(1) “Subscription alone is now in view; and while that remains as it
is, and English words retain their meaning, and an English history of
facts can be found, and any clear apprehension of the meaning of
truth remains with us, the perversion of our Form of Subscription,
and the misrepresentation of our Articles, attempted by any who argue
that they were not intended to condemn Romanism, whether as held
before or after the Council of Trent, ought to excite, in every
honest mind, an indignation which it is a virtue to feel and a duty
to express. If it be questioned where such views have been advanced,
it is sufficient to refer to Tract No. 90, now before the writer of
these pages, though other instances might be cited from authors who
have subscribed the Articles.
(2) “If we turn to another section of the English clergy, that most
opposed to the views of the tractarians, however they command our
respect from their piety, and zeal, and hearty attachment to
Scriptural truth and sound doctrine; yet some of them cannot be
esteemed clear of all blame on the question now considered. The
writer can here speak from personal knowledge. In their views as to
baptismal regeneration, certainly opposed to the strict language of
our formularies; in their dislike of other parts of our services, and
sometimes in the disuse or change of certain terms, is to be found a
proof that to them Subscription is not altogether satisfactory; and
the often-avowed concession, that the excellence of our system of
doctrine and worship, _as a whole_, reconciles their minds to some
imperfections, is enough to show that, in subscribing, some violence
is done to simple truth. They argue, and justly, that no human work
can literally demand an unqualified approbation, but our Subscription
does require it. Such arguments, then, cannot be altogether
satisfactory to him who uses them, or to many to whom they may be
offered; and truth, it cannot be denied, is to some extent dishonored
and damaged in their use.
(3) “In that section again of subscribers who embrace Calvinistic
doctrines, though the writer considers that some of the Articles are
more unequivocally favorable to them than their opponents, yet it
cannot be forgotten how frequently and decidedly it has been
declared, ex cathedrâ, that theirs are not the doctrines of the
Church of England.
(4) “Another large section of the English clergy may be now
comprised under the name of old-fashioned high-churchmen; and of that
title, it is believed, they will not themselves complain. Many of
them would gladly extract the honey from the tractarian school,
without sufficiently considering how poisonous the plant whose growth
they are to some extent fostering. They insist often on an exact
compliance with Rubrics, and must forgive me for saying that few
amongst them have fulfilled these in their own practice. Till very
lately, it would indeed be difficult to find many clergymen, or one
bishop, within the last fifty years, who have strictly observed the
Rubrics—still less the Canons. Some of them speak also of a literal
Subscription; but here again the writer can of his own knowledge
state, that numbers claim and use a considerable latitude in
subscribing, and are satisfied with asserting their _general_
attachment to the Formularies of the Church. Of their Arminian views
as to doctrine, it is hardly necessary to call to mind how much they
are opposed to others amongst their brethren, and, in the writer’s
judgment, to the Articles themselves.
(5) “In another section may be comprised those who desire
improvement in many things relating to the spiritual affairs of our
Church. Some have openly expressed this desire; a far larger number
cherish it in silence. They who have spoken out have strongly stated
their conviction, that a Church, without the means of even entering
upon deliberation as to one general improvement in its spiritual
concerns, is in a false and unscriptural position. With respect to
the Forms of Subscription and the interpretation of the Articles,
some have formally requested a change, or rather an authoritative
solution of the many doubts and uncertainties which now embarrass the
question.”
Having adduced these allegations in support of your position, in which
you endeavor to implicate every section (as your term is) of the English
clergy, in a culpable act in the matter of Subscription; you then draw
the inference, that by far the greater portion of the clergy in the
several “sections,” have tampered with their ordination vow; and finally,
you come to the conclusion, or rather, as if doubting, whether you had so
far succeeded as to arrive at a legitimate conclusion, you put the
question, whether the affirmation is too strong, that “Subscription is
the Disgrace of the English Church.”
“Thus while we perceive the variety of opinion prevailing amongst
these several sections—a variety which, were it not impeded by
Subscription, would find a harmless or beneficial vent in a free
inquiry after Scriptural truth—we see also that from all of them,
more or less, Subscription is requiring that which, in the ordinary
affairs of life, high-minded men would abstain from; namely, the
necessity for qualifying the plain and straight-forward use of
language. Is this a condition favorable to the reputation of
teachers of truth; and is it too strong a conclusion, at least from
some parts of the above account, to affirm, that Subscription is the
disgrace of the English Church?”
I shall now proceed to examine and discuss your allegations _seriatim_,
and see how far they are founded in fact; after which I shall adduce
evidence of a counter tendency, arising from a personal knowledge of
facts, and an intimate acquaintance with the opinions of individual
clergy.
(1) In the first paragraph, you alledge that our form of Subscription
has been perverted and our Articles misrepresented by persons “who argue
that they were not intended to condemn Romanism;” and, in proof of this,
you “think it sufficient to refer to Tract No. 90, though,” as you state,
“other instances might be cited from authors who have subscribed the
Articles.”
