Part 3

If I could not conscientiously conform to the doctrines and discipline of the _Baptist_ or the _Independent_, I question if they would allow me to give my conscience the liberty to act amongst them according to its dictates. They would no more deny than we do ourselves, the abstract principle, neither would they “fine,” nor put me in “the pillory,” but I suspect they would “exclude” me, and with very good reason, from their ministry. To talk of conceding the abstract right of private judgment, has always appeared to me a good deal like talking of conceding to a person with sound lungs the privilege of breathing. But to contend for the _principle_ and talk of certain latitudes and limits, seems to me to involve a contradiction—once assign any _limits_ to the “right,” and you destroy the principle. But although his Lordship pleads for the principle being, as he contends, that on which our Church is founded, and ought to be acted upon, he would circumscribe it within “a certain latitude of opinion.” He would not have it trench upon “the distinguishing features and essential doctrines of the Christian Church.” But who is to be the judge of these doctrines? Two of the petitioners, the _Messrs. Hull_, repudiate the very idea of the Church being the authorized interpreter of the truth. “If,” say these brothers, in allusion to a remark by the Bishop of London, “the word ‘authorised’ bear its usual signification, such a remark would indeed be inconsistent with liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment.” {28a}

Again, arguing from _the abuse_ of Subscription by “unconscientious and unscrupulous men,” they say, “it is on that account that the simplest Creed, and the truth to which the term ‘necessary’ is directly applied in our bible, are enough to justify a call into the ministry.” {28b}

But let any one compare the following passage, from _Mr. Belsham’s_ first letter to a former Bishop of London, with his exposition of the Unitarians’ Creed, as it is given at the end of that _lucus a non lucendo_—his “Calm Inquiry.” “That the Unitarians believe _everything that __is essential_ to salvation is _evident_ from the unequivocal testimony of the Apostle Paul himself, who in the Epistle to the Romans, x. 9, expressly teaches that if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in our heart that God hath raised him from the dead, we shall be saved.” Here then we have a professed believer in the _simplest creed_—but will it “justify his call into the ministry?” Take again the case of the _Baptist_, agreeing with us I believe on all the essential doctrines of Christianity, admitting the _necessity_ of _Baptism_, but differing from us only on a question of _time_. With our views on Infant Baptism should we be justified in admitting him into the ministry? and if not, what becomes of liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment? Might not the professed believer in this simple creed and the Baptist, under the contemplated restrictions of the principle complain with you “that the same invasion of Christian liberty remains? Fines, and imprisonment, and the pillory, have vanished; _exclusion_ remains (to them) in the same unabated force.” {29} Let us then remove the corrective remedy of Subscription to Articles of Faith, and where shall we stay the progress of the gangrene? How shall we exclude “the naughty seducers?”

“_I consider that by in any way expanding the sense and meaning of Subscription_, _a boon would be granted_, _and a great benefit conferred upon the scrupulous and tender consciences of those who are among_”—it might be asked how they came there—“_or may become the brightest ornaments of the establishment_.”

But if these ornaments can only be secured at the risk, I do not say with the “_intention_” of letting into the ministry together with them, men who hold things _contrary to sound doctrine_, however exemplary may be their lives, however brilliant their acquirements, still should they be in error concerning the Faith, shall we not have purchased them at too high a price?

Brighter ornaments we may never hope to see than that army of martyrs, those profoundly learned and eminently pious men, the sanctity of whose lives, the fervour of whose holy zeal in the cause of Christ have shed an undying lustre on the religion they professed when living, and who being dead yet speak—and in the accents of encouragement to the _tenderest_ conscience, seem to breathe a _crede nobis_,—the Church in the holy communion of which WE lived and died, proffers nothing to be received as an article of faith, that is “not _agreeable_ to the word of _God_,” nothing as a point of discipline “that is _contrary_ to it.”

“_I would remove every obstacle in the way of Subscription_, _by which tender consciences of unquestionable orthodoxy_, _agreeing on every point essential to Christianity_, _might be relieved from difficulties_, _which I know weigh much with men of honourable and high feeling_.”

But when Subscription is objected to as it is by the petitioners, because they think it pledges them to an assent to things unscriptural, as for instance “the _unscriptural character_ of the Athanasian Creed,” as it is viewed by the _Messrs. Hull_, and the non-agreement of it, and other matters in the scripture as they are viewed by yourself—when the alternative is to give assent to matters that are _contrary to scripture_, or to sacrifice “_truth and honesty_,”—surely the expression of a _tender_ conscience is incorrectly applied to men like these. For what must be the _toughness_ of theirs who could submit to the alternative?

