This is the form embodied in the thirty-sixth Canon, and is as follows:—

I. That the King’s Majesty, under God, is the only supreme Governor of

this Realm, and of all other his Highnesses dominions and countries, as

well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal; and

that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or

ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or

authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within his Majesty’s said realms,

dominions, and countries.

II. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of bishops, priests,

and deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and

that it may lawfully so be used; and that he himself will use the form in

the said book prescribed, in publick prayer, and administration of the

Sacraments, and none other.

III. That he alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion, agreed upon by

the archbishops and bishops of both provinces, and the whole clergy in

the Convocation, holden at London, in the year of our Lord 1562; and that

he acknowledgeth all and every the articles therein contained, being in

number nine-and-thirty, besides the ratification, to be agreeable to the

Word of God.

* * * * *

But the Church’s form was too temperate for the vindictive spirit of

Charles II. and his Parliament; and therefore, without consulting the

Church at all, the King’s Majesty, with the consent of the Lords and

Commons, enacted a new form of Subscription, and imposed it on all those

who either held any benefice at the time, or should hereafter be

presented to one. No one, therefore, need fear that his allegiance to

the Church would be in any manner compromised by his disapprobation of

the form of Subscription required by the Act of Uniformity; for the

Church has never had anything to do with it beyond bearing the blame. It

is a test imposed on Churchmen by Act of Parliament, without the

concurrence of the Church itself, and virtually supersedes the form which

the Church has provided. It appears to me, therefore, that loyalty to

our Church would lead us respectfully to petition for the repeal of the

Parliamentary enactment, that so our Church may be permitted to carry out

her own principles, and make use of the form deliberately drawn up by

Convocation, and sanctioned by the Crown.##

(2.) It is impossible to prove a negative; and I may be mistaken: but I

am not able to discover that such a form of Subscription as that required

by the Act of Uniformity was ever known in the whole history of

Christendom. Churches, one after another, have drawn up Confessions of

Faith, and employed them as tests of opinion in the admission of their

ministers. Most Churches have prepared liturgical forms for devotional

purposes, and required the use of these forms in public worship. The

Confession of Faith has been carefully drawn up for one object, and the

Liturgy for another; the one to secure sound doctrine, and the other pure

devotional worship. So the Church of England, in _its_ form of

Subscription, has kept the distinction perfectly clear. It requires the

new incumbent to subscribe “that he alloweth the Book of Articles to be

agreeable to the Word of God,” thereby giving a positive acknowledgment

of their truth. But of the devotional book, the Book of Common Prayer,

it requires him to sign,—“That it containeth in it nothing contrary to

the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used, and that he himself

will use the form in the said book prescribed, in publick prayer and

administration of the Sacraments, and none other.” The Book of Articles

is employed as a Confession of Faith, or test of opinion; whereas all

that is required respecting the Book of Common Prayer is the promise to

use it, with the declaration that there is nothing wrong in so doing.

But this temperate spirit of the Church was not sufficient for the

purposes of Charles and his Parliament. The persons whom they wanted to

turn out believed in the Articles, and were, many of them, quite willing

to use the Prayer-book. Thus the Church’s principles were insufficient

for their ejection, and, in order to get rid of them, the plan was

devised of omitting all specific mention of the Articles, and making use

of the whole book as the test or confession of faith. A long devotional

book of 400 pages, containing prayers, Psalms as pointed for chanting,

rubrics, addresses, and special services, some of which can be used by

the Bishops only, are all massed together, and made into a new exclusive

creed. There is no exception made for anything. “All and every thing”

is alike included, and the language is made as stringent as possible. It

is as follows:—

“I, A. B., do hereby declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all

and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the book

intituled, The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the

Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according

to the uses of the Church of England; together with the Psalter, or

Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be said or sung in Churches;

and the form or manner of making, ordaining, and consecrating of

Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.”

Never, I believe, was a more flagrant misuse of any document. The book

was prepared for one purpose, and then, for party ends, employed for

another. Prayers were made into creeds; the pointing of the Psalms into

a test of opinion; and rubrics into confessions of faith. Fortunately,

there is wonderfully little in the book, taken as a whole, to wound the

conscience of those who subscribe to the Articles. But that is not the

point. The real question is, whether prayers, pointings, rubrics, &c.,

should be employed as creeds. My own belief is, that they never ought to

be; for, if there is the accuracy of the creed, there cannot be the

devotional warmth of the prayer; that they never have been, except in

this instance; and that they would not have been, even in 1662, had it

not been for the spirit of retaliation, which, unhappily, induced the

King and Parliament to agree in passing the Act of Uniformity.

(3.) But as the form of Subscription is Wrong in principle, so to many

conscientious minds it becomes painful in practice.

In a long devotional book it is next to impossible that all and

everything should be exactly to the mind of any one, and of all the

thousands of clergymen who regard the Liturgy as amongst the most sacred

possessions ever given to a Church I believe there are very few who would

not rejoice over a slight change here and there, if only they could be

sure that no changes which they disapproved would be introduced with

those they would approve. Looking at the book in its comprehensive

character, as containing a Calendar of Lessons, a vast number of rubrics,

the Psalms pointed for chanting, and several occasional services, it is

vain to expect that every point of detail shall be exactly to the mind of

any man. However decided the general approval, there must of necessity

be points of detail which grate, to say the least, on the feelings, if

they are not opposed to the judgment. Thus there are many persons who

believe that there is nothing contrary to God’s Word in the Prayer-book,

and that it may be lawfully used, who still consider that “assent and

consent to all and every thing” is too strong a term to express their

state of mind respecting it. The result is that some are deterred from

entering the ministry, others decline or resign preferment; while many

others would consider it a great relief if the form in the Canon were

substituted for that in the Act of Parliament.

