letter to a former Bishop of London, with his exposition of the
Unitarians’ Creed, as it is given at the end of that _lucus a non
lucendo_—his “Calm Inquiry.” “That the Unitarians believe _everything
that __is essential_ to salvation is _evident_ from the unequivocal
testimony of the Apostle Paul himself, who in the Epistle to the Romans,
x. 9, expressly teaches that if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus,
and believe in our heart that God hath raised him from the dead, we shall
be saved.” Here then we have a professed believer in the _simplest
creed_—but will it “justify his call into the ministry?” Take again the
case of the _Baptist_, agreeing with us I believe on all the essential
doctrines of Christianity, admitting the _necessity_ of _Baptism_, but
differing from us only on a question of _time_. With our views on Infant
Baptism should we be justified in admitting him into the ministry? and if
not, what becomes of liberty of conscience and the right of private
judgment? Might not the professed believer in this simple creed and the
Baptist, under the contemplated restrictions of the principle complain
with you “that the same invasion of Christian liberty remains? Fines,
and imprisonment, and the pillory, have vanished; _exclusion_ remains (to
them) in the same unabated force.” {29} Let us then remove the
corrective remedy of Subscription to Articles of Faith, and where shall
we stay the progress of the gangrene? How shall we exclude “the naughty
seducers?”
“_I consider that by in any way expanding the sense and meaning of
Subscription_, _a boon would be granted_, _and a great benefit
conferred upon the scrupulous and tender consciences of those who are
among_”—it might be asked how they came there—“_or may become the
brightest ornaments of the establishment_.”
But if these ornaments can only be secured at the risk, I do not say with
the “_intention_” of letting into the ministry together with them, men
who hold things _contrary to sound doctrine_, however exemplary may be
their lives, however brilliant their acquirements, still should they be
in error concerning the Faith, shall we not have purchased them at too
high a price?
Brighter ornaments we may never hope to see than that army of martyrs,
those profoundly learned and eminently pious men, the sanctity of whose
lives, the fervour of whose holy zeal in the cause of Christ have shed an
undying lustre on the religion they professed when living, and who being
dead yet speak—and in the accents of encouragement to the _tenderest_
conscience, seem to breathe a _crede nobis_,—the Church in the holy
communion of which WE lived and died, proffers nothing to be received as
an article of faith, that is “not _agreeable_ to the word of _God_,”
nothing as a point of discipline “that is _contrary_ to it.”
“_I would remove every obstacle in the way of Subscription_, _by
which tender consciences of unquestionable orthodoxy_, _agreeing on
every point essential to Christianity_, _might be relieved from
difficulties_, _which I know weigh much with men of honourable and
high feeling_.”
But when Subscription is objected to as it is by the petitioners, because
they think it pledges them to an assent to things unscriptural, as for
instance “the _unscriptural character_ of the Athanasian Creed,” as it is
viewed by the _Messrs. Hull_, and the non-agreement of it, and other
matters in the scripture as they are viewed by yourself—when the
alternative is to give assent to matters that are _contrary to
scripture_, or to sacrifice “_truth and honesty_,”—surely the expression
of a _tender_ conscience is incorrectly applied to men like these. For
what must be the _toughness_ of theirs who could submit to the
alternative?
But although the Bishop of Norwich would not allow “liberty of
conscience” to extend so far as to trench upon the “essential doctrines
of the Christian Church.” Nevertheless, having alluded in his speech to
the difficult circumstances in which the reformers were placed, and in
consequence of which “_the Articles of the Church were framed on a
reference to the opinions of a very wide body who differed among
themselves on many important points_.” His Lordship contends in the
“brief defence” of his speech, “that it only _requires the full carrying
out of this principle into practice_, to meet the difficulties of the
present case.” {31}
The radical reformer of the State contends that it only requires the
_full carrying out_ of the principle of the Reform Bill, to give
universal suffrage and universal satisfaction to the people, and I am
inclined to think that the result in either case would be pretty much the
same—equally disastrous to the Church as to the State.