But although the Bishop of Norwich would not allow “liberty of conscience” to extend so far as to trench upon the “essential doctrines of the Christian Church.” Nevertheless, having alluded in his speech to the difficult circumstances in which the reformers were placed, and in consequence of which “_the Articles of the Church were framed on a reference to the opinions of a very wide body who differed among themselves on many important points_.” His Lordship contends in the “brief defence” of his speech, “that it only _requires the full carrying out of this principle into practice_, to meet the difficulties of the present case.” {31}

The radical reformer of the State contends that it only requires the _full carrying out_ of the principle of the Reform Bill, to give universal suffrage and universal satisfaction to the people, and I am inclined to think that the result in either case would be pretty much the same—equally disastrous to the Church as to the State.

But it has been contended during the present movement, that if alterations be made in our Liturgy to meet one tender conscience, a similar boon should be extended to all. Upon this objection his Lordship argues, “if this be true, it is much more true that if _no latitude_ is to be allowed in any subordinate point, we cannot make exceptions in one case more than another.” But this appears to me to be a _petitio principii_, it is assuming that there is no existing “elasticity,” no departure from an _iota_ admissible, _no latitude_ in any point, subordinate or otherwise already recognized, and if so, seeing that on most of the points on which your objections hinge, his Lordship would seem, from his pamphlet, to coincide with you in your views, it might not unreasonably be asked,—how Dr. Stanley came to be at this moment, Bishop of Norwich.

Still, I think it may reasonably be asked, as it is, if this principle of concession in consideration to _tender consciences_ be once admitted, where are the probable demands upon it likely to find a limit?

The question would seem then to resolve itself into a choice of evils, and _e malis minimum_, we must ask therefore, which would be most conducive to the welfare and _respectability_ of the Church, to require Subscription to be made unreservedly and according to the literal meaning of the words and sense in which they were imposed, or to allow such a latitude as may enable every one to subscribe in what sense he please?—“_Quicunque vult_, is an ill preface to a law.”

A proposition similar to the last has been stated and canvassed by _Bishop Jeremy Taylor_, and he says of it—“This is the last remedy, but it is the worst, it hath in it something of craft, but very little of ingenuity, and if it serve the ends of peace or external charity, or a fantastic concord, yet it cannot serve the ends of truth and holiness, and christian simplicity.” {32}

How far the Bishop of Norwich may be disposed to go in carrying out his benevolent object (and I speak it in perfect sincerity, for I believe his Lordship to be actuated by the very best intentions), of giving relief to tender consciences and promoting peace and unity amongst Christians, I pretend not to say—for his Lordship’s pamphlet leaves the matter more doubtful than his speech, inasmuch as amongst those whose sentiments his Lordship quotes as being most in accordance with his own, and with reference to whom “compared with many of their modern opponents,” he says—

Mallem magis cum Platone errare quam cum istis rectè sentire.

His Lordship quotes the opinion of Bishop Warburton, namely, that “_schism_ which all must admit to be an evil, is one which nothing but the Church _widening her communion_, can prevent or cure.” {33}

I confess I could never clearly see how the Church _can_ conscientiously _widen_ her communion. What are the pleas for separation? They hinge not on _letters_ and _iotas_, nor on this or that particular _passage_ in our Liturgy, they resolve themselves into _two_—our Doctrines and our Church Government. One or other of these is the plea alleged by _every denomination_ of separatists, from the frigid _Socinian_, to the fanatical _Jumper_. Giving these separatists therefore credit for seceding or keeping aloof of us on these grounds, and, that _for conscience sake_—we can only expect to “prevent schism,” by leaving the divinity of our Saviour “an open question,” and abolishing Episcopacy altogether.

But may we not ask, if tenderness of conscience is to be respected when it takes offence at _non-essentials_, why is it to be disregarded when it stumbles at the far more important matters, _the essentials_ of Christianity, the “distinguishing features of the Christian Church?” and is not Episcopacy a distinguishing feature? But with the exception of the Roman Catholic, there is not a separatist in the three kingdoms who is agreed with us on that point. Are the divinity of Christ and the atonement essential doctrines? But the so called Unitarian, in the exercise of his private judgment, pronounces them to be falsehoods. Is Infant Baptism a distinguishing feature? But the Baptist, as he styles himself, condemns it as a senseless and unscriptural rite, nor will the liberty in which he indulges his conscience permit him to hold communion with any Church that practises it. Is the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper a distinguishing feature? But the tender conscience of the Quaker rioting in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made him free, will not deign to return to these “beggarly elements,”—“the _policy of Satan_ busying people with outward signs.” {34a}

Since then we must give up the pleasing hope of bringing schismatics _back_ to the fold, we may narrow the question, and limit the proposed revision of our Articles and Liturgy, to the removal of every “cause of uneasiness” to the tender consciences of our brethren within the pale. “This,” as you justly observe, “would probably occasion some trouble and difficulty,” {34b} not that this ought to be objected if the charitable object could be effected by any _reasonable_ sacrifice. You admit that already “more is proposed that is either necessary or desirable.” {34c} The Bishop of London {34d} “would not be disposed to go as far as you,” whilst some perhaps with the modesty of old _Richard Baxter_, might propose to put the unclean thing away altogether, and to substitute a new and much improved Liturgy of their own. Let us once open the commission, institute this Court of Relief for tender consciences, and we shall have no lack of appellants.