(4.) But there is another objection of a much graver character, and one

which, in these days of loose opinion, is, I believe, far more important

than any already mentioned. By the confusion of the Articles and the

ritual in one form of Subscription the door is opened for great laxity as

to doctrine.

To meet the difficulty which conscientious persons may feel with

reference to the ritual, our Church, in the preface, claims for the book

that it shall “be allowed such just and favourable construction as in

common equity ought to be allowed to all human writings, especially such

as are set forth by authority.” It is supposed, therefore, by the

Church, that each clergyman will put his own favourable construction on

the details of the book, which, as a whole, he greatly values; and,

provided that he does not consider any portion contrary to God’s Word,

she is prepared to entrust him with the use of it in the public ministry.

Now, such a principle as this is all very well with reference to forms,

but becomes inexpressibly dangerous when applied to doctrines. It is

only right that men should be allowed to entertain their own opinion

respecting the selection of lessons in the calendar; but the very life of

the Church is imperilled if we admit a similar latitude respecting the

essential truths of Christianity. Thus, the Act of Uniformity, by

confusing the two in one form of Subscription, practically opens the way

for laxity of religious belief. It puts those who do not believe in the

Thirty-nine Articles in the same position as those who think that

mistakes have been made in the calendar, or that the mind of the Church

would be better expressed if two or three sentences amongst the

occasional services were omitted or slightly modified. The favourable

construction which is necessary for a comprehensive ritual is claimed

equally for the confession of faith, and the denial of revealed truth is

placed on the same level as a scruple about a rubric. To the mind of

Charles and his advisers I am inclined to think that the two were of

equal importance, or possibly the forms were more important than the

doctrines. But men of all classes are now, thank God, waking up to the

conviction that all matters of ritual are as nothing when compared with

the truth as revealed in Scripture; and it is lamentable to think that

those who deny such a doctrine as the Atonement should be no more

condemned by their Subscription than are those conscientious men who are

made uncomfortable by a few trifling matters in the ritual.

The conclusion, therefore, is that, just in proportion as we value Divine

truth, we should endeavour to fall back on the wisdom of our forefathers,

who kept the two things quite distinct; and that there ought to be two

forms of Subscription, as directed by the Canon, instead of one, as

required by the Act of Uniformity; that so our adhesion to the great

scriptural and essential truths of the Gospel may stand out, as the

Church has placed it, quite distinct from our approbation of the various

details of the ritual.

But it is frequently argued that, if we touch any portion of the Act of

Uniformity, the whole would be endangered; and it is regarded as so

sacred a bulwark around the truth that no risk must be incurred

respecting it.

Now, I believe that this respect for the Act of Uniformity arises simply

from the fact that no one reads it. The greater part has long since

become a dead-letter, and if the whole were swept away our position would

be very slightly changed. The following is a short summary:—

1. That the Book of Common Prayer as revised in 1660 should be used

instead of that of Edward VI.

2. That all parsons, vicars, or other ministers should subscribe,

according to the form above given, before the Feast of St. Bartholomew,

1662; or within one month be deprived, _ipso facto_, of their spiritual

promotions.

3. That every person who may hereafter be presented to any living make

the same Subscription.

4. That every resident incumbent, where a curate is kept, read the

common prayers and service at least once a month, or forfeit 5_l._ to the

poor of the parish, on conviction before two justices of the peace.

5. That all deans, canons, &c., and even tutors in private families,

shall subscribe a declaration against rebellion, a promise to conform to

the Liturgy, and until the year 1682 a renunciation of the Solemn League

and Covenant.

6. That no person shall act as schoolmaster or private tutor in any

family without a licence from the Bishop, and that any person teaching

without a licence shall be liable to imprisonment for three months and a

fine of 5_l._

7. That no person shall be admitted to any benefice who is not in holy

orders by episcopal ordination; or administer the Sacrament of the Lord’s

Supper unless he be ordained priest by episcopal ordination, upon pain of

a penalty of 100_l._

8. That the penalties in this Act shall not extend to foreigners or

aliens of the Foreign Reformed Churches allowed, or to be allowed, by the

King’s Majesty, his heirs and successors in England.

9. That all heads of colleges read the Morning Prayer in their college

chapel at least once in every quarter, upon pain to lose and be suspended

of and from all benefits and profits belonging to the same Government or

Headship by the space of six months.

10. That all lecturers or preachers shall, on their admission and on the

first lecture day in every month afterwards, read the prayers for the

time of the day, and shall afterwards declare their unfeigned assent and

consent to the Book of Common Prayer according to the prescribed form;

that if they neglect to do so they shall be disabled to preach the said

or any other lecture; and that if they preach when so disabled they shall

suffer three months’ imprisonment in the common gaol without bail or

main-prise.

11. That whenever a sermon or lecture is to be preached the common

prayer and service for that time of the day must be read.

Clerical Subscription and the Act of Uniformity · 第 6 / 8 题