But it has been contended during the present movement, that if
alterations be made in our Liturgy to meet one tender conscience, a
similar boon should be extended to all. Upon this objection his Lordship
argues, “if this be true, it is much more true that if _no latitude_ is
to be allowed in any subordinate point, we cannot make exceptions in one
case more than another.” But this appears to me to be a _petitio
principii_, it is assuming that there is no existing “elasticity,” no
departure from an _iota_ admissible, _no latitude_ in any point,
subordinate or otherwise already recognized, and if so, seeing that on
most of the points on which your objections hinge, his Lordship would
seem, from his pamphlet, to coincide with you in your views, it might not
unreasonably be asked,—how Dr. Stanley came to be at this moment, Bishop
of Norwich.
Still, I think it may reasonably be asked, as it is, if this principle of
concession in consideration to _tender consciences_ be once admitted,
where are the probable demands upon it likely to find a limit?
The question would seem then to resolve itself into a choice of evils,
and _e malis minimum_, we must ask therefore, which would be most
conducive to the welfare and _respectability_ of the Church, to require
Subscription to be made unreservedly and according to the literal meaning
of the words and sense in which they were imposed, or to allow such a
latitude as may enable every one to subscribe in what sense he
please?—“_Quicunque vult_, is an ill preface to a law.”
A proposition similar to the last has been stated and canvassed by
_Bishop Jeremy Taylor_, and he says of it—“This is the last remedy, but
it is the worst, it hath in it something of craft, but very little of
ingenuity, and if it serve the ends of peace or external charity, or a
fantastic concord, yet it cannot serve the ends of truth and holiness,
and christian simplicity.” {32}
How far the Bishop of Norwich may be disposed to go in carrying out his
benevolent object (and I speak it in perfect sincerity, for I believe his
Lordship to be actuated by the very best intentions), of giving relief to
tender consciences and promoting peace and unity amongst Christians, I
pretend not to say—for his Lordship’s pamphlet leaves the matter more
doubtful than his speech, inasmuch as amongst those whose sentiments his
Lordship quotes as being most in accordance with his own, and with
reference to whom “compared with many of their modern opponents,” he
says—
Mallem magis cum Platone errare quam cum istis rectè sentire.
His Lordship quotes the opinion of Bishop Warburton, namely, that
“_schism_ which all must admit to be an evil, is one which nothing but
the Church _widening her communion_, can prevent or cure.” {33}
I confess I could never clearly see how the Church _can_ conscientiously
_widen_ her communion. What are the pleas for separation? They hinge
not on _letters_ and _iotas_, nor on this or that particular _passage_ in
our Liturgy, they resolve themselves into _two_—our Doctrines and our
Church Government. One or other of these is the plea alleged by _every
denomination_ of separatists, from the frigid _Socinian_, to the
fanatical _Jumper_. Giving these separatists therefore credit for
seceding or keeping aloof of us on these grounds, and, that _for
conscience sake_—we can only expect to “prevent schism,” by leaving the
divinity of our Saviour “an open question,” and abolishing Episcopacy
altogether.
But may we not ask, if tenderness of conscience is to be respected when
it takes offence at _non-essentials_, why is it to be disregarded when it
stumbles at the far more important matters, _the essentials_ of
Christianity, the “distinguishing features of the Christian Church?” and
is not Episcopacy a distinguishing feature? But with the exception of
the Roman Catholic, there is not a separatist in the three kingdoms who
is agreed with us on that point. Are the divinity of Christ and the
atonement essential doctrines? But the so called Unitarian, in the
exercise of his private judgment, pronounces them to be falsehoods. Is
Infant Baptism a distinguishing feature? But the Baptist, as he styles
himself, condemns it as a senseless and unscriptural rite, nor will the
liberty in which he indulges his conscience permit him to hold communion
with any Church that practises it. Is the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper
a distinguishing feature? But the tender conscience of the Quaker
rioting in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made him free, will not
deign to return to these “beggarly elements,”—“the _policy of Satan_
busying people with outward signs.” {34a}
Since then we must give up the pleasing hope of bringing schismatics
_back_ to the fold, we may narrow the question, and limit the proposed
revision of our Articles and Liturgy, to the removal of every “cause of
uneasiness” to the tender consciences of our brethren within the pale.
“This,” as you justly observe, “would probably occasion some trouble and
difficulty,” {34b} not that this ought to be objected if the charitable
object could be effected by any _reasonable_ sacrifice. You admit that
already “more is proposed that is either necessary or desirable.” {34c}
The Bishop of London {34d} “would not be disposed to go as far as you,”
whilst some perhaps with the modesty of old _Richard Baxter_, might
propose to put the unclean thing away altogether, and to substitute a new
and much improved Liturgy of their own. Let us once open the commission,
institute this Court of Relief for tender consciences, and we shall have
no lack of appellants.