Utor permisso—caudœque pilos ut equinæ, Paulatim vello—demo unum, demo etiam unum, Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi. {36a}

The difficulties of the subject seem to be confessed by all, except it may be by the _Brothers Hull_, who seem to see none or very few. But the Bishop of Norwich observes, “_I agree that there are what to some may be deemed almost insuperable difficulties in the way of any change in the Liturgy_, _and perhaps in the Articles_.” Nor would these difficulties seem to be lessened, if his Lordship’s view of the present state of the Church be correct, it being his opinion “that there never was a period perhaps of our Church History with so little harmony within the pale, and so fearful a prospect of fiercer and wider dissention.” {36b} “There is a lion in the way”—and for my own part I am craven enough to say there let him lie—_couchant_ he is likely to be less troublesome than _rampant_. And the better part of valour is discretion.

And as his Lordship tells us that “he believes the Clergy as a body would not consent to any change” in the Liturgy. We may infer that that absence of harmony to which his Lordship alludes, from whatever other causes it may arise, originates in no want of unanimity in the Church on the score of _Subscription_, and that there would seem but little necessity, for the sake of _peace_, to embark upon the dangerous experiment of a revision.

It being then admitted that “the Clergy as a body would not consent to any change in the Liturgy or Articles,” we must presume that they can _unreservedly_ make the Subscription in its present form. And putting aside your own peculiar case, we must also presume of those persons who recently petitioned parliament, in the character of Clergymen of the Church of England, that although they might think some _Expansion_ of Subscription desirable, in consideration to others, did nevertheless make their own with a safe conscience and with the honest intention of fulfilling their engagements, by a general conformity to the prescribed Services of our Church. They subscribed, we must presume, with no _such latitude_ of _opinion_ as would admit of an habitual _deviation_ from, either by alteration or a summary omission, of such parts of our Services, as they could not satisfactorily reconcile with their own private opinions. _Mr. Maty_, a former seceder from our establishment, could not consider such a latitude of the construction of his Subscription compatible with his honesty. In a letter to _Mr. Lindsey_, he says, “finally, I can neither submit to acquiesce in silence, after having made my objections known, nor take upon me to alter the Service of the Church as long as I continue to profess myself a minister of it.” {37}

Properly appreciating this sentiment, we must conclude that the Bishop of Norwich understood the prayer of the petitioners with no reference to such a practice as _Mr. Maty_ here condemns, when he represented them as praying “that that which is consented to and allowed privately, may be the avowed and acknowledged sentiments of the Church at large.” Yet in their “explanation of the statements of the petition,” and the object which _they_ had in view, the _Messrs. Hull_, enumerate amongst these deviations from the authorized forms and positive obligations of _the Church_, _sanctioned_ as they assert _by general practice_; the omission of the Athanasian Creed, the change or omission of certain sentences in the Burial Service, and the substitution of other lessons than those appointed by the Church. Now I must think, that if a complaint were preferred against a Clergyman to his Diocesan for _habitually_ and advisedly deviating thus from his _positive obligations_, the complainants would scarcely be told that such things were _consented to and allowed privately by the Church_. If so, for consistency’s sake it might be as well to expunge in future from the Churchwardens’ Articles of Enquiry exhibited at Episcopal Visitations, any such query as the following, “Doth the Incumbent or Curate regularly read service with the Litany and Creeds, exactly according to the Rubric of the Book of Common Prayer, without omission, addition, or alteration?” {38}

_You_ represent the petitioners “as having presented to parliament the sound and reasonable prayer, _that the law and the practice should be assimilated_.” You mean, I presume, that some regard should be had to the nature of the thing _practised_, otherwise I must think your principle a very _unsound_ one. For instance, it is to be feared that a habit prevails sadly too much amongst both high and low, of neglecting the observance of the sabbath day and keeping it anything but holy. But I would not therefore assimilate the _law_ to this practice and go to parliament for an act to legalize sabbath breaking. And even in respect to the prayer of the petitioners, I should say that the Archbishop’s proposition that steps should be taken to assimilate the _practice_ to the _law_, was the sounder one of the two.

