Part 1

Transcribed from the 1843 G. F. and J. Rivington edition by David Price.

A LETTER TO THE REV. C. N. WODEHOUSE,

CANON OF NORWICH;

_Occasioned by his late Pamphlet_, _entitled_

“SUBSCRIPTION THE DISGRACE OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH:”

BY THE

REV. C. GREEN, RECTOR OF BURGH-CASTLE, AND LATE FELLOW OF JESUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

* * * * *

———♦———

* * * * *

LONDON: G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL’S.

YARMOUTH: C. SLOMAN, KING-STREET.

————— MDCCCXLIII.

* * * * *

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CHARLES SLOMAN, PRINTER, GREAT YARMOUTH. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A LETTER, _&c. &c._

SIR,

IN addressing to you the following remarks upon a pamphlet recently put forth by you, under the title of “_Subscription the Disgrace of the English Church_,” I think it right to explain the reasons which have induced me to give them publication, rather than to communicate them in a private form, and also why I have not taken this step some days earlier.

The fact is, that till within the last three days, I had seen nothing of your pamphlet beyond the title; neither do I think that I should then have been tempted to peruse its contents, so repulsive did its announcement appear, had I not received an intimation that my name was mentioned in connection with your former publication, in such terms as to create some suspicion that I might countenance your opinions and views, and to require from me a declaration how far I might concur in believing Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles a disgrace. This information could not fail to excite in me some degree of surprise and curiosity, feeling, as I did, unconscious of having made to you, either publicly or privately, any observation whatever in reference to that or to any other of your publications.

On reading the paragraph in your pamphlet in which my name is introduced, it did not occur to me, that, supposing I had been one of those “clergymen in the diocese of Norwich, who had made comments upon your last publication,” you intended anything more than to speak of me in complimentary terms. Feeling conscious, however, that I could not take to myself that compliment, for the reasons already stated, and that it had been more than hinted to me, that my name being so introduced placed me in an equivocal position, in which some explanation would be expected, I laid the paragraph, together with the fact, before a clerical friend, who gave his opinion, that it certainly did admit of a doubt, how far I might have coincided in, or differed from, your views of Subscription, as stated in your last publication.

Now, if your observations had merely concerned myself personally, I might not have thought this accidental circumstance worthy of notice; at least I should have refrained from drawing public attention to a matter of a private nature. But as I conceive that the character of a clergyman, whether as it regards his flock, or the church, ought not to appear in an ambiguous light, and as I have always, both publicly and privately maintained opinions the directly opposite of those which you have advocated in several publications, it would justly be considered an abandonment of duty, were I, from an ill-timed silence, to allow it to be suspected that I side with the opinions which you entertain in the matter of Subscription.

Under these circumstances and impressions, I have no course but to sacrifice my natural disinclination to make myself a public character, particularly when, in that character, I must necessarily assume somewhat of a controversialist, and when there is connected with the subject much both of a painful and of a delicate nature: I therefore hesitate not to comply with my duty.

Although such reasons for the course which I am about to take apply only to myself, yet if every clergyman in the diocese chose to dispute your allegations generally, and to repudiate your imputations in particular, it would be quite competent to him, individually, to make his public defence.

Before I enter on the main subject of your pamphlet, one word of further explanation will be necessary upon the personal matter between us.

At page 43, you say—

“I have now only to acknowledge the comments of several clergymen and others in this diocese, upon my last publication. To the Rev. B. Philpot, formerly archdeacon of the Isle of Man, and to the Rev. C. Green, rector of Burgh, I beg to offer my sincere thanks for the candid and christian spirit in which their observations were made. I avail myself also of this opportunity to acknowledge with respect and gratitude a large number of private communications, both from friends and strangers, which were a valuable testimony at a time when they were most acceptable.”

In answer to what concerns me, I repeat that I neither publicly nor privately to you ever made any comment or observation whatever upon your last publication; and that, if to others I may have alluded to it, it was in terms of disapprobation and with feelings of regret.

I now proceed to a discussion of your pamphlet, which will give me an opportunity of satisfying those, who may wish to know, how far I concur in your opinions and views; and I trust I shall not express myself otherwise, than in that “candid and christian spirit,” for which, by anticipation, you have already given me credit.

The title of the pamphlet is a true index of what may be found within. Indeed, the contents may be reduced to PROPOSITION and COROLLARY.

_Proposition_: “Subscription the Disgrace of the English Church.”

_Corollary_: “Repeal of the present form of Subscription.”