Now, as “one swallow does not make a summer,” so neither does one
individual, nor several, (and I believe they are not many altogether, who
hold with Tract No. 90,) constitute in that particular, a _general_
“perversion of our Form of Subscription,” or a _general_
“misrepresentation of our Articles.” I am not ignorant that it has been
the common prejudice to stamp as a tractarian every man who avows that he
upholds generally the Apostolical Succession, and Baptismal Regeneration,
has lately seen it right to have divine service in his church during
Lent, and at other times appointed by the Rubric, and especially if he
preach in a surplice, although he may differ from Tract No. 90, and its
principles, as widely as possible. And I cannot help thinking that you
have been carried away by this mistaken notion. But look calmly and
impartially around, and say from your own knowledge how many are the
clergy in the diocese of Norwich, who countenance the principles of Tract
Nos. 90, or 85, or 80, or indeed other tracts, which may be repugnant to
the doctrines of our church: are there three? are there two? or one? But
if I grant you that there are half-a-dozen, (and except in argument I
would not allow so many,) considering that in the diocese there are
upwards of eight hundred clergy, it will little avail you.
(2) In the next paragraph, which embraces that “section of the clergy
most opposed to the views of the Tractarians, you speak from personal
knowledge;” and you say, “in their views as to Baptismal Regeneration,
certainly opposed to the strict language of our Formularies; in their
dislike of other parts of our services, and sometimes in their disuse of
certain terms, is to be found a proof that to them Subscription is not
altogether satisfactory.” I do not deny that there may be among that
body of the clergy some who do not admit Baptismal Regeneration,
according to the strict language of our Formularies: but I believe they
are by no means so numerous as you would have it inferred. I can affirm,
from personal knowledge, that some of that party do hold that doctrine
strictly in accordance with the church, and that I scarcely know one who
does not admit it, at least in a modified sense. You are aware that the
word “regeneration,” instead of being restricted to Baptism, as it is in
our Articles and Liturgy, and, as I believe, also in the New Testament,
has, by many divines as well as others, long been used in a looser
signification, to denote “conversion,” “renovation,” &c., which may be
necessary after Baptism. Hence there is reason to think that frequently
the difference is more in name than in reality. I can also state
positively that, upon this point, within very few years, the views of
many amongst this party have undergone considerable change, and closely
approximated to those of the church. If, however, upon one of the most
difficult and abstruse doctrines of Christianity there should be shades
of opinion, it is only to be expected; considering that all have not
equally faith to receive, or the capacity to comprehend the “things hard
to be understood.” Neither do I think it quite charitable to set down
this circumstance to their “disgrace,” or to that of the church of which
they are ministers. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?
To his own master he standeth or falleth.” {14} Moreover, in this
neighborhood, I am acquainted with several of the clergy, who would
probably rank themselves under this “section,” who are not behind any of
their neighbors in the exact observance of the Liturgy.
With regard to those “Subscribers who embrace Calvinistic doctrines,” any
comment of mine would be superfluous, as it is clear, from the tenor of
your observations, that you are ready to defend _their_ view of the
Articles.
We now come to a section of the clergy whom you denominate “old-fashioned
high-churchmen.” Your main charge against these is, that whilst “they
insist often on an exact compliance with Rubrics,” few amongst them have
fulfilled these in their own practice. The supposition of error
attaching to them in their “Arminian views of doctrine,” being matter of
private opinion, may be dismissed as irrelevant. The charge, then, may
be regarded as a default in Rubrical _practice_. This accusation,
however, is of the less importance, as it is not contended, neither
indeed can be, that there exists in the clergy a conscientious objection
to a compliance with any of the Rubrical directions—only that “few
amongst them have fulfilled these in their own practice.” And thus much
is fully conceded.
If it were material to the point, it would be no difficult task, in
extenuation of those who deviate from the strict letter of the Rubric, to
prove that the Rubrics are not always definite, and frequently admit of a
variety of construction—that to a certain extent the church accords to
its ministers a discretionary judgment in this as in all other
things—that at the present time there exists a prevailing disposition to
revive much which has fallen into desuetude, and an earnest desire to
carry out the Rubrics in all their practical utility—and consequently,
that there is notwithstanding a great deal of honest and upright
practice. But your charge affects not the clergy, but Subscription. It
will therefore be a sufficient answer, to refer you to Article 34, in
which it is stated—that “every particular or national church hath
authority to _ordain_, _change_, and _abolish ceremonies or rites_ of the
church, ordained only by man’s authority,” in order to remind you that,
without having recourse to that measure, which in the sequel you
propound, the church _does_ possess a provision to abrogate or enact,
whenever it may be deemed by the legislature expedient to direct the
Convocation to proceed with that business.
(5) In the last “section” of the clergy, whose views you notice, I see
nothing in the slightest degree inconsistent with their Subscription.