But the _Messrs. Hull_ in _their_ view of the matter, represent the Bishop of Norwich—“as pleading strongly for that privilege which should be conceded to every ingenuous mind, to mean what it says, and to say what it means.” A form of Subscription such as would admit of every one saying what he means, seems to have been the view which the Bishop of London took of the object of the petitioners, and called it very truly,—“expansion with a vengeance.”

But you would make us, by our present Subscription, say much more than we mean, and mean much more than we say, for instance, you would contend that we declare by Subscription, “that every word of the _Homilies_, is _agreeable_ to the word of God,” the laity, you say “_feel_ not what it is to subscribe _literally_ to _every word_ of the _Homilies_, Rites, and Ceremonies,” {39a} and again, “if a Subscription to _the Liturgy_ as _agreeable_ to the word of God is still maintained to be indispensable,” {39b} and further, the petition states, that the Clergy are “commonly understood to be _bound_ to the observance of _all the Canons_.” {39c} Now, I cannot think that you give quite a correct view of Subscription. Amongst your illustrations, you say, “our Subscription _literally_ taken calls upon a person to declare that the delivery of a marriage ring and the Apostles’ Creed are equally _agreeable_ to scripture!” {40} But the very _letter_ of our Subscription is opposed to this view of it.—We know of nothing in scripture agreeable to or agreeing with any part of our marriage ceremony, unless it be a supper; neither have we any “scripture warrant” for our custom of kneeling when receiving the sacrament, none for signing with the sign of the cross, no _direct_ warrant baptizing infants, in short, _literally_ we do _not_ subscribe to _the Liturgy_ as being _agreeable_ to the word of God, but containing nothing _contrary_ to it.

Neither do we “subscribe _literally_ and to every word of the Homilies” as being agreeable to the word of God. I could produce you many a quaint passage from their exhortations, to which we should be puzzled to find anything agreeable in scripture, though nothing perhaps contrary to the spirit of them.

And as to the Canons, so far from feeling ourselves _bound_ to a _voluntary_ observance of them all, I have no recollection of pledging myself by any Subscription at my ordination to the observance of any of them. “As to the Canons,” says _Archdeacon Sharpe_, “to which we are _not bound by any formal promise_, but only by virtue of their own authority. I believe no one will say that we are bound to pay obedience to them all, according to the letter of them.” Say then, that there are amongst them some, which as the petitioners allege “could not in these days be acted upon,” if so, they are the less likely to cause them any grievance. And as to the alleged inexpediency of acting upon others, let us leave that to be judged of by our superiors, whom we are bound to obey, at least so I understood my ordination vows. But our objection to a revision of our Laws Ecclesiastical arises from no over-weaning affection for these inoperative canons, but from a desire rather to

“ . . . bear the ills we have Than fly to others, that we know not of.”

But to the observance of the Rubric, we are unquestionably pledged. And it is preferred by the _Messrs. Hull_, “as a charge against the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, that at their ordination they pledged themselves to observe the Rubric, and so to confirm in a given way. But they do not confirm in that way, and do confirm in another,” _ergo valet consequentia_. But, after mentioning in the strongest terms our obligations to a strict observance of the Rubric, _Archdeacon Sharpe_ says, “this indeed we must always take along with us, that our obligations to observe the Rubric, how indispensable soever, are subject to this _proviso_—namely, that the thing prescribed _be a thing practicable_.” And as the _Messrs. Hull_ admit that “the Bishops from the multitudes of candidates, _could not_ confirm according to the Rubric,” we will leave the Bishops to settle this matter with their own consciences, believing that their characters are not so far compromised by the deviation, as to render it imperative upon them, to plunge at all hazards into a revision.

Our Articles were agreed upon, as you observe, “for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the stablishing consent touching true religion.” In accomplishing this, you seem to think that they have signally failed. In those cases, however, where the Article has advisedly been drawn up for the purpose of admitting men holding certain differences of opinion on the general doctrine contained in it, the contemplated result can scarcely be looked upon as indicative of any failure of the object. But I cannot see that the existence of one evil in a system, if the extent to which this latitude goes _be_ one, which I do not admit, is a sound argument for the bringing in of many more. “If,” says _Dr. Randolph_, “the best method we can think of to avoid diversities of opinion and establish consent touching true religion, has through the perverseness and corruption of mankind a contrary effect, surely not we, but these hypocrites, are to blame. But we cannot think it a good reason for throwing down all the fences of our vineyard, because some wild boars will sometimes break through them.” {42} It appears, however, that _you_ would only leave a few gaps in the fence, the thirty-nine Articles you would abolish at one fell swoop, and from the passing of your proposed BILL for the consolidating the laws of religious tests, or Subscriptions, &c. “you would have it enacted, that nothing be required but assent to the doctrines set forth in the three Creeds, as agreeable to scripture; assent to the truth of the scriptures themselves; and that they contain all things necessary to salvation.”