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.