an assent to that which is scripturally true, it cannot be too
strict.  Let it then be strictly and literally enforced: but, if this be
deemed unadvisable or impossible, let it be interpreted anew, or
repealed.  In its present state it cannot be too plainly or repeatedly
affirmed, that it is a disgrace to the Church.

12.  It may be pronounced absurd or presumptuous in an individual to
propose a change in such a matter as Subscription to Articles of Faith,
but in truth _a great change has already taken place_.  There have been
in past ages considerable variations as to doctrinal views prevailing at
different times: of late a new character has been given to Subscription;
new certainly to this generation, and new altogether, as proceeding from
persons remaining in the ministry; for the principal abettors of similar
views in past times are found amongst the non-jurors, and were seceders
from the establishment.  A few years ago it was pronounced by a Bishop to
be little less than a libel on the Church, to say that the clergy did not
subscribe literally to the Articles.  Since that time another Bishop has
designated a system of interpretation put forth and defended by
clergymen, as “so subtle, that by it the Articles may be made to mean any
thing or nothing.”  Several episcopal charges have spoken to the same
effect, and almost innumerable publications from other authors.  Yet the
principles on which that system is founded, are disseminated with
unabated zeal and increased influence.  The Tracts for the Times,
silenced only by name, are issued in reviews, magazines, pamphlets,
poems, and novels; and the same views as to the Reformation and the
Articles are maintained, though the application of them, in the manner
proposed by Tract No. 90, may be partially disowned.  A _great change
then has taken place_; and the result is, that Subscription has received
a blow from which it can never recover without some decided measure.  It
must become an object of general ridicule or contempt, of which, indeed,
some indications have already appeared.

To this the writer desires to invite attention.  If he has ventured to
propose a remedy, it is principally on this ground, that whoever points
out a defect in existing institutions is commonly asked, what improvement
can you offer?  Although, then, convinced that the remedy he has named is
calculated to meet the evil, it is rather his wish that others should be
induced to come forward and so to deal with the change which has taken
place that it may cease to be a reproach to the Church.  With this object
before him, he believes himself engaged in the cause of truth, and will
continue to devote to it the limited powers he possesses while life is
spared.  And let it not be deemed presumptuous if, under an humiliating
sense of his own insufficiency, he yet perseveres in recommending what is
so far beyond his power to accomplish.  No one can reasonably expect
visible success in any undertaking.  It is enough to enjoy the assurance
that we are persevering in a right path.  The result may well be left to
the Supreme Disposer of all things.  Nor are instruments in His hands
weak, as man estimates power; but the weakest may be permitted to sow the
seed destined to bring forth much fruit.  It is the progress of
conviction wrought in the minds of men which prepares the way for
improvements.  It is the open statement of these convictions, here and
there, which leads to action.

Few improvements, if any, in the moral world can be novelties.  They are
only a return to some good old principle which the great innovator, time,
or rather the great deteriorator, human corruption, hath thrown into the
shade.  An age there was, perhaps a better than this, when human Articles
were unknown to the Church; an age also when the shortest of our Creeds
sufficiently expressed the faith of a believer.  It does not require
learning or talent to state all this, and to beg others to recollect
that, if heresies call for Articles, a folio would scarcely suffice.
Simple minds may state such simple truths, and God may cause their voice
to be heard.

Nor can it be justly affirmed that, to expose even in strong terms
prevailing defects, is any proof of disaffection to the Church in which
they exist.  The writers of Scripture, although Divinely inspired, are
yet a pattern to their less favoured followers.  And who can peruse the
writings of the Prophets and Apostles without being struck by their bold
and uncompromising denunciations of the sins and errors prevailing
amongst high and low, learned and ignorant, teachers and people?  If it
be disaffection to the Church, to describe faithfully and plainly an evil
which requires a remedy, then is Isaiah to be condemned in his first
chapter, and St. Paul in his most celebrated Epistles, instead of being
our examples and instructors in the path of ministerial duty.

If the remarks above offered be well founded, they cannot be a matter of
indifference, for they affect all to whom truth, and religion, and the
credit of its ministers, and the national honour are dear: and all such
might, without compromise of any principle or opinion, as the writer
believes, join in an address to the following effect:—

    To Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, over all persons and in
    all causes Ecclesiastical and Temporal within Her Dominions supreme.