These in turn shall have my best consideration. The Proposition you attempt to establish by various suppositions and allegations. A grave charge, which strikes at the very foundation of our church establishment, like that involved in this proposition, should not be grounded on suppositions, the force of which must depend on their degree of probability, which is always questionable, but should rest solely upon proven and admitted facts. Indeed, in a matter of such moment as that, which you appear extremely anxious to substantiate, all other reasoning but from facts alone must be excluded. I therefore humbly submit, that the opinions which you appear to have collected from “Newspapers, Periodicals,” and “Commercial Travellers’ Rooms,” must be rejected as inadmissible in the present consideration; for the articles in newspapers and periodicals, of a controversial nature especially, being generally got up to serve some party purpose, are too often limited to a partial and one-sided view of things; and I have yet to learn that commercial travellers’ rooms, however proverbial for practical information and good sense, have become schools of sound theology. For the same reason, we must pass by the suppositious questions of “youthful profligates, led on by some ingenious sceptic;” also, “the obvious reasoning of the dissenting part of our population,” and the notions of “a still larger class, who, amidst the din of controversy, pick up a few popular reports, which help to confirm their indifference to religion.” We must likewise dismiss from our consideration your analogical reasoning, from the case of the Officers of the Army and Navy to that of the Clergy, and from the “Articles of War” to the “Confession of our Faith.” For reasoning of this sort, to be valid, must be founded upon cases analogous; and what analogy exists between the “Articles of War,” which depend on ever-varying expediency and annual revision, and the “Confession of our Faith,” which is based on the never-changing word of truth? {8} Some analogy there may be between Officers of the Army and Navy, who for dishonorable conduct are dismissed the service by court-martial, and the Clergy who hold opinions contrary to their Subscription. But I forbear to animadvert on that comparison.

Therefore I think you must allow that, in a demonstration of such moment, as that “Subscription is the Disgrace of the English Church,” we cannot admit suppositions, assertions, and notions, but that we must have _stern facts_.

Is it then the fact, that “while we perceive the variety of opinion prevailing amongst these several sections (of the clergy,) we see also that from all of them, more or less, Subscription is requiring that which, in the ordinary affairs of life, high-minded men would abstain from; viz. the necessity for qualifying the plain and straight-forward use of language?”

If you succeed in establishing this position, then I shall be ready to acknowledge that there is treachery within the pale of our Church—widely-extended treachery, and that you will have gone far towards maintaining that “Subscription is the Disgrace of the English Church;” or, to put the proposition more logically, that _the Clergy thus subscribing and acting are the disgrace of the English Church_.

It will now be necessary to extract in full from your pamphlet those allegations upon which alone your position depends, in order that the truth of them may be canvassed, and the foundation of your charge made perfectly clear to my readers.

In pages 11 to 14, you say—

(1) “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.

(2) “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 dishonored and damaged in their use.

(3) “In that section again of subscribers who embrace Calvinistic doctrines, though the writer considers that some of the Articles are more unequivocally favorable 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.

(4) “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.

(5) “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.”

Having adduced these allegations in support of your position, in which you endeavor to implicate every section (as your term is) of the English clergy, in a culpable act in the matter of Subscription; you then draw the inference, that by far the greater portion of the clergy in the several “sections,” have tampered with their ordination vow; and finally, you come to the conclusion, or rather, as if doubting, whether you had so far succeeded as to arrive at a legitimate conclusion, you put the question, whether the affirmation is too strong, that “Subscription is the Disgrace of the English Church.”

“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 all of them, 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 favorable 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?”

I shall now proceed to examine and discuss your allegations _seriatim_, and see how far they are founded in fact; after which I shall adduce evidence of a counter tendency, arising from a personal knowledge of facts, and an intimate acquaintance with the opinions of individual clergy.

(1) In the first paragraph, you alledge that our form of Subscription has been perverted and our Articles misrepresented by persons “who argue that they were not intended to condemn Romanism;” and, in proof of this, you “think it sufficient to refer to Tract No. 90, though,” as you state, “other instances might be cited from authors who have subscribed the Articles.”

Now, as “one swallow does not make a summer,” so neither does one individual, nor several, (and I believe they are not many altogether, who hold with Tract No. 90,) constitute in that particular, a _general_ “perversion of our Form of Subscription,” or a _general_ “misrepresentation of our Articles.” I am not ignorant that it has been the common prejudice to stamp as a tractarian every man who avows that he upholds generally the Apostolical Succession, and Baptismal Regeneration, has lately seen it right to have divine service in his church during Lent, and at other times appointed by the Rubric, and especially if he preach in a surplice, although he may differ from Tract No. 90, and its principles, as widely as possible. And I cannot help thinking that you have been carried away by this mistaken notion. But look calmly and impartially around, and say from your own knowledge how many are the clergy in the diocese of Norwich, who countenance the principles of Tract Nos. 90, or 85, or 80, or indeed other tracts, which may be repugnant to the doctrines of our church: are there three? are there two? or one? But if I grant you that there are half-a-dozen, (and except in argument I would not allow so many,) considering that in the diocese there are upwards of eight hundred clergy, it will little avail you.