Utor permisso—caudœque pilos ut equinæ,
Paulatim vello—demo unum, demo etiam unum,
Dum cadat elusus ratione ruentis acervi. {36a}
The difficulties of the subject seem to be confessed by all, except it
may be by the _Brothers Hull_, who seem to see none or very few. But the
Bishop of Norwich observes, “_I agree that there are what to some may be
deemed almost insuperable difficulties in the way of any change in the
Liturgy_, _and perhaps in the Articles_.” Nor would these difficulties
seem to be lessened, if his Lordship’s view of the present state of the
Church be correct, it being his opinion “that there never was a period
perhaps of our Church History with so little harmony within the pale, and
so fearful a prospect of fiercer and wider dissention.” {36b} “There is
a lion in the way”—and for my own part I am craven enough to say there
let him lie—_couchant_ he is likely to be less troublesome than
_rampant_. And the better part of valour is discretion.
And as his Lordship tells us that “he believes the Clergy as a body would
not consent to any change” in the Liturgy. We may infer that that
absence of harmony to which his Lordship alludes, from whatever other
causes it may arise, originates in no want of unanimity in the Church on
the score of _Subscription_, and that there would seem but little
necessity, for the sake of _peace_, to embark upon the dangerous
experiment of a revision.
It being then admitted that “the Clergy as a body would not consent to
any change in the Liturgy or Articles,” we must presume that they can
_unreservedly_ make the Subscription in its present form. And putting
aside your own peculiar case, we must also presume of those persons who
recently petitioned parliament, in the character of Clergymen of the
Church of England, that although they might think some _Expansion_ of
Subscription desirable, in consideration to others, did nevertheless make
their own with a safe conscience and with the honest intention of
fulfilling their engagements, by a general conformity to the prescribed
Services of our Church. They subscribed, we must presume, with no _such
latitude_ of _opinion_ as would admit of an habitual _deviation_ from,
either by alteration or a summary omission, of such parts of our
Services, as they could not satisfactorily reconcile with their own
private opinions. _Mr. Maty_, a former seceder from our establishment,
could not consider such a latitude of the construction of his
Subscription compatible with his honesty. In a letter to _Mr. Lindsey_,
he says, “finally, I can neither submit to acquiesce in silence, after
having made my objections known, nor take upon me to alter the Service of
the Church as long as I continue to profess myself a minister of it.”
{37}
Properly appreciating this sentiment, we must conclude that the Bishop of
Norwich understood the prayer of the petitioners with no reference to
such a practice as _Mr. Maty_ here condemns, when he represented them as
praying “that that which is consented to and allowed privately, may be
the avowed and acknowledged sentiments of the Church at large.” Yet in
their “explanation of the statements of the petition,” and the object
which _they_ had in view, the _Messrs. Hull_, enumerate amongst these
deviations from the authorized forms and positive obligations of _the
Church_, _sanctioned_ as they assert _by general practice_; the omission
of the Athanasian Creed, the change or omission of certain sentences in
the Burial Service, and the substitution of other lessons than those
appointed by the Church. Now I must think, that if a complaint were
preferred against a Clergyman to his Diocesan for _habitually_ and
advisedly deviating thus from his _positive obligations_, the
complainants would scarcely be told that such things were _consented to
and allowed privately by the Church_. If so, for consistency’s sake it
might be as well to expunge in future from the Churchwardens’ Articles of
Enquiry exhibited at Episcopal Visitations, any such query as the
following, “Doth the Incumbent or Curate regularly read service with the
Litany and Creeds, exactly according to the Rubric of the Book of Common
Prayer, without omission, addition, or alteration?” {38}
_You_ represent the petitioners “as having presented to parliament the
sound and reasonable prayer, _that the law and the practice should be
assimilated_.” You mean, I presume, that some regard should be had to
the nature of the thing _practised_, otherwise I must think your
principle a very _unsound_ one. For instance, it is to be feared that a
habit prevails sadly too much amongst both high and low, of neglecting
the observance of the sabbath day and keeping it anything but holy. But
I would not therefore assimilate the _law_ to this practice and go to
parliament for an act to legalize sabbath breaking. And even in respect
to the prayer of the petitioners, I should say that the Archbishop’s
proposition that steps should be taken to assimilate the _practice_ to
the _law_, was the sounder one of the two.
