Part 2

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?