(2) In the next paragraph, which embraces that “section of the clergy most opposed to the views of the Tractarians, you speak from personal knowledge;” and you say, “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 their disuse of certain terms, is to be found a proof that to them Subscription is not altogether satisfactory.” I do not deny that there may be among that body of the clergy some who do not admit Baptismal Regeneration, according to the strict language of our Formularies: but I believe they are by no means so numerous as you would have it inferred. I can affirm, from personal knowledge, that some of that party do hold that doctrine strictly in accordance with the church, and that I scarcely know one who does not admit it, at least in a modified sense. You are aware that the word “regeneration,” instead of being restricted to Baptism, as it is in our Articles and Liturgy, and, as I believe, also in the New Testament, has, by many divines as well as others, long been used in a looser signification, to denote “conversion,” “renovation,” &c., which may be necessary after Baptism. Hence there is reason to think that frequently the difference is more in name than in reality. I can also state positively that, upon this point, within very few years, the views of many amongst this party have undergone considerable change, and closely approximated to those of the church. If, however, upon one of the most difficult and abstruse doctrines of Christianity there should be shades of opinion, it is only to be expected; considering that all have not equally faith to receive, or the capacity to comprehend the “things hard to be understood.” Neither do I think it quite charitable to set down this circumstance to their “disgrace,” or to that of the church of which they are ministers. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth.” {14} Moreover, in this neighborhood, I am acquainted with several of the clergy, who would probably rank themselves under this “section,” who are not behind any of their neighbors in the exact observance of the Liturgy.

With regard to those “Subscribers who embrace Calvinistic doctrines,” any comment of mine would be superfluous, as it is clear, from the tenor of your observations, that you are ready to defend _their_ view of the Articles.

We now come to a section of the clergy whom you denominate “old-fashioned high-churchmen.” Your main charge against these is, that whilst “they insist often on an exact compliance with Rubrics,” few amongst them have fulfilled these in their own practice. The supposition of error attaching to them in their “Arminian views of doctrine,” being matter of private opinion, may be dismissed as irrelevant. The charge, then, may be regarded as a default in Rubrical _practice_. This accusation, however, is of the less importance, as it is not contended, neither indeed can be, that there exists in the clergy a conscientious objection to a compliance with any of the Rubrical directions—only that “few amongst them have fulfilled these in their own practice.” And thus much is fully conceded.

If it were material to the point, it would be no difficult task, in extenuation of those who deviate from the strict letter of the Rubric, to prove that the Rubrics are not always definite, and frequently admit of a variety of construction—that to a certain extent the church accords to its ministers a discretionary judgment in this as in all other things—that at the present time there exists a prevailing disposition to revive much which has fallen into desuetude, and an earnest desire to carry out the Rubrics in all their practical utility—and consequently, that there is notwithstanding a great deal of honest and upright practice. But your charge affects not the clergy, but Subscription. It will therefore be a sufficient answer, to refer you to Article 34, in which it is stated—that “every particular or national church hath authority to _ordain_, _change_, and _abolish ceremonies or rites_ of the church, ordained only by man’s authority,” in order to remind you that, without having recourse to that measure, which in the sequel you propound, the church _does_ possess a provision to abrogate or enact, whenever it may be deemed by the legislature expedient to direct the Convocation to proceed with that business.

(5) In the last “section” of the clergy, whose views you notice, I see nothing in the slightest degree inconsistent with their Subscription. Surely, according to Article 20, which states that “the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,” it is quite competent for any clergyman to state strongly his conviction, that a church, without even the power of entering upon the means of deliberation as to one general improvement in its spiritual concerns, is in a false and unscriptural position. The summoning of convocation rests with the legislature, and not with the church, and is a matter of expediency upon which every individual clergyman may entertain his own opinion.

I have now carefully, and for my readers I fear too tediously, gone through your allegations; but as I conceived that your proposition depended _solely_ upon their being supported and established by facts, I trust I shall be excused if I have made a point of examining them with that patience and candor, which I thought their importance demanded.

I find then, that, because an indefinitely small number of the clergy in every diocese _may_ agree with the author of Tract No. 90,—because a portion of a certain “section” of the clergy possibly do not hold Baptismal Regeneration in strict accordance with the Articles and Liturgy—because some incline to Calvinistic, some to Arminian views of doctrine—because, in practice, an exact conformity to the Rubrics does not obtain, notwithstanding that in the 34th article express provision is made to meet this case in all its bearings, and because, in accordance with the 20th article, certain persons avow that a church, without the means of deliberation, is in a false and unscriptural position—_Therefore_ “Subscription is the Disgrace of the English Church.”

Such is the conclusion at which you arrive from your premises—a conclusion, in my humble opinion, so slightly supported by fact, that I can hardly bring myself to think, but that, if there had not existed a strong propension, a predetermination to come at this result, your judgment would have rejected the evidence as totally insufficient to support it.