    We your Majesty’s faithful subjects have observed with pain the
    Controversies now for some time carried on with respect to the true
    interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and of the
    Subscription by law required to them and to the Book of Common
    Prayer; and we humbly pray your Majesty to institute such measures as
    to your wisdom shall seem fit, with the advice of your Majesty’s
    Privy Council, in order to provide a remedy for the uncertainty
    prevailing upon this subject.

                                * * * * *

IT is with reluctance that I add to the above remarks any that relate
merely to myself.  Some circumstances, however, appear to require a few
brief observations.

In a former publication on the Meaning of Subscription, {41} occasioned
by the extreme uncertainty and perplexity in which this subject is
involved, I stated my readiness to resign my preferment, if called upon
to do so within a certain time by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.
That call has not been made.  It may, however, be supposed that the
remarks now offered on the same subject are published, not so much with a
view to any general improvement as from a desire to obtain relief for my
own difficulties.  I wish therefore distinctly to state that this is not
the case, and that those difficulties are removed, for the present, on
the following grounds.

Within the last three years a departure from the plain and obvious
meaning of the Articles has been displayed, to an unparalleled extent,
amongst the ministers of our Church; yet no call has been authoritatively
made upon any of them to resign, and they retain their situations, with
the exception of two or three who have voluntarily seceded.  In this
state of things, I can hardly imagine any diversity of opinion with
respect to the Thirty-nine Articles which calls for the resignation of a
clergyman; indeed, it appears to me that it would be simply absurd in any
one to resort to such a step, unless under a decided wish for communion
with some other church or body of Christians.

It can hardly be necessary to say, after what has been already offered,
how far I am from desiring that such a state of things should continue,
however unfavourably a change might affect myself: for I still maintain,—

That the condemnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed, in their literal
sense, are an un-Christian appendage to a document of extraordinary
merit, yet such that a true Christian may innocently differ from some
propositions set forth in it.

That a Bishop is not authorized by the Gospel to address a candidate for
Ordination in the literal sense of the words, “Receive the Holy Ghost:
whose sins thou dost remit, they are remitted, and whose sins thou dost
retain, they are retained.”

That a Christian minister is not authorized by the Gospel to address any
one in the literal sense of the words, “I absolve thee from all thy
sins.”

Entertaining these views, I yet venture to conclude that I could
subscribe the Articles and Liturgy with as near an approach to a literal
assent as most of the clergy, and certainly with a far more cordial
approbation of them than many who might be named.  It has been said that
the objections just mentioned are trifling.  Whoever has marked the
course of the controversy now existing in our Church will see how great a
stress has been sometimes laid on two of the above points, as materially
supporting the views of tractarian writers.

_May_ 31, 1843.




POSTSCRIPT TO THE SECOND EDITION.


IN the first edition I briefly alluded to the Rev. C. Green, of this
Diocese, as having made some comments on a former publication of my own.
I am sorry to find that this reference was a mistake, Mr. Green not
having mentioned my name, as I erroneously supposed he had, writing from
an imperfect recollection.  Having explained to him how the mistake
arose, I have now publicly to offer my apology for it, which I tendered
in private as soon as it became known to me.

_Since the first edition_ of this publication, many of the views here
offered have been confirmed by no mean authorities.

On July 4th, His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, on presenting a Petition
to the House of Lords relating to Church Government, will be found, on a
reference to his speech, to have used several arguments exactly similar
to some of those here advanced.

In the very able Dedication prefixed to a Sermon on “The Unity of the
Church,” by Archdeacon Hare, recently published, will be found again a
similar coincidence on other points.

In the Charge of the Bishop of Calcutta, also very recently published in
this country, the following passages so strongly confirm _the main
argument and title_ of this publication that I am tempted to transcribe
them:—

    Page 60.  “But it is useless to speak of their manner of defending
    themselves, after the incredible attempt of the Ninetieth Tract,
    which brought down upon them that merited disapprobation of their
    respected Diocesan, the disavowal of the Heads of Colleges at Oxford,
    and the contempt or pity of every Protestant Divine.  Nothing so
    dishonourable to a clergyman—the word is strong, but in my judgment
    not too strong—has occurred in our Church since the time when the
    blessed Reformation exempted us for ever, as we hoped, from these
    Popish errors.”

