Part 3

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.

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 period when they were most acceptable.

There are a few whom I have also to thank for having placed before me every fault in my conduct, and every objection to my statements, which, I conclude, from the tenour of their remarks, could be discovered or supposed. It is related, I think, of Archbishop Tillotson that he had in a conspicuous part of his library a collection of remarkably bound books; and that, on a friend inquiring what they were, he answered, “Those are my best friends—the authors who have written against me.” With the same feeling, I beg again to thank the writers last mentioned; though I must express my regret that Christians should write in a spirit so unbecoming, according to my view, in a true follower of the Gospel of Christ.

* * * * *

THE END.

* * * * *

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 proportion 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.