But the _Messrs. Hull_ in _their_ view of the matter, represent the
Bishop of Norwich—“as pleading strongly for that privilege which should
be conceded to every ingenuous mind, to mean what it says, and to say
what it means.” A form of Subscription such as would admit of every one
saying what he means, seems to have been the view which the Bishop of
London took of the object of the petitioners, and called it very
truly,—“expansion with a vengeance.”
But you would make us, by our present Subscription, say much more than we
mean, and mean much more than we say, for instance, you would contend
that we declare by Subscription, “that every word of the _Homilies_, is
_agreeable_ to the word of God,” the laity, you say “_feel_ not what it
is to subscribe _literally_ to _every word_ of the _Homilies_, Rites, and
Ceremonies,” {39a} and again, “if a Subscription to _the Liturgy_ as
_agreeable_ to the word of God is still maintained to be indispensable,”
{39b} and further, the petition states, that the Clergy are “commonly
understood to be _bound_ to the observance of _all the Canons_.” {39c}
Now, I cannot think that you give quite a correct view of Subscription.
Amongst your illustrations, you say, “our Subscription _literally_ taken
calls upon a person to declare that the delivery of a marriage ring and
the Apostles’ Creed are equally _agreeable_ to scripture!” {40} But the
very _letter_ of our Subscription is opposed to this view of it.—We know
of nothing in scripture agreeable to or agreeing with any part of our
marriage ceremony, unless it be a supper; neither have we any “scripture
warrant” for our custom of kneeling when receiving the sacrament, none
for signing with the sign of the cross, no _direct_ warrant baptizing
infants, in short, _literally_ we do _not_ subscribe to _the Liturgy_ as
being _agreeable_ to the word of God, but containing nothing _contrary_
to it.
Neither do we “subscribe _literally_ and to every word of the Homilies”
as being agreeable to the word of God. I could produce you many a quaint
passage from their exhortations, to which we should be puzzled to find
anything agreeable in scripture, though nothing perhaps contrary to the
spirit of them.
And as to the Canons, so far from feeling ourselves _bound_ to a
_voluntary_ observance of them all, I have no recollection of pledging
myself by any Subscription at my ordination to the observance of any of
them. “As to the Canons,” says _Archdeacon Sharpe_, “to which we are
_not bound by any formal promise_, but only by virtue of their own
authority. I believe no one will say that we are bound to pay obedience
to them all, according to the letter of them.” Say then, that there are
amongst them some, which as the petitioners allege “could not in these
days be acted upon,” if so, they are the less likely to cause them any
grievance. And as to the alleged inexpediency of acting upon others, let
us leave that to be judged of by our superiors, whom we are bound to
obey, at least so I understood my ordination vows. But our objection to
a revision of our Laws Ecclesiastical arises from no over-weaning
affection for these inoperative canons, but from a desire rather to
“ . . . bear the ills we have
Than fly to others, that we know not of.”
But to the observance of the Rubric, we are unquestionably pledged. And
it is preferred by the _Messrs. Hull_, “as a charge against the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, that at their
ordination they pledged themselves to observe the Rubric, and so to
confirm in a given way. But they do not confirm in that way, and do
confirm in another,” _ergo valet consequentia_. But, after mentioning in
the strongest terms our obligations to a strict observance of the Rubric,
_Archdeacon Sharpe_ says, “this indeed we must always take along with us,
that our obligations to observe the Rubric, how indispensable soever, are
subject to this _proviso_—namely, that the thing prescribed _be a thing
practicable_.” And as the _Messrs. Hull_ admit that “the Bishops from
the multitudes of candidates, _could not_ confirm according to the
Rubric,” we will leave the Bishops to settle this matter with their own
consciences, believing that their characters are not so far compromised
by the deviation, as to render it imperative upon them, to plunge at all
hazards into a revision.