Surely, according to Article 20, which states that “the church hath power
to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith,”
it is quite competent for any clergyman to state strongly his conviction,
that a church, without even the power of entering upon the means of
deliberation as to one general improvement in its spiritual concerns, is
in a false and unscriptural position. The summoning of convocation rests
with the legislature, and not with the church, and is a matter of
expediency upon which every individual clergyman may entertain his own
opinion.
I have now carefully, and for my readers I fear too tediously, gone
through your allegations; but as I conceived that your proposition
depended _solely_ upon their being supported and established by facts, I
trust I shall be excused if I have made a point of examining them with
that patience and candor, which I thought their importance demanded.
I find then, that, because an indefinitely small number of the clergy in
every diocese _may_ agree with the author of Tract No. 90,—because a
portion of a certain “section” of the clergy possibly do not hold
Baptismal Regeneration in strict accordance with the Articles and
Liturgy—because some incline to Calvinistic, some to Arminian views of
doctrine—because, in practice, an exact conformity to the Rubrics does
not obtain, notwithstanding that in the 34th article express provision is
made to meet this case in all its bearings, and because, in accordance
with the 20th article, certain persons avow that a church, without the
means of deliberation, is in a false and unscriptural
position—_Therefore_ “Subscription is the Disgrace of the English
Church.”
Such is the conclusion at which you arrive from your premises—a
conclusion, in my humble opinion, so slightly supported by fact, that I
can hardly bring myself to think, but that, if there had not existed a
strong propension, a predetermination to come at this result, your
judgment would have rejected the evidence as totally insufficient to
support it.
I now proceed to adduce evidence of a counter-tendency, arising from a
personal knowledge of facts, and an intimate acquaintance with the
opinions of individual clergy.
In 1838 I preached at Yarmouth before the Lord Bishop of Norwich,
yourself, and a numerous body of the Clergy residing in the two adjoining
Deaneries, a Sermon, in which I delivered the following sentences,
_viz._—
“By God’s providence, my Reverend Brethren, we have been ordained
ministers ‘of that pure and reformed part of Christ’s church
established in this kingdom,’ which, from the deepest conviction, we
believe to be ‘built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone;’ and in
obedience to her authority, and in conformity with her Articles and
Liturgy, we have pledged ourselves to discharge the functions of our
ministry.
“I have been ordained to ‘administer the doctrine and sacraments and
discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this church
and realm hath received the same.’ And, until I am convinced that
she is in error—that her Articles or her Liturgy contain ‘things
which are neither read in scripture, nor may be proved thereby,’ as a
minister of the Church of England, I may not indulge in speculations
of my own imagination, or perform her offices in ways and modes of my
own devising, but I must labor for the edification and salvation of
the souls entrusted to my care, according to the laws, the
regulations, and the spirit of the Church of England, which is the
Church of Christ. When I can no longer do so conscientiously, it
will then become me no longer to appropriate her emoluments.
“But revering and loving her doctrine, and approving her discipline,
I can well repose myself under her guidance and administration.
These, my Reverend Brethren, I may venture to hope, are equally the
sentiments of us all.”
Whatever might be the individual opinion entertained of the obligations
under which, on that occasion, I apprehended myself and all ministers of
the Gospel to be, or of the sentiments which I expressed in regard to
those obligations,—the Sermon, containing this acknowledgment of our
ministerial engagements, and this expression of corresponding sentiments,
was requested by the assemblage then present, without a dissentient
voice, to be printed; and I think the charitable inference is, that each
individual sanctioned with his approbation the sentiments delivered in
that discourse.
If this construction upon their unanimous act be correct, the accidental
publication of this Sermon will go far to exonerate the parties then
present from the imputation of disingenuous Subscription, which, I must
needs think, in your general remarks, you have endeavoured to attach to
them.
But so far as it concerns my neighbours, I have yet something more
certain than a fair and presumptive inference to advance. My personal
intimacy with many of the Clergy around me, enables me to add my belief
that these sentiments _are_ theirs, equally as mine. And if this be true
of the Clergy in one district taken indiscriminately, why should they not
be the opinions of the Clergy of other deaneries and other dioceses?
Until you can give me positive proof to the contrary, I shall charitably
presume that they are so; and leave you to reconcile with fact the
following extraordinary, and to me unaccountable, assertion:—
“Subscription, instead of being the tie which is to bind people to
certain opinions or truths, is become a rope of sand. So uncertain
is the trumpet’s sound, that it no longer, as of old, proclaims the
spirit of an united host, but turns every man’s sword against his
fellow: and Englishmen must soon awake to the conviction that
Subscription, according to the plain meaning of the words, is blown
to the winds, and become the disgrace and not the safeguard of the
English Church.”
Under ordinary circumstances it would seem sufficient to have made a
general statement in regard to Subscription, but as you have
particularised three several points to which you take exception in the
matter of Subscription, it might appear uncandid to pass them over
without more especial comment.