    Page 100.  “I must confess for myself that, after reading with all
    the attention in my power Mr. Newman’s _Lectures on Justification_, I
    consider them the greatest insult—not intentionally, of course, but
    in fact, the greatest insult ever offered to our Church and the whole
    body of our Reformers, by any divine of talent and reputation for
    orthodoxy since the 16th Century.”

    Page 108.  “The substantial disagreement of these divines with Holy
    Scripture, and their substantial agreement with the Romanists, are as
    clear as the day.  To speak of their disagreement with our Articles
    and Homilies after the incredible sophistry of Tract No. 90, would be
    useless.”

    “Give me the principles of interpretation by which justification is
    thus, as by a magic wand, enchanted away, and I will prove or
    disprove anything.  Let me apply such a process to the word
    sanctification or glorification, or faith or law, and I will disprove
    all the doctrines of the Gospel.”

    “Nay, give me these principles—I speak it with awe—and I will defend
    the Arian, the Socinian, the Antinomian, the Neological, the
    Rationalist heresies.”

In any other profession such opinions as these could not be published
without compelling the individuals thus censured to take some steps to
vindicate their character.  Laudable endeavours are on foot to prevent
duelling.  The only profession clear of that practice ought to be
foremost in showing that means can be provided for guarding the
reputation of its members.  At this time no clergyman knows how to meet
such a reproach as that conveyed in the above Charge.  There is no
individual or body of men to whom he can appeal as possessing, in public
estimation, authority to clear him from the reproach, or to direct his
conduct.  Thus, language is continually used amongst clergymen which, if
it became common in all professions, would lower the standard of English
manners, and, thus far, degrade the national character.

If only _for the credit of the clergy_, and to check the injury of a bad
example in a quarter where it should be especially guarded against, some
authoritative decision ought to be pronounced on the meaning of
Subscription.

_August_ 23, 1843.

                                * * * * *

                                 NORWICH:
                       PRINTED BY CHARLES MUSKETT,
                              OLD HAYMARKET.




FOOTNOTES.


{33}  In proposing this test, it is assumed that the view of the late
Professor of Divinity, Bishop Marsh, with regard to the condemnatory
clauses attached to the Athanasian Creed, would be thenceforward
considered as established in our Church.  His words are, “I do not mean
to defend those anathemas.  They are no part of the Creed itself.”

{34}  The establishment of such a test in our own Church might materially
assist, as an example, in securing a great collateral benefit.  They who
are interested in missionary exertions know how great an impediment to
their success arises from the differences and divisions amongst the
ministers sent forth from various churches and societies.  One
mischievous effect of these is, that the general consent _which really
exists_ as to catholic truths is _obscured_.  The differences on other
points are always on the surface.  Thus they command an undue degree of
attention and importance; and, not to mention other evils, the conclusion
must occur to unbelievers, that no one certain system of truth can be
collected from that which is proposed to them as a Divine Revelation.

To separate the points of difference from the common bond of union, by
affixing some _decided_ mark of preference and distinction on the latter,
would be something gained in attempts to evangelize the world.  It might
be better still, if one Creed, the Nicene, were chosen as the test.  A
very large portion of Christian missionaries, it is presumed, would
cordially bear testimony to its truth.  Thus it would present some common
bond of union amongst them in “preaching the Gospel to all nations”—an
imperfect one, it may be said, yet apparently the best which can be
secured.  For almost every doctrinal point beyond that Creed is
controverted; and, at the end of eighteen centuries, every church must be
content to see its distinctive claims to reception rest on argument
rather than authority.

{35}  Private opinion, or judgment, it is very clear, cannot be
controlled by Subscription, or by any other means; yet peace might be
preserved, to a great extent, if the Church had the power to enjoin
silence on any particular point amongst its ministers.  In some respects
it would be dangerous to grant such a power; but the wisest human
arrangements are frequently only _choosing the least of two evils_.

The recent sentence on Dr. Pusey may be very proper as regards the
religious instruction offered to students at an university, but will of
course decide nothing as to the general controversy.  Only the voice of
the Church can effect this, and it is time that the Church should at
least _be able_ to speak, though its first decision might endanger the
existence of the _Establishment_.  Faith, however, is a better counsellor
than Fear.

{41}  “What is the Meaning of Subscription?”  Longmans.  1841.