Our Articles were agreed upon, as you observe, “for avoiding diversities
of opinions, and for the stablishing consent touching true religion.” In
accomplishing this, you seem to think that they have signally failed. In
those cases, however, where the Article has advisedly been drawn up for
the purpose of admitting men holding certain differences of opinion on
the general doctrine contained in it, the contemplated result can
scarcely be looked upon as indicative of any failure of the object. But
I cannot see that the existence of one evil in a system, if the extent to
which this latitude goes _be_ one, which I do not admit, is a sound
argument for the bringing in of many more. “If,” says _Dr. Randolph_,
“the best method we can think of to avoid diversities of opinion and
establish consent touching true religion, has through the perverseness
and corruption of mankind a contrary effect, surely not we, but these
hypocrites, are to blame. But we cannot think it a good reason for
throwing down all the fences of our vineyard, because some wild boars
will sometimes break through them.” {42} It appears, however, that _you_
would only leave a few gaps in the fence, the thirty-nine Articles you
would abolish at one fell swoop, and from the passing of your proposed
BILL for the consolidating the laws of religious tests, or Subscriptions,
&c. “you would have it enacted, that nothing be required but assent to
the doctrines set forth in the three Creeds, as agreeable to scripture;
assent to the truth of the scriptures themselves; and that they contain
all things necessary to salvation.”
I perceive, however, that you would still have a “declaration of
conformity to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is _now_ by law
established.”—By _now_, I presume you are speaking of the Liturgy, as it
shall be set forth _hereafter_, when every pebble of offence shall be
taken away, and “every cause of uneasiness removed.” But _hic labor_,
_hoc opus est_—take for instance the Athanasian Creed, you might be
contented with the proposition of 1689 respecting it; but your brother
petitioners the _Messrs. Hull_ exclaim, “let Subscription henceforward
apply to a Prayer Book which _does not contain_ the Athanasian Creed.”
{43a} Now, if this “_erroris expulsio_,” as it has been termed, was
considered indispensable to the exclusion of the Arian “wolves,” even
_after_ the imposition of the Nicene Creed,—are these wolves
exterminated? Or is their nature so changed that they would harmlessly
lie down with the lambs of our fold, were it not for those invidious
fences that prevent their approach, nor seduce them from the fold, even
were it fenceless? But, argue the _Messrs. Hull_, fences are of no use,
for a wolf once upon a time got through one, meaning _Bishop Hoadley_.
But they forget that like that treacherous one we read of in the nursery
legend, the “Little Red Riding Hood,”—he disguised himself to effect his
purpose. We have lately read of a chimney sweeper insinuating himself
into her Majesty’s private apartments, but we have not heard in
consequence of the abolition of the police force.
But let it be admitted that our Liturgy, “that admirable book, next to
the bible, the treasure and glory and safeguard of our reformed Church,”
{43b} is not faultless; still, who when he looks upon the heterogeneous
mass of so called improvements that have been already suggested, would
not exclaim—“Let us but have our Liturgy continued to us as it is, until
the men are born who shall be able to mend it or make it better, and we
desire no greater security against either altering this or introducing
another.” {43c}
But as the subsidence of the _dissidia mutuasque suspiciones_, is a
consummation more devoutly to be wished, than, I fear, _in these times_,
to be looked for; I will in conclusion make a few observations in defence
of the Subscription of the Clergy generally, to those _three points_
which you esteem so “indefensible;” but as my observations have already
extended far beyond the limit I had contemplated, I must of necessity, be
more brief than I could wish, or than justice to such subjects might seem
to require—and first of the _Athanasian Creed_.
“Full of information,” as _Hooker_ observes, “concerning that faith which
_Arianism_ did so mightily impugn, and which was both in the _east_ and
_west_ Churches accepted as a treasure of inestimable price, by as many
as had not given up even the very ghost of belief.” {44a}
But my Diocesan tells me, that “_literally_ understood this Creed makes
no distinctions, no contingencies, but unconditionally and unequivocally
asserts that all who receive it not, are doomed to irretrievable
perdition.” {44b} God forbid! But if it be so, _literally_ the Saviour
of mankind has pronounced the same uncontingent, undistinguishing,
unequivocal doom, upon all who believe not the _gospel_. “_He_ that
believeth not shall be damned, {44c} _whosoever_ believeth on him shall
not _perish_, but have everlasting life,” {44d} the converse is,
_whosoever_ believeth _not_ shall perish everlastingly; for “he that
believeth not shall not see _life_, but the _wrath of God abideth on
him_, {44e} they _all_ shall be damned, who believe not THE truth.” {44f}